| Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 19:26:03 CST
| Reply-To: Activists Mailing List <cdp!UMCVMB.BITNET!ACTIV-L>
| From: cdp!uga.cc.uga.edu!peace%web.apc.org
| Subject: RESOURCE: James Bay Facts: Reply to Harel
| To: Multiple recipients of list ACTIV-L <UMCVMB!ACTIV-L>
In reply to Harel Barzilai on James Bay 2/Great Whale...
I'll return to the facts and then deal with the issues, as Harel
calls them.
A maximum of 1000, not 16,000, people will be affected by the
Great ,Whale project. A total of 18,000 Crees, Inuit and Naskapis
live in 25 communities scattered throughout the 1 million sq. km.
(400,000 sq. miles = 2/3 the size of Alaska) of the James Bay and
Northern Quebec Territory governed by the agreement of the same
name. No community has ever been, nor will any community be
forced to relocate. Fort George was moved to Chisasibi after the
Crees voted to do so, and after a duly signed agreement between
them and the Quebec authorities.
600 sq. miles would be flooded for Great Whale, NOT 2,000 sq.
miles. The reservoirs would be located 20, 100 and 140 miles
from the nearest native community of Great Whale: Whapmagoostui
to the Cree; and Kujjuarapik to the Inuit.
Harel included statements that the 1975 James Bay & Northern
Quebec Agreement was "empty". This flatly contradicts every
other evaluation of that Agreement which I have studied. One of
the most eloquent defenders of Native positions in Canada,
Geoffrey York, wrote as recently as 1989 in his bestseller "The
Dispossessed" that "[The] James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement
remains a model for comprehensive land claims and
self-government. No other Indian band or tribal group in Canada
has gained such a level of control over its own affairs [...]
Every other hydro project in Canada has led to a decline in
hunting by Indian people, but in northern Quebec the Income
Security Program has succeeded in strengthening the native
economy. By 1981, there were 900 full-time Cree hunters at James
Bay [and more than 1200 in 1991 - DJ] compared to a total of
fewer than 600 in 1971. While every other hydro project in
Canada has led to an increase in welfare dependency, the James
Bay welfare caseload was actually reduced by two-thirds from 1971
to 1981. The Income Security Program is a model for other Indian
communities across Canada."
Mr. York could have referred for comparison to the Columbia
development where no such agreement was made with Natives to
compensate for hydro developments. Claims for land and
compensation are still outstanding in the Columbia project.
The only comparable U.S. agreement is the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act of 1971. In scope alone the Quebec Agreement with
31 chapters and 450 pages is in a different class altogether.
Unlike the Quebec Agreement, the 35 page Alaska Act, which
allegedly settled all claims of the 77,000 Natives, makes
absolutely no mention of the environment, Native culture and way
of life, hunting, fishing, or trapping rights, and overlaps with
development, education and social services. Moreover, because of
the limited scope of the Alaska Act, Natives often have no more
rights to hunt, fish or trap than the rest of the population.
Thereby a running battle is being waged between sport hunters and
fishermen on the one side and Natives on the other as to whether
aboriginal people should have special hunting and fishing rights.
Harel's post referred to the dangers of the greenhouse effect
from hydro power based on studies conducted in Northern
Manitoba. The geography of Manitoba is wholly different from
Quebec. Harel's post refers to permafrost in muskeg as a source
of CO2, as well as sedimentation on La Grande River. There is NO
permafrost in the area of reservoirs on La Grande or on the Great
Whale. The land is glacier fill and mostly sand. University of
Sherbrooke scientist Normand Therrien estimates that Northern
Quebec reservoirs will produce only a tiny percentage of the
greenhouse gases that the most modern fossil-fuel facility would
generate.
The U.N. has NOT condemned the project. This was made abundantly
clear in interviews given by U.N. officials appearing in the
French press in Quebec. None of the English media felt compelled
to rectify the "news" they published to the contrary in early
August, 1991.
I strongly maintain that the inordinate amount of attention being
focussed on development in Northern Quebec at a time of critical
national debate in Canada and the wide discrepancy between the
facts and the perceptions of people in English Canada (and now
the U.S.) demonstrates that there is more to this dam issue than
meets the eye. In my view, and in the views of most Quebecois of all
political stripes, the "issue" as Harel calls it is precisely
Quebec's right to self-determination within its existing borders,
and that the issues of Native rights and environmental protection
are being used to counter Quebec's rights.
Quebec is a distinct society with a distinct history. About 20
years before the Wounded Knee massacre U.S. historian Francis Parkman wrote
that for the Native peoples of America the Spanish killed them, the
English despised them and the French espoused them. Thoreau made
similar observations.
"Bury my heart at James Bay" was the title of a Time Magazine
piece in July 1991. Before Americans and English Canadians apply
their own histories to Quebec, they should carefully examine the
facts. This is a dangerous time and attacks on Quebec over
Native issues can easily lead to civil war between English Canada
and Quebec. Let us be clear and careful.
David Jacobs