Battle for the Rupert 





Giving away the river 10/29/01


Commentary: Crees surrender their great river Rupert

  . Commentary: 25 years of force-fed acculturation

Cree deal a model or betrayal? 12/10/01


$3.6 billion deal unraveling 12/10/01

  . Hydro Quebec's hidden agenda 12/15/01
  . Cree leaders may have deal in a week 12/19/01

Grand Chief Moses Quebec's hero 12/19/01



AIP  Agreement in Principle signed on the Rupert River, Oct. 23/01


CRA  Cree Regional Authority, the administrative government


Eeyou Istchee  Cree homeland. Meaning:  People's Land


Eeyouch  Cree people


GCCEI   Grand Council of the Crees, governing body of Cree Nation whose members are chiefs of the nine communities


JBNQA James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (1975), the first agreement


NBR   Nottaway-Broadback

-Rupert Project, to be phase III of James Bay Project


Push for complete and full participation

by Will Nicholls

The Agreement in Principle was one of the most closely guarded secrets in Quebec. At this point it's difficult to discern everything it could mean for the Cree. Upon reading it, I will say I have reservations about the deal, especially because of the Rupert River diversion, among other issues.

But the crux of the matter for me is the idea that the chiefs can sign on our behalf without a vote or some other mechanism whereby the Cree people as a whole will manifest their will.

Ted Moses in his interview said he would have no problem with a referendum but seemed to waffle on whether there would be one or not. He has stated there would be a consultation process but in reality that means almost nothing. It means he will be talking to people and taking a few questions. It doesn’t address whether or not a mandate by the people is given to sign the deal.

The reason I bring this up is someone in the office mentioned that a chief had said they could sign on the people’s behalf because they were elected to do so. Yes there is signing authority granted to the position of a leader but it only morally extends so far.

Consider if Premier Landry, in his vision for an independent Quebec, just said, “You elected me and you knew I was a separatist so we are going to separate immediately.” It didn’t happen because he and his party knows the importance of a legitimate mandate to separate requires not only the political will but also the will of the people by way of a referendum. In the meantime they still sign deals with the Federal Government on health and other issues.

In this way the Agreement-in-principle is something that requires more than just the political will of the chiefs. It requires the will of the Cree people as a whole. This is not a day-to-day or year-to-year Agreement, it is a three-to-four generation Agreement. It is one that will effectively kill another river and directly impact three communities. It is one that if not honoured in full will leave us more vulnerable than before. It promises great things, and like the JBNQA and other agreements we have entered into the past, has the potential for a positive impact.

But it cannot be a decision made by a few who will decide what is best for us. That mentality went out with the Indian Agent even though Indian Affairs Minister Robert Nault seems to be trying to revive it with his own round of consultation talks. If the Cree leadership has said his method of consultations concerning Native Governance is wrong then so is this Cree consultation process if there is no mechanism where the Cree people and not just the Cree leadership can vote on this issue. Anything else smacks of hypocrisy.

This is the message we have to pass on to our leaders: We deserve a say in determining the future of Eeyou Istchee just as much as they do. The Cree people are not content to be an audience to a decision on our future. We demand and require full participation in all such far-reaching matters.

Reprinted with permission of  The Nation

   Home   Rupert Battle   Rupert River   Temagami   Che-Mun

    Forum   Crees   Camps   Canoes   Keewaydin Way   Search   About   Contact Us

Maps and information herein are not intended for navigational use, and are not represented to be correct in every respect. 
All pages intended for reference use only, and all pages are subject to change with new information and without notice. 
The author/publisher accepts no responsibility or liability for use of the information on these pages. 
Wilderness travel and canoeing possess inherent risk. 
 It is the sole responsibility of the paddler and outdoor traveler to determine whether he/she is qualified for these activities.
Copyright © 2000-2014 Brian Back.  All rights reserved.
We do not endorse and are not responsible for the content of any linked document on an external site.