Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation

May 03, 2006

Mr. Bob Potts,

Principal Negotiator
Algonquin Negotiations Representatives
Via e-mail

Mr. Potts,

Please accept this correspondence as part of our continued correspondence, only partially referred to in
your letter dated April 19, 2006, received via e-mail. I am presuming, then, that your failure to address the
particular concerns regarding accountability and legitimacy would implicate your clients, the Algonquins
of Pikwakanagan and the ANND.

I would first like to express my appreciation for the opportunity now before the Algonquin people to
participate in negotiations to resolve all outstanding Algonquin claims in Ontario as stated in the January
24, 2006 communications distributed by you, the Principal Negotiator for the recently created entity now
referred to as the “Algonquins of Ontario”. It is further stated that the successful achievement of this
important objective will require the co-operation and participation of all Algonquin people within the
Traditional Territory, within the boundaries of the Province of Ontario. It has been further articulated in
communications with the then federal and provincial representatives the Honourable Andy Scott and the
Honourable David Ramsey and yourself, dated October 5, 2005, that it was their understanding that a
transparent and inclusive process had been initiated resulting in the creation of the current Algonquin
Negotiation Team, as well as a list of 5,000 Electors.

It is with great disappointment that we learn of the current ANRs’ decision to refuse cooperative relations
with Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation in this process. It is stated that the Algonquin Negotiation
Representatives (ANRs) participating at this table will consult with and seek the direction of all
Algonquins within their communities as the Treaty negotiations proceed. Unfortunately that eliminates
any further representation and participation for Algonquins not in agreement with the current structure of
this process.

Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation asserts their claim to title and jurisdiction within the Province of
Ontario. At present, we are not represented.

It is my understanding that the continued commitment of the government representatives is dependent on

you claiming to have provided them with concrete evidence there be a fair, equitable and inclusive
process, that is accountable and transparent, and is able to bring certainty and finality to the title, rights
and interests in the land and natural resources within the Algonquin Territory. I would like to take this
opportunity to again state, as representative for the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation members residing
within the Province of Ontario, that we also share those same objectives. While working towards the
shared objectives of ensuring fair, equitable and inclusive participation of all Algonquin people in Ontario

1
negotiating an Algonquin Treaty that has the ability to resolve all outstanding grievances within the
Province of Ontario Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation should be included at the table. Because of
Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation’s consistently expressed, and formally integrated, commitment to
accountability and transparency, the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation continually assert our right to
directly participate in negotiations, in collaboration with, but separate from, the existent “Algonquins of
Ontario”, and further assert the necessity of such inclusion required to ensure the continued legitimacy of
this negotiations process and future certainty to claims.

We totally agree with the expectations that Aboriginal governments and institutions should be fully
accountable to their members or clients for all decisions made and actions taken in the exercise of their
jurisdiction or authority. Mechanisms to ensure political and financial accountability should be
comparable to those in place for other governments and institutions. We believe that we are being
prevented from such inclusion, despite our legal right, because we have raised questions concerning the
administration of this claim. It should be noted that participation in the recent ANR elections does not
represent the guarantee of exclusive authority of those involved, or disqualification from negotiations of
those not included. The rights of the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation are constitutionally protected.

The first group of Algonquin the French encountered were the Kichesipirini, “big river people”, and they
were often referred to by the French as "La Nation de l'Ilse", or “The Nation of the Island.” Champlain
was the first to document the Kichesipirini and he recorded the names of other Algonquin bands as
Quenongebin, Oüescariny, Kinouchepirini, Otaguottouemin, Matou-oüescariny and Charioquet.
(http://www.civilization.ca/cmc/archeo/kichisibi/euro/e7.htm) Our territory extended both sides of the
Ottawa River. This is historical fact.

Kichesipirini Algonquins are a pre-existing Algonquin nation. They exercised the right to ally themselves
with other Algonquin or Aboriginal nations, but they also maintained the right to autonomy and control of
their own territory, artefacts, institutions and resources. Clearly Kichesipirini Algonquins exercised the
exclusive right to independent nation-to-nation treaty negotiations and councils with other nations,
including the Europeans. These facts are even supported in many references Kirby Whiteduck himself
uses in his book Algonquin Traditional Culture, one of which is found on p.78, taken from the Jesuit
Relations (JR 6: 5-17). Numerous references to the Kichesipirini Algonquins can be found throughout the
Jesuit Relations, (Thwaites, Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents,) the Works of Samuel de Champlain
and Bruce Trigger discusses the Kichesipirini Algonquin operation of tolls on the Ottawa River prior to
1650 (Trigger, Children of Aataentsic, 268, 341).They maintained the “middle ground” geographically,
politically, economically and socially.

The Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation upholds their inherent Aboriginal right to define themselves.
Kichesipirini rights or identity are not dependent on externally applied regulations such as those
developed by the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan and the ANND. The Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation
is an Aboriginal Nation, of proven Algonquin affiliation, with an established exclusive territory
thoroughly documented to be in existence prior to European contact, and prior to Confederation, and have
never willingly surrendered their rights to possession or title of that territory or its resources. Kichesipirini
Algonquins have remained attached to their territory. Our title has never been voluntarily surrendered. We
maintain our inherent and protected right to freely enter into negotiations on a nation-to-nation basis, form
alliances, and associations, as we choose, as a distinct nation exercising full autonomy.

While we appreciate that significant organizational changes effected by the recent ANR Elections process
which have seemingly contributed to the resolve of on-going internal conflicts enough that a negotiations
table has been generated it must be clarified that the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation has repeatedly
expressed numerous concerns and has not been party to those previous conflicts. In fact, it can be proven
that Kichesipirini Algonquins worked to make available information and resources dedicated to the re-

2
establishment of negotiations for the past four years. Kichesipirini Algonquins facilitated meetings
between key executives from public trading mining, aquaculture, bio-energy and agriculture companies, as
well as social services to enter into formal agreements concerning economic development within the
territory, on the conditions that Pikwakanagan be included and that strong anti-corruption and conflict of
interest measures be in place. It should be noted that Kichesipirini was asked by certain ANND/ANTC
representatives to temporarily reserve our own interests for the sake of all Algonquins and the re-
establishment of negotiations. We were assured that we would be supported in our endeavours once
negotiations were under way. We continued based on the conditions that there be equal representation of
the non-status and that stringent ant-corruption mechanisms and new governance structures be put into
place that would contribute to greater accountability and more direct financial benefit to the people.
Kichesipirini became concerned when such information was not shared with the constituents. It later
become apparent that there were glaring governance irregularities, aggressive “empire building” by certain
individuals, and lack of anti-corruption mechanisms, preventing the recognition of and full participation of
Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation within the parameters of the current process. Kichesipirini repeatedly
communicated their concerns and withdrawal from the process and their intention to seek independent
representation at the table, contradicting your assertions that the process was inclusive.

It should also be noted that the communications referred to on or about December 28, 2004 as well as
January 7, 2005 were our attempts to de-escalate a contentious situation involving another marginalized
group that had the potential risk of becoming violent. The Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation has
consistently acted in good faith regarding a fair and inclusive negotiations process that respected the rights
of all Algonquin people and the opportunities associated with Treaty negotiations. Contrary to statements
made in your letter of April 19, 2006, I must clarify that on behalf of the Kichesipirini Algonquin First
Nation I did correspond on March 28, 2005 that “more important to me, and the majority of people I
represent, is the desire for a community truly accountable and responsible, led by the principles of good
governance and responsible leadership. We have developed a comprehensive Constitution, Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, and Citizenship Criteria. Many influences contributed to our not participating in
the election process…………… and that I be qualified as unaffiliated. I do not identify with the
Bonnechere and have been consistently stating that for the last three years. I do identify as
Kichesipirini….. It is our intention that Kichesipirini seek recognition after the election.” On April 8,
2005 I again confirm that “I would hereby like to affirm that the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation as
the "People from the Island" and their descendents and associated members, identify as Algonquin. We
believe that it is in the best interests of the “Algonquin Nation” that we participate in the Algonquin Land
Claim process in Ontario and will be continuing with our application to do so.” I have also consistently
identified as Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation at various public meetings and in widely distributed
publications as well.

It should be clarified that a process that facilitated organizational change amongst the previous groups,
such as this election process, should not be used as a vehicle to eliminate the rights of other Algonquin
groups, especially one that consistently acted in good faith for all Algonquins. Allowing ourselves to come
under the authority of a political agreement between one political body and a non-profit corporation we
believe further perpetuated the erosion of non-status Algonquin rights, through gradual increments, such
as those associated with the recent election process. We maintain our right to be at the negotiations table
separate from the “Algonquins of Ontario”.

We should draw your attention to the fact that section 5 of the July, 2004 does state that “The decision
whether or not any group should be recognized as a Community of Algonquins pursuant to paragraphs 2
(i), 3 and 4 shall be made by the Electoral Officer who will consult the applicants, the Enrolment Officer
and the Parties in making his or her decision. The Electoral Officer's decision in that regard shall be final
for purposes of the election in question, but is without prejudice to any subsequent application for
recognition as a Community of Algonquins for election or other purposes related to the Treaty

3
Negotiations.” It should be noted that the newly created entity of the “Algonquins of Ontario” cannot
subsume the rights of other Algonquin entities wishing to remain separate of that organization.

Recognizing that the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation has full authority to exercise our rights as
protected under the Canadian Constitution section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, further affirmed
through Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and international law, we assert our right to be present at
the negotiations table, while maintaining our distinct culture, our distinct territory, and our distinct
identity.

It our understanding that as a federally recognized Indian Act band the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan have
no defined jurisdiction beyond the boundaries of their reserve. The “Lands” section of the Comprehensive
Land Claim Policy also clearly states that First Nations can only claim lands that they currently use and
occupy. All Algonquin Territory and resources identified within this claim beyond the boundaries of the
reserve belong to the non-status Algonquins, according to common law, who maintain the right to
organize themselves as is appropriate. The Indian Act was not intended to identify the holders of
Aboriginal or treaty rights. The terms status and non-status were developed as part of the Indian Act. The
Indian Act was first introduced in 1876. The division of status and non-status Algonquins occurred much
later. The Indian Act is not part of the Canadian Constitution. It is a legislative framework for the
administration of band's and reserves and does not carry any special influence on Aboriginal rights. The
rights of Aboriginal people are inherent, being passed on to descendents unless negotiated or surrendered.
The rights of one people should not be subsumed under the rights of another. ( R. v. Powley, [2001] Ont.
C.A.).

Your statement that the July 30, 2006 Addendum was signed by the representatives of the Algonquins of
Pikwakanagan, Sharbot Lake, Mattawa, Antoine, Ardoch, Bonnechere and Greater Golden Lake along
with the ANND is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. The current negotiations table has been
established through the March 25, 2004 Protocol Agreement and the July 30, 2004 Addendum which
clearly state they are agreed between the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation, (hereafter Party
No.1), and the Algonquin Nation Negotiation Directorate, (ANND), and its Representatives, (hereafter
Party No.2). These documents are available on the Blaney and McMurtry website and have been printed
and widely distributed. As you are aware Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation has been repeatedly
requesting clarification regarding the actual structures, relationships, jurisdiction and political legitimacy
of the parties responsible for the design and governance of this process, namely the Algonquin Nation
Negotiations Directorate, (ANND), the Algonquin Nation Tribal Council, (ANTC) and the Algonquins of
Golden Lake, (the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan), and their proposed evolution into the “Algonquins of
Ontario”. The foundations of this process, upon close analysis, are fraught with characteristics of an
illiberal democracy and are lacking any legitimate forms of vertical accountability. It is saturated in
nepotism, cronyism, rent-seeking and influence peddling. The Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation has
repeatedly attempted to address these issues while asserting our rights to representation at the table,
independent of these questionable activities and organizational bodies.

The basic purpose of s.35(1) of the Constitution and treaty negotiations is "the reconciliation of the pre-
existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown." Kichesipirini Algonquins are a pre-
existing Algonquin nation. They exercised the right to ally themselves with other Algonquin nations, but
they also maintained the right to autonomy and control of their own territory, artefacts, institutions and
resources. Our existence cannot be disputed. Contrary to much of the propaganda associated with this
claim, and its numerous hidden agendas, is the inference that a historical homogenous Algonquin Nation
had previously existed. Kichesipirini history does not support that claim. Surrender of Aboriginal title can
only occur by treaty or modern land claims agreement, but once again, it must be clear that the Aboriginal
people in question intended to give up their title, as their understanding must be taken into account and
ambiguities resolved in their favour. It is now clear that Aboriginal and treaty rights cannot be

4
extinguished without the consent of the affected Aboriginal communities. It must be remembered that
those rights are available to non-status Algonquins, and non-status Algonquin nations. The Kichesipirini
Algonquin First Nation has not consented to this process. The Crown is under a moral, if not legal, duty to
enter into and conduct those negotiations in good faith. This constitutional recognition places significant
limits on the ability of government to interfere with Aboriginal or treaty rights, and creates duties on
government to justify any limitation on their enjoyment.

Despite your assurances that nothing in the existing structure should prejudice Kichesipirini participation
or representation nothing could be further from the truth. The ANRs are only mandated to take direction
from their community members. The process is not fair, inclusive, accountable or representative. As I
have been repeatedly stating the existing processes and structures are questionable. It is also understood
that the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan and the ANND employ the Principle Negotiator.

This negotiation process repeatedly states that the people of Algonquin descent are being identified for
consultative purposes only. This is stated in the s.25 in the Terms of Reference dated September 2005. It is
stated again in the Algonquin Nation Standardized Identification Criteria, April 2002. Section 1.1 states
the Algonquin Nation Standardized Register shall be used only to determine entitlement to participation in
the process of negotiations of the Algonquin Nation Land Claim. Section 1.2 qualifies that identification
should also not be construed as entitlement or non-entitlement to be a beneficiary of any final land claim
agreement. Is the process committed to the principles of equality and inclusion as demonstrated by the
clearly defined rights of all persons of Algonquin ancestry within the territory? Or does the Algonquin
Nation Standardized Identification Criteria only recognize certain lines? Why? And even those accepted
lines are only qualified to participate? Why? What Ontario are we referring to? Who is accountable for the
design of this process? Why does the federal government and the Anishinabek Nation, of which
Pikwakanagan is a participant, have signed Agreements in Principle that seriously jeopardize the rights of
non-status Algonquins? Again, I question the legitimacy of this process. Any skilled negotiator knows it is
impossible to negotiate up.

What kind of Algonquin leader, genuinely committed to protecting and promoting the rights of their
people would ever ask them to throw away their constitutionally protected rights and title to their territory
to become “Electors” in a process that only recognizes the political authority of an Indian Act band, is
organized by a non-profit corporation that is inundated in conflicts of interest, nepotism, legal ambiguities,
secrecy and conflicting agendas, only guaranteeing the opportunity to have been consulted, and as such,
will be accused that they knowingly agreed to the jurisdictional expansion and political and financial
domination of an Indian Act band at the expense of their own rights and title? What conscientious leader
would knowingly agree to that?

The Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation has clearly asserted itself. It maintains a specific territory. It
maintains its right to self-determination. It maintains its right to the protection, preservation and benefit of
that identity, and the associated inherent Aboriginal rights. We have clearly articulated our continued
commitment to working constructively with the governments of Canada and Ontario. It is my
understanding then, from the communication of April 19, 2006, that the “Algonquins of Ontario” are
stating that they will not recognize the right of the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation to participate in
negotiations. How was the decision by the “Algonquins of Ontario” to deny supporting the Kichesipirini
Algonquin First Nation right to participate in negotiations determined? Was it by consensus? Or by special
vote? By what authority does this group deem itself responsible to determine who should be at the table?
There seems to be continued miscommunications. The Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation is asserting
their inherent right to be at the table, and their desire to work together with the other Algonquins,
responsibly and proactively.

5
We respect the rights of other Algonquins to organize themselves and form associations as they see
appropriate, but Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation, while exercising their right of self-determination, is
not willing to substitute conscribed nationhood in exchange for “Community” participation in the creation
of the “Algonquins of Ontario”. We have consistently acted in good faith throughout this process allowing
for every opportunity to work cooperatively and responsibly. Knowing that the Kichesipirini Algonquin
First Nation meets all the criteria necessary for recognition as an Algonquin nation, and knowing that we
represent Algonquin constituents residing within the Province of Ontario, we are aware that any refusal to
include the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation in land claim negotiations would constitute a deliberate
breach of the agreed objectives of this claim and deliberately jeopardize the negotiations process. It was
hoped that no one at the table would act so irresponsibly.

The federal and provincial governments are obligated to enter into treaty negotiations to reconcile their
past denial of respect for factual, legal, and historical relationships regarding Aboriginal people. We
would expect, at least, that same respect from amongst our own people. Such respect is an integral part of
our culture, maintained not through ritual and traditional alone, but through the values expressed as the
seven grandfather teachings; honesty, respect, courage, love, humility, wisdom and truth. It is hoped that
at this especially critical time in Algonquin history that we would see these values modelled throughout
this treaty process and that we would ensure future generations of Algonquin people will be proud of the
actions of their leaders.

Many non-status Algonquins are paying for this process. As a Kichesipirini Algonquin citizen I am not
paying tax dollars to the federal and provincial governments for the establishment of an ambiguous
“Electors” list and the privilege to “participate”. I am funding a treaty process that should clearly define
and protect my rights as treaty beneficiary, and my rightful heritage as a citizen of the Kichesipirini
Algonquin First Nation resident of Ontario. Again, I would like to express my appreciation for the work
and commitment invested by so many in the hopes that an equitable and sustainable solution can be found
concerning the outstanding claims of the Algonquin people, most notably the efforts of the Algonquins of
Pikwakanagan for initiating this valuable opportunity. While I recognize this is a time of great transition
and change, and while change is always difficult, it can also be an opportunity for new beginnings. I
would suggest that you attempt to encourage your clients to reconsider their decision in the hopes that we
can all work together in our shared objective of a prosperous future for the Algonquin people.

Migwetch,
Sincerely,
Paula LaPierre
Principal Sachem
Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation

cc; ANRs, Brian Crane, Jean-Francois Tardif, Kichesipirini Algonquins

Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation

By Honouring Our Past We Determine Our Future

kichesippi@hotmail.com