URGENT!

November 28, 2017

OPEN LETTER
TO
MITCHIKANIBIKOK INIK

Re: ABL-Quebec Implementation Agreement

I am sending this message out to all community members on behalf of myself and our
ABL Negotiating Team, which is headed up by our Special Representative and good
friend, Mr. Clifford Lincoln.

As your former customary Chief and now Community Liaison on the ABL Negotiation
Team I am very concerned about the negative impacts for our community if the ABL-
Quebec Implementation Agreement is NOT signed by Indian Act Chief Casey Ratt.

First of all, I want to make it clear that if the ABL-Quebec Implementation Agreement is
signed then our role as an ABL Negotiation Team is over and so is our involvement.

If the Implementation Agreement is signed, then it will be the responsibility of the Chief
and Councilin consultation with community membersto appoint who will be involved
in the new institutions established by the Implementation Agreement.

In my opinion we will still need outside technical advice from people like Bruce Byford
on forestry management issues and Mario St. George on wildlife management issues,
but my involvement and the involvement of Mr. Clifford Lincoln and Mr. Russell Diabo,
will no longer be necessary as negotiations will be over.

Regarding the Implementation Agreement, I want to make the following points, which I
hope will help clarify some misunderstandings about the agreement:

1. The agreement is NOT a final step, but an Interim STEP. It is not title, but I think
a significant interim step forward. The important point to remember, is that the
agreement does NOT, in any way, interfere in any future decision of our
community to seek recognition of our Aboriginal Title.

1
 For instance, Indian Act Chief Casey Ratt keeps saying he doesnt want to sign
an agreement that affects Aboriginal Title, he was at our Tribal Councils 37th
Annual Assembly, which had representatives attending for our community, and
they adopted a resolution on Representation and Rights setting out a common
position of individual Algonquin Tribal Council members from Barriere Lake,
Timiskaming and Wolf Lake. The Resolution stated:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT we reaffirm that, based on oral and

documentary evidence, within the Algonquin Nation, Aboriginal Title is held at the
level of the community; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT we request other Algonquin communities

and their organizations, including the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal
Council, to respect our right to represent ourselves, our interests, our territory,
and stop falsifying our history and culture.

The Implementation Agreement is clear, and the Minister Kelley's last letter of
November 21, 2017, answering Chief Ratts letter of November 14, 2017,
(attached for your information) confirms it: Our community retains our rights in
whatever way our community might choose at any point from now on. It is up to
our community to decide NOT the whole Algonquin Nation or any organization
like the Algonquin Anishnabeg Nation Tribal Council. I hope this reassures Indian
Act Chief Casey Ratt or anyone else who is worried about future decisions about
Algonquin Title. Minister Kelley still awaits Chief Ratt's response.

This is our communitys decision alone!

2. As I mentioned, the Implementation Agreement is not a final step, but an

important step forward, for these reasons:

(a) the description of Annex 2 and Annex 1 territories, with annexed maps. These
descriptions and maps have been repeated throughout the processes, from
the 1991 Trilateral Agreement, to the 2006 Joint Recommendations, and
now the Implementation Agreement. Although it does not mean title of
course, it is an extremely important fact, as these two maps confirm our
ongoing connection to our community territory, which is bound to help
towards eventual title. And the neighbouring bands cannot seriously object,
as the Annex 1 definition is careful to say that our community shares that
territory with other Indigenous communities.

(b) housing and electrification: that is another key provision of the agreement,
namely the transfer of additional reserve land to the federal government.
Without this, our much-needed housing renewal cannot take place.

2
 (c) for years now, our community has been having problems with the government
of Quebec and forestry companies about logging, and excessive cuts, and the
connected wildlife issues. We have managed at times to get a temporary
agreement on measures to harmonize, but Norman will confirm it is a hit and
miss and frustrating process. We need a long-term process, both for forestry
and wildlife, approved ahead of time by our community representatives and
the Quebec representatives, one in which we have a more direct say. This is
what the combined Co-Management and Natural Resources office will give
us. We fought hard to have it funded by the Quebec government, and our
community will have constant and direct participation on the Joint
Management Committee and the ABL Natural Resources Office. This office
will also give us key technical and advisory support to address attempts by
mining companies to try and exploit our community territory.

(d) since the 1998 Bilateral Agreement with the Quebec government, almost 20
years ago, our community representatives have been fighting for revenue
sharing - but without success. The Agreement now guarantees us $7.5 million
over 5 years, through a Corporation under an ABL Chair, which will be a very
significant tool to help with capacity building, small-business start-ups etc.

3. As I pointed out, all this comes without giving up any of our communitys rights.
What are the impacts of not signing the agreement:
(1) Do we lose the hard gain of territory-descriptions and maps? Admittedly, these still
show up in the original 1991 Trilateral Agreement, but refusing the concluding
Implementation Agreement will no doubt give the Quebec government the opportunity to
now say that in refusing the Implementation Agreement we gave up the benefits of the
1991 Trilateral Agreement, the original agreement starting the studies and negotiations
for co-management over 26 years ago. It certainly weakens our case, and I'm sure will
please the Quebec governments Ministries of Forestry and Energy & Natural
Resources (MFFP and MERN), who did not want the maps and map descriptions in the
first place, especially that of Annex 1 and its map. I would call this essentially a give-
away by our community if the Implementation Agreement fails.
(2) We lose a direct say in forestry and wildlife sustainable management and control.
Again, this is to the advantage of Ministries like Forestry and Energy & Natural
Resources, which did not want the agreement in the first place, and they can use our
rejection of the Implementation Agreement to more freely apply Quebec laws on forestry
and wildlife management over our community territory. For example, they could argue
our refusal for a permanent system (agreed to in principle between our community and
Quebec), to seek injunctions - forestry companies might seek injunctions too if blocked

3
like they have done in the past. AND what do we do from now on if we don't sign the
agreement - continue with Measures to Harmonize over different logging sites forever?
For me I dont accept just Measures to Harmonize. We should be deciding on our whole
territory, it is our land!
Under the Quebec governments consultation policy our community will be considered
much the same as a Quebecois stakeholder in the territory. Will the Quebec
government cooperate with the Measures to Harmonize buffer zones for good, when we
turned down a long-term forestry regime? How can we now fight for better wildlife
corridors and stronger protection for wildlife, without a direct say in the whole territory
and the Natural Resources Office to give technical and advisory support to our
community?
(3) What happens to the badly-needed reserve expansion? How do we now go forward
with the land expansion process without an agreement with the Quebec government?
(4) What hope do we have now in the future of getting guaranteed revenue-sharing from
the Quebec government? I would say, none. This too was a really hard-fight to get (if
you recall, Quebec refused to agree to give it to us in 2006).
(5) As for the federal government. Clifford Lincoln indicated to our community
representatives several times that if our community signed the Implementation
Agreement it would put immediate pressure on the federal government to deal with
outstanding issues like removing our community government from Third Party
Management, a realistic money commitment for housing (the offer of $17 million is less
than the amount quoted in the 1997 MOMI Agreement/Plan) - and Clifford Lincoln was
right. When we were on the verge of signing in Rapid Lake back in October, Clifford
Lincoln received a call from the federal Member of Parliament, Will Amos, who talked to
Clifford Lincoln for 1 1/2 hours about outstanding issues. This was followed the day after
by a call from federal Indigenous Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennetts assistant
responsible for the Quebec region. The federal government representatives obviously
felt embarrassed by the planned signature of the Implementation Agreement with the
Quebec government, and promised Clifford Lincoln to speed up outstanding issues like
badly needed houses, infrastructure and job training - and get back to him soon. Clifford
Lincoln has not heard back from them Indian Act Chief Casey Ratt not signing the
Implementation Agreement with Quebec took the pressure off the federal government
and they got off the hook.
Frankly, if some ABL members have misunderstood me or members of the ABL
negotiation Team I want to be clear. For me, the Implementation Agreement is the real
issue, and I feel very deeply that it would be very unfortunate to let the opportunity pass
by, and having to regret it afterwards and face the impacts I mentioned in this letter.
Certainly, the Quebec Ministries of Forests and Energy & Natural Resources who did
not want the agreement, and the federal government, especially the INAC bureaucrats
in Quebec City will not shed too many tears.

4
I strongly encourage community members to voice their support for this historic
Implementation Agreement and talk to Chief and Council to let them know your opinion.
I have nothing to gain personally if the Implementation Agreement is signed.
If the Implementation Agreement is NOT signed by Indian Act Chief Casey Ratt we will
permanently lose the benefits and opportunities I have described in this letter and the
result will be that our whole community will suffer the negative impacts I have also
described in this letter.
To conclude, for our present and future generations, Im urgently recommending that
Indian Act Chief Casey Ratt immediately sign the ABL-Quebec Implementation
Agreement as he committed to do in the Resolution of Council #15-09-17 and his
September 15, 2017, letter to Premier Couillard, before Quebec walks away from this
historic agreement forever!
Sincerely,

Jean Maurice Matchewan

ABL Community Liaison
ABL Negotiation Team Member