Summary 1: Indigenous People and Development

The following will analyze readings from Rosemary Thorpe et al.’s (2012) The Developmental Challenges of Mining and Oil: Lessons from Africa and Latin America, Suzanna Sawyer’s (2004) Crude Chronicles: Indigenous Politics, Multicultural Oil and Neoliberalism in Ecuador, and T. Martin and S. Hoffman’s (2008) Power Struggles, Hydro Development, and First Nations in Manitoba and Quebec  to determine what exactly the term development means, how it is understood differently by indigenous people, and whether or not it can provide the necessary solution to prevailing problems in indigenous communities.

Because of the intimate relationship indigenous people have with their lands, development has inevitably resulted in this disruption of their traditional ways and has threatened their survival which depends on respecting the laws of nature in order to hunt, fish, and gather. The indigenous people to whom I will refer in this analysis are the Cree in Northern Manitoba, the Cree in James Bay in Northern Quebec, and the Amazon Indians in Ecuador. Indigenous people have been in Canada from time immemorial and have survived on this land as hunting and gathering societies. In Ecuador, the indigenous people have lived in the rain forest as hunting and gathering societies as well. Although indigenous lands tend to be rich in natural resources, making natural resource development seem like an obvious solution to poverty and unemployment, development may not be the answer because the very environment that corporations and governments are exploiting and so disrupting is the very source of living on which indigenous societies have long depended for their subsidence life styles. Governments and corporations have historically not treated indigenous people as equals, or on a nation to nation basis, leaving indigenous people with destroyed environments and broken promises.

Historically in Canada, governments and corporations have used methods of control, such as the Indian Act, to control every aspect of indigenous people`s lives, and with the most destructive and damaging effect, to take over their lands to which they were so culturally connected for their survival as a people. Not much has changed; instead, the government and corporations extend their reach to countries around the world under the guise of neoliberalism and globalization. Sawyer (2004) illustrates this in her description of the meeting between upper Amazon indigenous leaders and the corporate leaders of the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) who were trying to mine oil in the Pastaza region.  She stated that the Indian Federation members were opposed to corporate tactics that would divide indigenous communities, but that some were convinced to change their position by “buying the consciences of community leaders near its wells with insulting trinkets.” (p.4) Moreover, Sawyer claimed that in Ecuador there is no division in the territory, and that the corporation should stop propping up the Directive of the Independent Communities of Pastaza (DICIP), a make believe indigenous organization, which the corporation created; she further suggested that the ARCO should stop using divide and conquer tactics in the name of democracy. Divide and conquer tactics are applied to Canada as well: there is no development template employed by provincial or federal governments to address development impacts and compensation to affected communities, and no collective position taken by indigenous leadership in Canada when faced with development. For example, The Northern Flood Agreement (NFA) was signed by four out five affected indigenous communities in Northern Manitoba.

The federal and provincial governments fail to be accountable to First Nations people; moreover, Manitoba Hydro goes about its business as if they were the last imperial stronghold in North America, which never honoured indigenous treaty rights. According to Martin and Hoffman (2008), Treaty Five is seen as null because the First Nations ceded, released, and surrendered the land for the reserve land they now occupy. Martin and Hoffman (2008) compare this example to the experience of the Cree in Quebec, they hold up as a development model that has economically and politically empowered the James Bay Cree. According to Martin and Hoffman (2008), development has meant a "new social contract" for the James Bay Cree in contrast to the "business only partnerships" approach Manitoba Hydro has taken toward Manitoba Cree communities (p.3).

In Pastaza, Ecuador, the indigenous people of the region have learned from the devastation caused to the rain forest by the Company Texaco; initially the development deal appeared promising for the indigenous people; however, as the economy shifted, the price of oil changed, leaving the Amazon Indians in huge debt. According to Sawyer (2004), “in the early 1980s, the fall in the world price of crude oil and hikes in international lending rates spun Ecuador into an economic crisis just as the country returned to democratic rule” (p.11). Texaco destroyed the environment that once sustained the people and left the country with a huge national debt. As a result of their learning from this experience, the indigenous people created a political organization to prevent or stop corporations from extracting oil in their indigenous territories. According to Sawyer (2004), “Organization of Indigenous Peoples of Pastaza (OPIP) community members and federation leaders vociferously challenged petroleum exploitation in their lands—condemning what they considered to be ARCO`s insidious instrumentality and manipulative method” (p. 10). Sawyer (2004) clearly demonstrated the promise of development in this case was false. “Promises of progress were disingenuous ploys. A quarter century of petroleum practices in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon had left the region plagued by poverty and environmental devastation” (p. 10).

Industrialized societies and governments continue the assault on the environment through neoliberalism and globalization to exploit the natural resources in indigenous territory, without compensating indigenous people equally. According to Sawyer (2004), “by ‘globalization,’ I am referring to the ever increasing and uneven production and consumption of capital, commodities, technologies, and imaginaries around the globe. By "neoliberalism," I am referring to a cluster of government policies that aim to privatize, liberalize, and deregulate the national economy so as to encourage foreign investment and intensify export production," (p.7). Both are foreign models that do not best fit with collective indigenous ways and rights.

Thus it is evident from these readings that the development of natural resources in indigenous territory

 does not always create opportunity or alleviate poverty and unemployment as it has in the instance of the

 James Bay Cree; rather than prosperity, devastated environments, destroyed traditional lifestyles, and

 further poverty have been the result of development in areas such as Pastaza, Ecuador and northern

 Manitoba. The wealth to be derived from the development of natural resources on indigenous lands is of

 foremost interest to the state and to non-indigenous companies.  They want to develop indigenous land

 and get rich off their natural resources—in the name of development for indigenous people but too often

 without any regard for its impacts on the indigenous people who live on these lands.

Summary 2: Oil Development: Opportunities or Threats?

Tanya Korovkin (2003), in her article, “In Search of Dialogue: Oil Companies and Indigenous Peoples of the Ecuadorian Amazon,” and Suzanna Sawyer (2004) in her chapter “Crude Chronicles: Indigenous Politics, Multicultural Oil and Neoliberalism in Ecuador,” demonstrates that oil development means something very different for indigenous people than it does for the developers.  The developer’s drive to exploit resources for profit from the lands on which indigenous people reside is seen by the indigenous people as destructive both to the environment and to their traditional lifestyle, beliefs, and customs.  Moreover, the material profits derived rarely benefit the indigenous people in terms of opportunities for employment or social improvements; rather, underdevelopment and unemployment persist in the indigenous communities, threatening their lands and their survival as a people.

 Korovkin (2003) claims that oil development in the Ecuadorian Amazon does not address the need for improvement in indigenous communities. Oil companies have been in the area for decades, but the problems of poverty, disease, and other social issues among the indigenous people still exist.  The only ones who have benefited from development are the oil companies. The indigenous people were coerced into agreements of limited benefits, which in fact caused the mass destruction of their territory. The indigenous communities closer to the urban centers were able to gain more benefits than the more isolated communities in terms of community and economic development. Yet, at the same time, these less remote communities continue to have more conflicts, social problems, and poor health. Although the remoter communities have received fewer economic and social benefits of development, they are more able to maintain their traditional lifestyle and customs, having had less interference from urban centers.

In her article, Korovkin (2003) provides an analysis of the role played by the state, government, and multinational corporations in the development of the oil industry in the Ecuadorian Amazon and of the effect it had on the indigenous people and the environment. The abstract points out that there are no positive results to either the indigenous people or to the environment.  Korovkin (2003) makes clear oil development in Ecuador is influenced by “neoliberal economic thought, with its emphasis on private enterprise" (p.1).

            Private enterprises may include in their agenda a commitment to the principle of environmental and social responsibility; for example, according to Korovkin (2003), “Some companies proclaimed their willingness to put social and environmental issues on their agenda” (p.1). They even argued that indigenous people would benefit from this industry (p. 1). The nature of the government policy and its regulations determines whether the principle of environmental and social responsibility will be respected and how effective it will be. Their record in Ecuador and other parts of the world shows that the oil industry’s commitment to socially and environmentally ethical development, to benefit indigenous people and their lands, is undermined by the overriding objective of maximizing the profit from the land. This profit mentality has weakened the good intentions to respect the land and benefit the people living in the area.

According to Korovkin (2003, “the environmental damage, caused by the oil development between 1962 and 1990s was enormous. . . . Texaco had built a vast system which contributed to the colonization and deforestation of almost 2.5 million acres (p. 6). She also points out that “[o]ver the same time period,” there were “30 major spills, with a total loss of 16.8 million gallons of gas,” and “over 600 open pits with toxic waste” were abondoned (p. 6). “All this led to an increased incidence of gastrointestinal diseases, skin problems, birth defects, and cancer among the indigenous population” (p.6).  The devastating impact of oil development on indigenous communities that Korovkin addresses in her article is consistent with the destruction Suzanna Sawyer (2004) describes in her study; both authors describe how corporations are carrying out their assault on the environment and on indigenous communities under the guise of neoliberalism.

In her chapter, “Crude Chronicles: Indigenous Politics, Multicultural Oil and Neoliberalism in Ecuador,” Saywer (2004) discusses the concept of neoliberalism, showing that advocates of neoliberalism argue that democracy and progress ensure the economy will flourish.  However, this process has led to crisis governance, failing economy, and environmental disaster in Ecuador. The neoliberal focus of the government that favored the multinational corporations did not acknowledge indigenous concerns. This led to the indigenous people protesting for their legal rights to their lands and for control of the development on their lands and a share in the profits. As one protester read from the “manifesto,” “The toma [takeover] is a peaceful action to denounce and to demand changes in [the state’s] petroleum policies” (p. 92). The indigenous people were affirming their ancestral right to the land and their democratic right to voice their opposition to multinational corporations like the oil industry that did not provide for progress or positive change in their communities and despoiled their lands. 

            The Ecuador government wanted to provide a legal framework to modernize the oil industry. The government firmly believed that economic globalization can be addressed by a strong legal framework that will lead to economic development to benefit the country. However, Texaco had proven to be a disaster for the Ecuadorian Amazon environment and indigenous people in 1967, confirming the feeling of the indigenous people that the oil industry was there only for its own profits and that its promises of economic development and benefits to the indigenous people were empty. Texaco is another classic example of a multinational that has made millions from the oil industry only to leave the country in a state of environmental disaster, without benefitting the indigenous people.

            Further, according to Sawyer (2004), the country`s economy needed reviving; the government’s answer was that “intensified oil activity would do the trick; it would ‘create employment, transfer technology, and generate economic resources for national development’” (p. 94). Although Ecuador talked about private sharing of the resources, that never materialized for the indigenous people.  Through their protest, the indigenous people expressed their desire for change to end the paternalistic and unequal relations between the oil industry, government, and indigenous people.

Ultimately, oil development has meant social ruin for the indigenous people in Ecuador. Lago Agrio, an oil town Texaco established as the base of their operations in the late 1960`s, is a good example of this. According to Sawyer (2004),  “Despite being located in an oil rich region, Lago Agrio was (and is) poverty ridden. In 1994, roughly twenty-five years after its inception, Lago Agrio was still marked by potholed, crude-strewn, muddy streets, open sewers, . . . . It symbolized all the ills of oil work – what the CONAIE characterized as ‘poles of disease, contamination, prostitution, and drug trafficking,’ not ‘poles of development and modernization’” (p. 99). Texaco created a “toxic terror” in their push to boost corporate revenues without taking any precautions to protect the environment (p.99).

Oil development in the Ecuador Amazon has clearly been of little or no benefit to indigenous people, according to these two studies by Korovkin (2003) and Sawyer (2004). The indigenous communities closer to urban centers get marginalized benefit from development, more so than isolated communities, but often at a cost to their indigenous lifestyle, while the more remote communities received no benefit but were able to maintain their traditional lifestyle and practices. Clearly, the underlying intent of the oil industries—to exploit the land and maximize their profits—undermines any promises of good will toward either the people or their land, thereby ultimately diminishing opportunities and increasing threats.

The Double–Edged Sword of Hydro Development: An Assessment of the Manitoba Northern Flood Agreement and the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement

Introduction

Indigenous lands, being rich in natural resources, have become the focus of natural resource development projects that are justified in the name of national interest and economic development. However, the indigenous communities whose lands are being developed and whose rights, cultures, and needs are not being considered appropriately are not benefiting from these projects as they were promised. An examination of the Northern Flood Agreement (NFA), between Manitoba Hydro and the northern Manitoba Cree, and the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA), between Hydro Quebec and the James Bay Cree, will demonstrate how natural resource development has mainly benefitted the corporations and has caused serious damage to indigenous culture, communities, and their lands.

Missing from the NFA and the JBNQA, as from the original treaties between the Crown and First Nations, is an implementation process to fulfill promises and obligations. These agreements between the First Nations and the Crown corporations have mainly failed to provide the promised economic benefits, which could have provided a solution to the underdevelopment in these indigenous communities. This has left it up to the courts to define what the rights of First Nations are. As Mathew Coon Come states In the Way of Development: Indigenous Peoples, Life Projects and Globalization. Blaser et al. (2004) in relation to the JBNQA: “We have been in and out of courts since 1975 to get the governments to implement it (JBNFA). They still refuse and delay, and many of the benefits we were promised have failed to materialize. These benefits are things all who live in Canada enjoy as a right” (p. 156). Although these agreements included promises of compensation and of economic benefit, they did not provide for meaningful means to enforce the implementation of them as will become clear in the following examination of the NFA and JBNQA.

The JBNQA and NFA will be contrasted to show how Manitoba Hydro failed to follow the precedent set by the JBNQA, but rather negotiated in bad faith employing project-by-project ‘divide and conquer’ final agreements, and did not provide any monetary benefit or self government agreements to the indigenous communities affected by hydro development. In demonstrating how the JBNQA is a better example of a self-governing agreement than the NFA, it will be necessary to examine the perceived strengths of the JBNQA that made it successful in a way the NFA was not. It will also be necessary to briefly define the concept of development as it is understood by indigenous people as opposed to the corporations’ view of development in this examination which seeks to determine whether the double-edged sword of development can in fact provide the solution to prevailing economic problems in indigenous communities or whether it is contributing to them. 

Defining Development

According to Martin and Hoffman in Power Struggles: Hydro Development and First Nations in Manitoba and Quebec. (2008), development has meant a "new social contract" for the James Bay Cree in contrast to the "business only partnerships" approach Manitoba Hydro has taken toward Manitoba Cree communities (p. 3). The growing demand for electricity in Ontario and the Midwestern United States is influencing this impulse towards globalization evident in Manitoba Hydro’s present and long-term exogenous development goals.  Since 2001, non-domestic sales have accounted for anywhere from 33 to 42 percent of total system sales. Thus it is clear the limitation of a transmission system built primarily to meet local, or at best, regional loads, but which is increasingly being called upon to handle intercontinental bulk power transfers, is the reason for the push to build Bipole 3 (pp. 146-149).

Even though the Hydro Quebec development project has helped sustain the Quebec economy, the James Bay Cree have a different opinion of the development. According to a community leader speaking in the Aboriginal People Television Network film, “Down the Mighty River,” the fact that the money they received is called ‘compensation’ tell you something negative has happened – The Cree are not going to hunt and trap in their traditional territories ever again. The corporation’s view of development as mainly economically and profit driven with little regard for the environment or the indigenous people is in complete opposite to the indigenous peoples’ view which sees an intimate relationship between the natural world and the human world and therefore which believes development must respect the natural world to which we are all connected.

Hydro Development on Indigenous Lands: Costs and Benefits

Because of the Government of Canada’s long history of relations with indigenous people, their involvement in these projects should have made these projects more sensitive to indigenous cultures and their needs as a people as opposed to projects initiated by the private sector. However, according to Harvey A. Feit’s article “James Bay Crees’ Life Projects and Politics: Histories of Place, Animal Partners and Enduring Relationships,” in Blaser et al. (2004), this has not been the case. The James Bay Cree have continued to extend their hand in reconciliation, seeking the re-creation of mutual understanding with the province and Hydro Quebec to improve their relationship with the Cree and the land. The Cree feel they cannot get non aboriginals to understand their position.

In his article, “Hunting, Nature, and Metaphor,” in Indigenous Traditions and Ecology: The Interbeing of Cosmology and Community, Harvey Tait explains the Cree ontology through use of the garden metaphor. The garden metaphor not only instructs Cree youth, it invites Quebecers, Canadians, and Americans to understand the Cree, to see them as civilized and moral. It is intended to encourage white men to learn from the Cree about the proper relationship between humans and their environment. Tait’s use of the gardening metaphor draws on, reproduces, and modifies Cree symbols of land, sociality, autonomy, reciprocity, and spirituality. This rhetorical strategy of the garden analogy is intended to highlight the spiritual element indigenous people share with the wider Christian population and their understandings of culture (pp. 444-445). 

In-Depth Examination of the Manitoba NFA

            In “The Way to Modern Treaties: A Review of Hydro Projects and Agreements in Manitoba and Quebec,” in Martin and Hoffman (2008), Romuald Wera and Thibault Martin state, “[u]nlike the JBNQA, the NFA recognized no inherent Aboriginal right but instead created a claims procedure requiring a long and usually unsuccessful, at least from the Aboriginal point of view, arbitration process” (p. 66). Wera and Martin (2008) further point out that the Aboriginal communities were so disappointed by the implementation process that by the mid-1980s the provincial government entered into negotiations with each community for an alternative, comprehensive approach (p. 69). In Manitoba, the Summary of Understanding (SOU 2003) came after the aspirations of the NFA could not be implemented in the Nisichiawayasihk Cree Nation (NCN), and the province intended to proceed on with more hydro development.

Cross Lake is the only community insisting Manitoba Hydro and the province live up to their word in the NFA and not to go the route of other communities like NCN who signed the SOU 2003. According to Peter Kulchyski in “The Red Indians,” the Cross Lake First Nation, decided it  would  not sign  the NFA, which  extinguished the rights it won in the seventies,”   “refusing to co-operate with the further ravaging of its great river” (p. 157).

According to Peter Kulchyski, in his article “A Step Back: The Nisichiawayasihk Cree Nation,” in Martin and Hoffman (2008), the NFA has legitimacy from the Constitution Act (section 35) that “[h]ereby recognizes and affirms the existing aboriginal and treaty rights.”  He states the NFA is further supported by two Supreme Court Decisions, R v. Sioui (1990) and R v. Marshall, which have drastically altered the understanding and the protocol of treaty interpretation. This set an important precedent, allowing for a liberal and generous interpretation of treaties and treaty rights by putting oral history and what was agreed to in treaties on par with what was written in the Treaty Five document (pp. 131-132). Kulchyski goes on to criticize the SOU by comparing it to the Les Paix Des Braves (2002) in Quebec, claiming “the document is not a nation-to-nation agreement in the manner of the Paix Des Braves . . . and contains no sense of vision” (p. 136). Whereas “[v]arious Cree communities in northern Quebec will gain significant financial benefit, $70 million a year for fifty years to a total of $3.5 billion, without financial risk,” as a result of the Les Paix Des Braves, the Cree in northern Manitoba have received no financial benefit only . . . as a result of the SOU (p. 137). Les Paix Des Braves agreement in Quebec came after the JBNQA, just as the SOU came after the NFA in Manitoba, to pave the way for more hydro development.

In-Depth Examination of the JBNQA

According to Peter Kulchyski’s brief history leading to the JBNQA, in The Red Indians, when the James Bay Cree and Inuit learned of hydro development plans when they were announced in the spring of 1971 on the radio, they decided to fight it. In 1972, they launched a successful court challenge, claiming that aboriginal rights and titles were still valid, thereby forcing the government of Quebec to begin negotiations with the James Bay Cree and Inuit. This led to a major land claim. In 1975, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was signed.

Peter Kulchyski stresses it is important to emphasize that the James Bay land claim was negotiated under a great deal of pressure. The deal involved a payment of $232 million, exclusive use of 5,500 square kilometres of land, along with exclusive hunting, fishing, and trapping rights over another sixty thousand square kilometres of land to be jointly managed with the government. The deal included income security for aboriginal hunters and trappers. In exchange for these benefits, the James Bay Cree and Inuit agreed to “cede, release, surrender and convey all their native claims, rights, titles and interests” to their traditional territories. In the court of public opinion, many activists inside and outside the Cree community accused the leadership of selling out. Others said the deal was the best they could get.

 In the years following the agreement, Kulchyski states serious problems developed in the implementation of the land claim in the areas of health, social services, economic and social development. In the 1990s, faced with plans or phase two of the James Bay hydro electric project, Mathew Coon Come, Grand Chief of the Crees said the land claim was not working, and they were prepared to tear it up (pp. 146-147). This stalled the Great Whale Diversion, and Les Paix Des Braves was negotiated and settled.

Mathew Coon Come, in his article “Survival in the Context of Mega Resource Development: Experiences of the James Bay Crees and the First Nations of Canada,” in Blaser et al. (2004), concedes the agreement was not a good. Although its intention was good, its implementation process needed court interpretations; therefore, the Crees were forced to become the environmental and economic conscience that the Quebec government did not have. Coon Come concludes that this agreement can benefit northern Crees as it provides some financial resources for their future. This agreement is often referred to the first modern day land claims agreement (pp. 159-60). According to Bill Gallager in Resource Rulers (2012) the Crees’ derailment of the Great Whale project signaled the stark reality that Quebec’s hydropower options were becoming increasingly limited (p. 78). The Crees mounted the most successful anti-development campaign ever witnessed in Canada (p. 74). Gallagher further states what gave Hydro Quebec the upper hand  from the outset in future resource development  over competing projects was having access to the Crees’ watersheds—thanks  to Les Paix Des Braves” (p. 86).

According to Paul Rynard in his article “Ally or Colonizer?: The Federal State, the Cree Nation, and the James Bay Agreement” in Burnett and Read (2012) Aboriginal History: A Reader, on the heels of the defeat of the 1969 White Paper, and supported by a landmark ruling in the 1973 Supreme Court of Canada Calder decision, the JBNQA forced the government to abandon its acceleration of assimilation policy and recognize that indigenous people’s  homelands remained valid and unextinguished.  However neither level of government was ready to live up to obligations agreed to when the treaty was signed; it seemed that the federal government was trying to proceed with a business-as-usual approach even though the JBNQA had codified and clarified many of its obligations. A gastroenteritis epidemic in several Cree communities killed several children as a direct result of poorly planned and half-finished sewers built by the Department of Indian Affairs. “A review made clear the government had violated the ‘spirit and intent’ of the JBNQA” (pp. 395-396).

A number of factors are relevant in causing the history of poor treaty implementation in both the JBNQA in Quebec and the NFA in Manitoba. Bradley and Hoffman (2008) state the key difference between hydro development in Quebec and Manitoba is the politically destructive project-by-project and community-by-community negotiating style that has long characterized provincial-Aboriginal relations in Manitoba. Thus, unlike in the case of the Paix Des Braves, Hydro and the province of Manitoba continue to deal with each and every community as a separate entity on a project-by-project basis. The implications of this strategy are best appreciated by comparing negotiations in Manitoba with those in Quebec, and specifically, with the 2004 Les Paix Des Braves agreement, which has been described as a ‘true partnership’. In contrast, the absolute inequality in Manitoba stems from the insistence on the part of Hydro that individual agreements be consummated between the company and various northern Aboriginal communities (pp. 151-152).

Bradley and Hoffman (2008) further critique the project-by-project and community-by-community strategy as it also confronts individual communities with a remarkable reality: by becoming business partners, they are, in effect, agreeing to perpetuate ecological damages that are a functional part of the project’s operation. In this respect, Aboriginal communities become participants in the continued degradation of an ecology that could support a traditional land-based way of life. However, according to The Honorable Tim Sale, Minister of Energy, Science and Technology, hydro development is green energy and contributes to meeting our national climate change targets (Kyoto) by helping to displace fossil fuel generation (pp.151-155).

 The separatist movement was another central factor in the federal government's non-compliance in fulfilling its obligations and fiscal responsibilities of the JBNQA as it attempted to avoid conflict with the provincial government of Quebec. Government funding was decided upon by policy and not in legal accordance with the agreement. According to Rynard in Aboriginal History: A Reader, an ambassador of the Crees states the poor implementation was “because it is cheaper to pay civil servants to fight Indians than it is to meet treaty obligation” (p. 397). When a Cree Naskapi Commission reviewed the capital-funding disagreements, the federal representatives told the commission that they felt obligated to give the Crees only as far as their fair share of normal Indian Affairs program funding was concerned, so they could avoid treating other Indians unequally (p.397).

Evaluation of Hydro Development on Indigenous Lands

Because of the intimate relationship indigenous people have with their lands, development has inevitably resulted in a disruption of their traditional ways and has threatened their survival, which depends on respecting the laws of nature in order to hunt, fish, and gather in both Quebec and Manitoba. Thus, it is evident from these readings that the development of natural resources in indigenous territory has not created opportunity or alleviated poverty and unemployment in Cree communities in northern Manitoba to the degree it has for the James Bay Cree; rather than prosperity, devastated environments, destroyed traditional lifestyles, and further poverty have been the result of development in northern Manitoba.

The wealth to be derived from the development of natural resources on indigenous lands is of foremost interest to the non-indigenous crown corporations and the governments involved, who want to make a profit from those natural resources regardless of indigenous rights and title. Despite the corporation’s claim of development in the name of indigenous people, development has too often taken place without any regard for its impacts on the indigenous people who live on these lands.

According to Brian Craik, in his article, “The Importance of Working Together: Exclusions, Conflicts and Participation in James Bay, Quebec,” in Blaser et al. (2004), Canada has a huge problem regarding both its present land claim policy and the future of indigenous communities. Craik claims the Canadian policy is one of maintaining the status quo rather than bringing Aboriginal communities into the revenue streams created by the development that surrounds them, which is evident in their promoting one time buy outs and asking indigenous people to accept exclusion (pp. 183-184).

Conclusion

 Thus, it is evident that although indigenous nations are rich in natural resources and therefore deserving of a share in the wealth derived from the development of these resources, they are not equal or true partners with the government or crown corporations that control the resource development projects on their lands.  Although the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement has resulted in limited economic benefits for the indigenous communities, whose lands and lifestyle have been adversely affected by the hydroelectric project, the indigenous communities affected by the Northern Flood Agreement in Manitoba have seen no positive changes due to development. As has been shown by this examination of the two agreements, the reasons for this in Manitoba are: [1] A project-by-project and community-by-community divide and conquer negotiating strategy; [2] No monetary compensation; [3] No self-government agreements. Therefore, it is clear that what is required for development to have a greater degree of success, is at the very least, follow the approach of Hydro Quebec in its hydro development agreements and work with the indigenous people as a collective entity, provide monetary compensation and self government agreements rather than the divide and conquer – business only approach of Manitoba Hydro. The fact that even with the successful model of development, the JBNQA, the benefits also came with costs to lands and lifestyle. This is what makes it a double-edged sword—benefits derived with costs.

References

Blaser, M., Feit, H., & Mcrae, G. (2004). In the Way of Development: Indigenous Peoples, Life Projects and Globalization. London: Zed Books.

Burnett, Kristen & Read, Geoff. (2012). Aboriginal History: A reader. (pp. 389-400). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gallegher, B. (2012). Resource Rulers: Fortune and Folly on Canada’s Road to Resources. La Vergne, Tennessee: Lighting Source Inc.

Grim, J. (2001) Indigenous Traditions and Ecology: The Interbeing of Cosmology and Community. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Kulchyski, P. (2007). The Red Indians: An Episodic, Informal Collection of Tales from the History of Aboriginal People’s Struggles in Canada. Winnipeg: Albeiter Ring Publishing.

Martin, T. &  Hoffman, S. (Eds.) (2008). Power Struggles: Hydro Development and First Nations in Manitoba and Quebec. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

Webb, E. (Producer). (2013) Down the Mighty River [Video]. Montreal: Aboriginal Peoples Network Television.