August 10: The Deh Cho Region, Denendeh
“If we have our way? First of all, we own the land and Canada has to listen to us. Anybody in the world should feel lucky to have such partnership as with the Deh Cho.”
The Deh Cho Region, Denendeh
“If we have our way? First of all, we own the land and Canada has to listen to us. Anybody in the world should feel lucky to have such partnership as with the Deh Cho.”
-- Jonas Antoine, August 8, 2005 (Liidlii Kué, Denendeh).
Even with the ‘signing’ in 1921 of the now-overruled Victorian treaties of 8 & 11, the indigenous communities of the Northwest Territories were not forced onto reserves as a simple cost saving measure (with the exception of the Hay River reserve) for Canada. Prior to the treaties, by virtue of the policy that Father René Fumoleau called “no settlement, no treaty, no help”[1]-- in other words, a policy that Canada didn’t yet want Dené land , so no services or contact of any interlocking form would be undertaken-- the peoples of the north were not put through the most assimilationist aspects of colonialism until the post war era. After 1888 saw the discovery of petroleum up and down the Deh Cho and the Valley, by 1921 new treaties gave the appearance of Canada laying claim to the land. Yet, unlike the period after the discovery of resources led Canadian colonialism to attempt to control the land on paper from the south, this discovery was not followed by massive settlement & immigration of Canadians. To this day, not being forced onto reserves nor being overrun by settlers gives northern nations a very different experience with colonialism than their southern counterparts. Nonetheless, “new” colonialism has had the same policy of residential schooling and “kill the Indian, save the man” ideology-- an ideology that preaches cultural genocide as not only appropriate, but of high moral virtue (the last Canadian Residential School closed in Somba Ké [Yellowknife] in the early 1990‘s); completing the work of God.
Unlike their brothers and sisters South of 60, the Dené Nations have not been displaced to the point of becoming a small minority in their homelands. Their experience, then, with residential schools and “southern administration” had an even more explicitly racist, demeaning and dehumanizing level of paternalism; the vast majority of whites could not handle life in the north, yet practically no rules or policies were written, drawn up or implemented by even the few northern whites that existed (and forget about the Inuit, Métis and Dené). The former Hudson’s Bay trading posts were the main locations that nomadic communities were “rounded up” and given forced relocation to by Canada in the wake of “defeating fascism” in Europe-- these permanent settlements (most of which have not yet “officially” transferred their name to the indigenous one as Tulita has in the Sahtu Region, or Tsiigehtchic in the Gwitch’in) have remained on as towns and villages throughout Denendeh, including the one Dené region that has-- both on the ground and officially-- resisted, at times, both the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project and the Federal policy of “extinguishment” of nations in “exchange” for cash.
The Deh Cho Process
The Deh Cho Region, in southwest Denendeh, is now (after the extinguishment of the Tli Cho [“Dogrib”] in the Summer of 2005, in what was the best deal of the “final agreements” yet for a Dené Nation) the only major region without a ‘final’ status agreement with Canada. Since the Federal government will not negotiate with a nation that is simultaneously litigating, the Deh Cho Process had been log-jammed by this policy for nearly a year. However, the litigation of the Deh Cho First Nations to block the environmental review of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project has been recently settled for at least 7 years. Originally the DCFN had sued for control and agency in the environmental review process for the pMGP (the pMGP would traverse Deh Cho territory for 40% of its length); the demands began as veto control over pipeline “ifs” and possible routes and 2 permanent seats on the environmental review panel. This demand was lowered to one, but the idea of Deh Cho control over the land where the pipeline wanted to be put down remained the kind of self-determination that Canada could not allow.
The impasse needed the creation of a “new political reality” to get past this problem, as indicated by NWT Premier Joe Handley on April 4: "They (Ottawa) have to come to an agreement with the Deh Cho, and if they are not able to do that, they have to make it clear that what the Deh Cho are asking for is just something that they are just not ready to accept. And what the Deh Cho are asking for is almost sovereignty."[2] The needed “shot in the arm” for the pMGP came with Imperial Oil (majority holder in the pMGP) announcing on April 28, 2005 they would “walk away” from the program.
With Canada set to become one of the richest states in the world (in relative terms, even as absolute wealth permanently drops everywhere) during the terminal crash of global oil reserves, a natural gas pipeline through Deh Cho territory takes on added significance to a level impossible to over-estimate: the only way for the environmentally disastrous program of opening up the Athabascan tar sands to full-scale production in Alberta (the largest reserves of oil on a post-Saudi Arabian oil field planet) would involve using the world’s largest untapped reserves of natural gas. As oil barrel and climate change costs both continue to skyrocket in tandem, capitalist logic only increases this dual “need” to burn the cleanest fossil fuel to create the dirtiest single form of petroleum by steaming the tar sands, permanently poisoning massive amounts of potable water in the separation process.
As is known from global headlines in the business pages, global energy concerns have led the world’s most voracious energy consumers-- North America-- into militarily occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, to name but two nations, and into increasing conflict with oil-rich Venezuela & Iran. This exact same dwindling energy concern allowed Imperial’s “threat” to walk away spark comments from Canada in public about the need to dismantle the length of the hearings, streamline a regulatory process and stop nations from asking for royalties and access fees from the MGP members.
"If you want a hospital or a school, you don't go behind the premier. They're empowered to deal with those issues,"[3] stated deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan, perhaps deliberately portraying her belief that northern nations have less sovereignty than not only Canada, but the provinces-- or even the territories. In this context, the Deh Cho signed an agreement relinquishing their lawsuit and signing an agreement not to launch one again for 7 years in relation to any portion of the pMGP. There has been money allocated for a non-veto portion of an environmental assessment (with “consultation if necessary” between Canada, the MGP members and the Deh Cho) and further social impact assessment funds, based on preparation for damage left by the pipeline’s construction.
The reason that the Deh Cho have challenged the process around questions of who controls what stems from their radically different approach to talks with the Federal Government when it comes to negotiating a deal with the intent of establishing the permanent groundwork for interactions between the two nations. The Deh Cho deliberately avoid any discussion of the process, now simply called “The Deh Cho Process”, as a “land claim”. In the 1970’s the Supreme Court ruled prior treaties invalid. Canada re-opened negotiations with nations, seeking final agreements-- successfully getting final deals with the Inuvialuit, Gwitch’in, and very recently the Tli Cho (bastardised as “Dogrib”) as well as three different claims in the Sahtu. Petr Cizek, environmental consultant who has worked closely with the Deh Cho First Nations government drawing up land-use planning outlines for the Region, explained
“The Deh Cho are the ones who ‘radicalised’ me. They explained to me when I first spoke to them, ‘This is not about a land claim, we already own the land. That hasn’t changed. This process is about self-determination, it’s about who has jurisdiction.’”[4] If it is not about a land claim, where does the land go in the equation? Herb Norwegian, Grand Chief of the DCFN governing body, described what this means.
“The Deh Cho will never extinguish our claim to any of our land because it’s already ours. Instead of any extinguishment, there will be a Deh Cho land and we will be the government on our land-- we will not engage in a process where we surrender land for cash.” He went on, “Canada then had to engage in a new approach to getting a process going on this basis. They had to accept terms, such as ‘interim land withdrawal’ agreements during the Deh Cho process.” further to that, “We will seek shared authority with Canada. Some lands will have joint authority, while some areas will have zero input from Canada.”[5] In order to get a stalled process going, Canada reluctantly agreed to interim land withdrawl. The Deh Cho promptly removed slightly less that half of their traditional lands and earmarked them for permanent conservation. Of what remains, only a sliver is open to “full scale” development. The usual tactic of Canada is to put the onus on the nation to prove their attachment to and or uses of the land. Jonas Antoine of Liidlii Kué (Fort Simpson) explained:
“Traditionally, there are things we have to say ’no’ to. In our way, it doesn’t need explanation-- an elder would explain ‘You don’t go there,’ and give a sense that it’s important and people would respect it. The Canadian Federal Government want us to ‘prove’ everything.”[6] Proving can be done a different way, to counter the usual claim ‘The Indians aren’t using the land.’ The Deh Cho have been attempting this through land-use planning initiatives. Norwegian explains:
“Land-use planning means putting a plan in place for all your land, so then it becomes impossible to extinguish our land if we already have a plan in place for it.”[7]
An area of controversy is in what currently is considered a world heritage site, the park around Nahanni Butte. The areas have been listed “withdrawn” by the Deh Cho. However, at Prairie Creek, there was a mine never put in operation but constructed (copper and silver) near several watersheds that lead into the community of ‘Nahanni’. There was once a winter-access only road built through to the mine, but it has since become part of the proposed expanded park limits and is not operational anyhow. Using the logic of a grandfather clause, Canadian Zinc Corp. wishes to push forward zinc mining here (the mine was built in the 1970’s for silver). Therefore an unusual alliance of the Deh Cho First Nations government, the Nahanni Butte band council, Canada Parks Board and Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (C-PAWS) has sprung up. At the federal parks board office, an officer named Sharon explained while showing the areas in question on a map:
“This road would possibly threaten the watersheds in the area, causing concern for the people who live downstream.”[8] The mining itself, as often, could possibly threaten the waters as well. So, the DCFN and their allies are attempting to have the entire area withdrawn and designated park.
“We need to protect the water. If a catastrophe happened, it would effect the village [of Nahanni-Butte].”[9] explained chief Herb Norwegian.
“Herb and the DCFN have been very supportive of the idea of protecting this area, they’ve been great [on this issue],”[10] stated Sharon. The need to prevent areas like Prairie Creek is a part of the over-all view of how people here see the land. Wesley Hardisty explained that in a sentence:
“We believe that the land takes care of us, and that we are supposed to take care of the land. Now, is cutting a big hole-- a big crater in the earth-- is that taking care of the land? I don’t think so.” Hardisty, a member of the Arctic Indigenous Youth Alliance, is also a coordinator for the Deh Gah Alliance Society-- a sort of grassroots “Plan B” initiative of the Deh Cho. Should the pMGP start construction, the DGAS is carrying out direct consultation among members of the nation for how to best deal with seemingly overwhelming impacts. “The idea is for us to assess what is coming, with the community-- to be able to prepare in advance,”[11] he explained. As far as actual jurisdiction, Norwegian described what the Deh Cho are expecting.
“We will have a public self-government, including non-Dené residents in the government, with a strong elders representation. We have started negotiating a full constitution with Canada, including a charter of rights, with residency requirements [a minimum time having lived in the region before being able to participate in governing Deh Cho territory-- MS] and Deh Cho Dené required as the local government.” These structures, to ward off any attempt to dilute the population with non-Dené, are to ensure the Deh Cho remain masters on their own lands.
“People need to know we are not really that radical, but we are aggressive and we are moving in a direction other nations never thought of. We hope to set an example of a way for other First Nations to try in dealing with their land claims issues.”[11] Considering all that is at stake, just such an example might not only be set by the Deh Cho-- but in fact this example may yet prove essential to how many nations maintain their survival and gain a level of freedom in the face of Canadian colonialism. This example demands to be seen, and heard.
1 O’ Malley, Martin. The Past and Future Land – An Account of the Berger Inquiry into the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Peter Marin Associates Limited, 1976.
2 http://resist.ca/story/2005/4/4/195933/3032
3 http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/2005-May/018267.html
4 Petr Cizek, personal interviews. (in Yellowknife) Tuesday, August 2, 2005.
5 Herb Norwegian, personal interviews. (in Fort Simpson) Thursday, August 11, 2005.
6 Jonas Antoine, personal interviews. (in Fort Simpson) Tuesday, August 9, 2005.
7 Herb Norwegian, personal interviews. (in Fort Simpson) Thursday, August 11, 2005.
8 Sharon ___, personal interviews. (in Fort Simpson) Wednesday, August 10, 2005.
9 Herb Norwegian, personal interviews. (in Fort Simpson) Thursday, August 11, 2005.
10 Sharon ___, personal interviews. (in Fort Simpson) Wednesday, August 10, 2005.
11 Wesley Hardisty, personal interviews. (in Fort Simpson) Monday, August 8, 2005.
12 Herb Norwegian, personal interviews. (in Fort Simpson) Thursday, August 11, 2005.