Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Mikisew Cree have submitted on many occasions to the governments of Alberta and Canada concerns regarding the pace and extent of oil sands development. Unfettered exploitation of oil sands with little to no regard to the Mikisew Cree's concerns and claims have left the first nation to conclude that both levels of government have de facto extinguished the treaty rights of the Mikisew Cree.
The populations most affected by development are the aboriginal peoples, who have been raising concerns of regional impacts since the early 1960s. The Mikisew Cree have questioned and will continue to question the extent of these impacts on treaty and aboriginal rights. Whether referring to the lack of reconciliation of indigenous rights and past and current infringements on those rights, the unconstitutionality of the Government of Alberta's first nations consultation policy and guidelines, the instream flow needs and the water management framework—which we have constantly suggested is wholly inadequate and totally unprotective of the Athabasca River—the provincial regulatory process, the Alberta Energy and Resource Conservation Board and its federal counterpart, the CEAA, or the proposed land use framework, there is a need for greater recognition and incorporation of aboriginal feedback, knowledge, and concerns into the resource management slated for this region of Alberta.
Since 2003, the Mikisew Cree have participated in five oil sands hearings, including three in 2006 in which treaty and aboriginal rights were not considered. The Mikisew Cree have not been adequately consulted by any government with respect to oil sands development, with the exception of certain water licence approvals in 2004. The first nation considers that treaty and aboriginal rights are constitutionally protected and that these rights to hunt, fish, and trap reflect the core essence of the long-standing traditional lifestyle and heritage of the Mikisew Cree. Governments may not simply expropriate those rights to allow for oil sands development. The Mikisew Cree people believe it is their sacred obligation to act as a steward of the environment in cooperation with the government. At stake are precious living ecosystems, the survival of the Mikisew Cree culture, and the economic and physical well-being of the first nation people.
Oil sands leases cover more than half the Mikisew Cree's traditional lands. The scale of the ecological devastation proposed is on a scale that has never been seen or experienced in North America. The oil sands development, in combination with the effects of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam and other demands on the Arthabasca River, will significantly reduce the ability of the Mikisew Cree people to live as we have in the past, and that is off the land. We are simply not prepared to watch more and more of our territory be infringed, nor are we prepared to accept a just-trust-us approach of government and industry while our health is impaired and cancer rates continue to rise in Fort Chipewyan.
The federal government has both the legal tools and the legal obligation to protect our rights and our health. We have already set out our views about the potential for further development to adversely affect and infringe on our section 35 rights, as well as the ongoing concerns of our first nation in respect to negative health-related impacts flowing from oil sands development.
In light of these concerns, we respectfully request there be a moratorium on further development within our traditional territory until such time as there are proper studies completed, including health-related studies, to sufficiently and credibly assess such impacts and until there is proper land use and other planning in place. In particular, we ask the federal government to refrain from issuing any more permits, licences, or approvals in respect to federal areas of jurisdiction within our traditional territory until such steps are taken. We are not against all development. However, we are against the continued infringement of our rights and negative impacts to our health that flow from such oil sands development. We are of the view that calling for a moratorium until proper studies are done is a reasonable response to what has been virtually unchecked development.
As a final point, there is some precedent for the kind of moratorium we are seeking: a full public inquiry. In response to the concerns of the first nations north of 60 degrees, the Berger inquiry was established. The inquiry sought to study the potential impacts of development on those first nations, their social, health, economic, and cultural sectors in respect of the MacKenzie gas project.
Finally, if the potential adverse impacts of a single project were enough to stop oil development, pending proper study, surely a similar request in the face of years of negative impacts is not unreasonable.
Thank you.