Chief Robert Whiteduck and Ms. Lisa Eshkakogin, Algonquins of Golden Lake First Nation

MR. WHITEDUCK: Kwe-Kwe, hello, good evening to Mr. Seaborn, the Panel and the rest of the audience.

As Chief of the Algonquin of Golden Lake, I wish to extend our welcome to traditional Algonquin land. We also wish to thank the Panel for their time and consideration to listen to Algonquin concerns.

This place, and the entire valley of the river you call the Ottawa is still Algonquin land, as it has been for centuries. It is for me, as speaker for the people who are the stewards of this land, to welcome you, and I do so sincerely, but with hesitation.

We have serious concerns about the Government of Canada's proposals about the storage and disposal of radioactive waste. These concerns are both general and local. We should be very clear that we view Atomic Energy of Canada Limited not as a separate and independent corporation, but rather as part of the Government of Canada which owns and controls it.

This is important because the Government of Canada has specific legal obligations to the Algonquin people, obligations which have been violated repeatedly in the past and which the local proposals will violate again.

This land and the entire valley is unsurrendered Algonquin land. We are the people who were here when the first European settlers arrived. We were here through the contest between Britain and France in this part of the world. We received countless promises from the British Crown that our land rights would be respected and that no land would be taken from us without our consent.

Those promises are embodied in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, a constitutional document of Canada. It is ironic that the earliest copy of that Proclamation in this country is the one that was delivered to the Algonquins and that it is stored in the National Archives of Canada, not far from here. It is there because our Chiefs delivered it to Crown officials to remind them of those promises.

The history of this valley over the past two centuries that been a tragedy for us and for our stewardship of the land. The loggers moved up the valley, clear-cutting, destroying the forest and driving the game before them. The settlers came in the wake of the loggers, cutting their poor farms into the soil. The game, and our people who lived with it and on it, were driven further into the interior.

We never consented to the taking of our land and our resources. We often petitioned the Crown, the Governor General, the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, and we never received a fair reply. The documents backing our rights to this territory weigh over 20 pounds and stand over two feet high.

Today, we are involved in negotiations with both the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario. Both Governments acknowledge that the Algonquin people are the aboriginal people of this valley and that the Algonquin never signed or made any treaty consenting to the taking of the land.

So that is where we start from. This is still Algonquin land and we still have both the obligation and the right to protect it from harm.

150 years ago, one of the first journalists to travel up the Ottawa River noted that the Algonquin people tended to avoid what is today known as Chalk River and its tributaries in their hunting because a "peculiar devil" they said would appear there from time to time.

It took the form of a ball of fire containing the form of an open human hand. 100 years later, Chalk River is the site of the first nuclear reactor in Canada.

At this same time that we were at the negotiating table with the Government of Canada about our respective rights to the land and its resources in this valley, the same Government of Canada is pursuing plans to bring into this territory the worst poisons known for storage and disposal in ways that have not been proven to be safe and to do so in a way that would make our land inaccessible to us, even as we are dealing with it at the negotiating table. This, we view as an act of bad faith.

Our local concerns with straightforward. We object to the location of any nuclear waste disposal facility on the lands occupied by AECL at Chalk River or any other Algonquin land. We object because:

1. It is our land and we do not want poisonous waste there;

2. The presence of such activities there would further withdraw land from the present negotiations before those talks are completed, and;

3. The disposition of nuclear waste on land, on that land would even danger our other land nearby.

Our opposition to this proposal is not the result of our desire to be paid off. We are the stewards of the land and we see this proposal as dangerous and shortsighted.

The creation of radioactive waste is one of the most irresponsible actions that your governments have undertaken, and today they're telling Canadians, 'We have created indestructible poisons and are going to store them on first Nation Land and unsurrendered First Nation territories far away from our home, family and livelihood.'

Our general concern about the disposal of nuclear waste is also clear. We are concerned that what is being proposed is to hide the waste which we prefer to clearly describe as a poison in the far north where Canadians will no longer see it.

We have every reason to believe that at first, high standards of care will be required in order to satisfy environmental concerns and that there will be many steps taken to avoid accidents.

The experience of the nuclear industry in Canada has taught us that we should all worry about several aspects of this.

First, we should worry that as time passes without incident, the standards of care will be reduced to reduce the expense involved. This is especially true where governments will seek to have greater involvement by private profit-seeking companies who will work towards reducing their expenses.

We agree with the Haudenosaunee position that has already been expressed to you. The priority of North American settler governments today seems to be a strategy to maintain prosperity. We feel the priority should be the quality of life, not the standard of living, and that the perspective must be far longer than the next election.

The removal of obstacles to development includes the removal of enforcement and monitoring bodies. Instead, we are told by that industry that -- we are told that industry can police itself if the rules made by the government are stringent enough. We believe this is a fallacy.

We believe that enterprises in business to make money will tend to minimize their environmental costs to cut corners, to choose the cheapest way rather than the best or the safest, to avoid stringent standards in favour of the minimum the law requires.

THE CHAIRMAN: Chief, I would just remind you, you're into your last couple of minutes. I don't know whether you want to go straight to your recommendations, which may be the crux of it, but I leave that to you.

MR. WHITEDUCK: Thank you. I will get to the second concern, that we should fear the relaxation of enforcement. Even where present nuclear reactors fail to meet safety and environmental standards, nuclear regulatory agencies of Canada have not shut them down. Instead, they have permitted them to operate unsafely for years while hoping they would increase their compliance with existing standards.

And third, we believe existing standards are inadequate, leaving too much possibility for the future and for the failure. We therefore have several clear recommendations for you:

1. Your society should move quickly away from nuclear power and towards sustainable, renewable, responsible sources of electricity: Solar power, wind power, and water power;

No. 2. Begin and continue researching into neutralizing existing waste, and;

No. 3. That the cost of dealing with environmental impact and the disposal of waste should be considered as an up-front cost to be carried by the businesses producing the power and making the profits and not by society as a whole.

No. 4. If you set standards for the storage of nuclear waste, entrench them. Entrench them so that they cannot be relaxed in the future, and entrench an independent enforcement process with the assurance they will have the power and resources to do its job;

No. 5. If you must continue to produce nuclear waste, you should not hide it in the north where only aboriginal people would be affected by any problems. You should consider storing a healthy portion of it under Parliament, close to the seat of government to remind them of the danger that they propose to place upon others;

No. 6. Canada should not be considering any Algonquin land as a nuclear waste site until rights, entitlement and interests of the Algonquins and Canada are clarified in our ongoing treaty negotiations.

THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry. I am afraid it has run us right out of time on that.

I am reading ahead because you kindly gave us copy, so we can pick that up perhaps in questioning to get the remaining point which I know had to do with not accepting nuclear waste from any other country. I think that was the final point that you want wanted to make there, the particularly strong point you made in that.

MR. WHITEDUCK: Yes. There was just a final recommendation: Do not consider accepting other countries' nuclear waste because your government can't handle their own waste and problems. And they have no business putting the lives of all Canadians in jeopardy for the sake of a dollar. The dollar will be gone tomorrow and the waste will be here for 10,000 years.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks very much, Chief.

THE CHAIRMAN: I wonder if there are questions which any Members of the Panel would like to put to Chief Whiteduck. Lois Wilson.

DR. L. WILSON: You have mentioned that you give priority to quality of life. Could you tell us, could you tell us in your view what that means?

MR. WHITEDUCK: Quality of life?

DR. L. WILSON: Yes. What would be threatened?

MR. WHITEDUCK: Quality of life isn't -- when we refer to that, it isn't measured by what kind of profits or revenue we can make and what we own and how much profit generation we can have and how much we can produce as an industry.

Quality of life is what you can say and sense and feel what -- feel safe in your home and safe in your environment. And that your quality of life is measured not only by what you can make and what you can generate, but that you live in a home environment and in a world environment in which you can feel safe and comfortable.

THE CHAIRMAN: Louis La Pierre.

DR. La PIERRE: Thank you very much, Chief, for your presentation. A question on Recommendation No. 4.

You recommend an independent enforcement process. I wonder if you might expand upon what would be an acceptable independent enforcement process for you.

MR. WHITEDUCK: I think an independent enforcement process or body would be a body -- I think the concern generated from there is I think we all have concerns over a government enforcing its own policies, and that any independent enforcement process would not only take into consideration that there would be a tripartite body appointment process to an independent body that is not only -- not just appointed by government, but appointed by both proponents and residents within a territory that certainly would involve any facility, members in that area that are affected by the facility, whether it's First Nation territories or towns; that they have an equal number of seats in that tripartite body and an equal say in the decision-making body that doesn't report to any recommendation capacity of the government.

But it certainly would involve government officials with no more say and involve certainly any First Nation people that are in the territory, any other residents that are in the direct vicinity of that particular facility.

THE CHAIRMAN: Mary Jamieson.

MS. JAMIESON: Thanks, Chief Whiteduck. I will draw your attention to Recommendation No. 6 that you made.

One of the things that we have been hearing throughout these hearings, well, some of the intervenors have said that under no circumstances should consideration be given to a nuclear waste management facility being located on aboriginal lands, and that this Panel should advise the Government that we declare a moratorium on even considering that.

I want to ask you, as the Chief of your land, representing Algonquin people who have never signed a treaty, how would you feel about the Government of Canada saying, 'No. There is no way that anybody can pursue that kind of development in your land'?

Let me just take it one step further. I have tried to ask this question before.

I live on a reserve in southern Ontario and have been the victim, I guess, of the Indian Act and some of its limitations that it has placed on me. It is a Canadian law. I have not appreciated it, although it was put in place apparently to protect me. It has placed limitations on me.

I am wondering if, by saying to put a moratorium on all aboriginal lands, that would not, in effect, place the same limitations on your decision-making ability.

Would you comment or let me hear what you have to say on that.

MR. WHITEDUCK: You're asking about our position/recommendation to place a moratorium on all aboriginal land?

MS. JAMIESON: Well, you say in Recommendation 6:

Canada should not be considering any Algonquin land as a nuclear waste site until rights, entitlement and interests of the Algonquins and Canada are clarified.

MR. WHITEDUCK: Right.

MS. JAMIESON: Does that mean you want to be the decider?

MR. WHITEDUCK: No. That does not say that, at all.

MS. JAMIESON: What does that mean?

MR. WHITEDUCK: It relates to and makes reference to:

Until the rights, entitlement and interests of the Algonquin and Canada are consolidated in a treaty...

I am not saying Canada should have the right to say this or not say this. I am saying that we all agree in this territory, Algonquins have never signed a treaty. They have never surrendered any rights entitlement to this land that we sit on right here tonight, anyone in the territory.

We are also agreed that the Algonquins have never been compensated in any capacity for being removed from their lands, for the atrocity that will happen to them, and we say we respect that. We respect the fact that there are people here. We certainly recognize and respect that there is a Government of Canada. And we are not saying that Canada shouldn't have the ability to do it and we are not implying that the Algonquin will decide it, as well.

What we are clarifying in No. 6 is that the government, your government should both demonstrate integrity and honesty and recognition for what exists, and that until we have negotiated exactly what the rights and entitlements of Canada are within this territory in a negotiation with the Algonquins, that they should show good faith at the negotiation table and not be making independent decisions about what land is going to be disposed of or made as a nuclear waste site.

That can be decided at the negotiation table, if there's any substance to the negotiations at all.

THE CHAIRMAN: Denis Brown from the Panel.

DR. D. BROWN: Chief, I thank you for a very moving presentation, but looking at your points, you said first that you want Canada to move away from nuclear energy as quickly as possible; secondly, that you want absolute standards for safety entrenched; thirdly, you want a guarantee there will be no imported wastes; and, fourthly, you want guarantee that land claims will be dealt with. I am talking those four as apparently key issues.

Do I assume from that, that if you were satisfied that Canada was doing its best to find alternative sources of energy as soon as possible, you would be prepared to cooperate in looking at a solution to the problem we have, while we still have nuclear power, assuming the other requirements were met?

MR. WHITEDUCK: I think we all have, including the Algonquins, I think we all have a responsibility to look at the problems that exist.

We certainly oppose the disposal of nuclear waste. The simple matter in reality is that it exists. It is here. We can't ignore it and we can't say, 'You shouldn't store it.' We do have to find a practical way to resolve it.

We would oppose any disposal certainly within Canada. But given that, given the fact that there is a problem, you can't ignore it and say, 'Don't dispose of it,' the Algonquins would certainly look at cooperating, given the assurances and given the recognition that there is a real and a concerted effort, and not just a Government of Canada, not certainly an independent process, but a joint process between industry and the Government that can look at real and practical measures to finding alternative sources of energy.

DR. D. BROWN: Thank you.

THE CHAIRMAN: Any question from the proponent for Chief Whiteduck?

DR. DORMUTH: No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions from members of the public you would like to put to Chief Whiteduck while he is here?

---(No verbal response)

THE CHAIRMAN: If not, I thank you very much indeed, Chief, for coming to Ottawa to make this presentation to us and for answering the questions which we have put to you.

It's good we have had a written version, so we can reread that to remind us of what you said to us this evening in a rather brief time. Thank you very much.

MR. WHITEDUCK: Thank you very much.

THE CHAIRMAN: Our next presentation will be Mrs. Penny Sanger.