Stage 4: Aurora 5 Site - 24 Hour Testing 14

14 Stage 5: Recommend a Preferred Solution 15

•Rehabilitate Aurora Well No. 5, Aurora Well No. 6 and Newmarket Well No. 15

•Construct new wells at: • Green Lane • Aurora Well No. 5

19 Stage 6: Confirm Preferred Solution – Green Lane 16

Green Lane Well Construction: • Aquifer Thickness – 31 m • Transmitting Capacity – 104 L/s • Available Drawdown – 33 m • Completion Date – July 27th, 2016 • Diameter – 0.30 m (12”) • Step Test – July 28, 2016 • Depth – 93 m • 72 hour Test - August 2-5, 2016 • Screen Length – 10.7 m

Parameter Step-Test 72 Hour Test

Pumping Rate 18/36/55 55 (L/s) Drawdown (m) 0.14/0.37/0.77 3.8

Specific Capacity 71 (at 55 L/s) 15 (L/s/m)

Water Quality Hardness and iron Hardness and iron Results above ODWQS above ODWQS

19 Stage 6: Confirm Preferred Solution - Green Lane 17 Monitoring Wells

17 Stage 6: Confirm Preferred Solution - Aurora 18

Aurora Well Construction: • Aquifer Thickness – 30 m • Completion Date – September 7th, • Available Drawdown – 45 m 2016 • Diameter – 0.30 m (12”) • Step Test – September 7, 2016 • Depth – 97.5 m • 72 hour Test – Sept 12-15, 2016 • Screen Length – 7.9 m (underway) • Transmitting Capacity – 75 L/s

Parameter Step-Test 72 Hour Test Pumping Rate (L/s) 20/40/55 55 Drawdown (m) 0.45/0.95/1.51 TBD Specific Capacity 36 (at 55 L/s) TBD (L/s/m) Water Quality TBD TBD Results

19 Stage 6: Confirm Preferred Solution – Aurora 19 Monitoring Wells

19 LSRCA Regulation Area – Green Lane 20

19 LSRCA Regulation Area – Aurora 5 21

19 Source Water Protection 22 •Class EA Requirements (2014 Amendments): Clean Water Act and Source Protection Plans • Includes additional references to the Clean Water Act and Source Protection Plans • Class EA amendments serve as a reminder to consider source water protection as part of proponent’s decision making process

•MOECC Consultation: • To include in Project File: • Section on Source Protection • Summary on preliminary consultation with stakeholders • Preliminary WHPAs consultation with Local Municipalities • Work plan • Letter from Source Protection Authority to support the work plan

19 Source Water Protection 23 •York Region’s Work Plan • To complete prior to the new wells becoming part of YR Water system

• Review and Update Groundwater Flow Model • Delineate WHPAs • Vulnerability Scoring • Assessment and Mapping of Aquifer Vulnerability in WHPAs • Assignment and Mapping of Vulnerability Scores • Analysis and Rating of Uncertainty • Threats Assessment and Verification • Mapping and updates to Regional Official Plan • Source Protection Plan update • Public Consultation 23 Wellhead Protection Area (preliminary) – Green Lane 24

24 Wellhead Protection Area (preliminary) – Aurora 5 25

25 Key Dates 26

York Region will conduct Stage 2 Comments received tonight will Archaeological Assessments at be considered together with the the Preferred1 Well Sites to results of Stage 5 to confirm 2 the 3 identify the presence of Preferred Well Site(s). Please provide agency archaeological resources,Notice if any. of Completion: Public Review Period: comments by: November 3, 2016 November 3 to September 30, 2016 December 5, 2016

From: Shelly Cuddy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 12:18 PM To: Cushing, Julia; Melinda Bessey; Charles Burgess Cc: [email protected]; Alexander, Matthew (Guelph); Quackenbush, Patricia Subject: RE: Yonge Street Aquifer: DRAFT Project File for LSRCA Review

Hi Julia,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the Yonge Street Aquifer Well Supply Restoration project. I went through the report in some detail and have reviewed the preferred options. At this time I do not have any concerns regarding the 2 proposed water supply wells. It was noted that the technical report will be provided within the appendix so my review did not include the hydrogeological assessment. However, given the location of the proposed wells and the PTTW will not be increasing I don’t anticipate that the conservation authority will have any concerns.

Please note that Melinda is currently out of the office and she has not reviewed the report. Melinda will be able to answer any planning or permitting questions you may have.

Thanks

Shelly Cuddy, P.Geo. Hydrogeologist Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority 120 Bayview Parkway, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 3W3 905-895-1281, ext. 313 | 1-800-465-0437 | [email protected] | www.LSRCA.on.ca

The information in this message (including attachments) is directed in confidence solely to the person(s) named above and may not be otherwise distributed, copied or disclosed. The message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and by the Personal Information Protection Electronic Documents Act. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message without making a copy. Thank you.

From: Cushing, Julia [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: November-16-16 12:28 PM To: Melinda Bessey; Shelly Cuddy; Charles Burgess Cc: [email protected]; Alexander, Matthew (Guelph); Quackenbush, Patricia Subject: RE: Yonge Street Aquifer: DRAFT Project File for LSRCA Review

Hi Shelley,

Thanks for the call today – here is the link to the document:

This file will be available for download until 11/23/2016

File Description Size YORK-5280711-v6-DRAFT Project File_2016_11_02.pdf 144,172KB

We look forward to your comments early next week – please let us know if you would like to discuss or if you have any question as you complete your review.

Regards,

Julia

Julia Cushing, MCIP, RPP Senior Environmental Planner D: 905-747-1922 (NEW) C: 416-528-5017 [email protected]

AECOM 30 Leek Crescent, 4th Floor Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 4N4 T: 905-882-4401 F: 905-882-4399 (NEW) www.aecom.com

This communication is intended for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately. Any communication received in error should be deleted and all copies destroyed.

Please consider the environment before printing this page.

From: Cushing, Julia Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 4:25 PM To: [email protected]; '[email protected]'; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Alexander, Matthew (Guelph); Quackenbush, Patricia Subject: Yonge Street Aquifer: DRAFT Project File for LSRCA Review

Hello Melinda, Shelly and Charles,

Please find, at the link below, the Draft Project File for the Yonge Street Aquifer Well Capacity Restoration Project. Melinda, as you may recall, we met about this Project on September 14, 2016 - this Project is being conducted in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process for a Schedule B Project and the purpose is to restore the full permitted capacity of York Region’s wells within the Yonge Street Aquifer. The Preferred Solution involves rehabilitating four existing wells and constructing two new wells.

The Draft Project File documents the studies conducted, the decision making process and consultation undertaken since the commencement of this project. The Draft Project File will be available for downloading until November 9, 2016.

File Description Size YORK-5280711-v6-DRAFT Project File_2016_11_02.pdf 144,172KB

Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. We ask that you provide us with your comments by November 16, 2016.

Regards,

Julia

Julia Cushing, MCIP, RPP Senior Environmental Planner D: 905-747-1922 (NEW) C: 416-528-5017 [email protected]

AECOM 30 Leek Crescent, 4th Floor Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 4N4 T: 905-882-4401 F: 905-882-4399 (NEW) www.aecom.com

H.8.4 MTCS Consultation Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Ministère du Tourisme, de la Culture et du Sport Sport Culture Programs Unit Unité des programmes culturels Programs and Services Branch Direction des programmes et des services Culture Division Division de culture 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 401, rue Bay, bureau 1700 Toronto ON M7A 0A7 Toronto ON M7A 0A7 [email protected] [email protected]

February 12, 2013

Jessica Marr Archeoworks Inc. 16715-12 Yonge Street, Suite #1029 Newmarket, Ontario L3X 1X4

RE: Entry into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports: Archaeological Assessment Report Entitled, “Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (AA): Yonge Street Aquifer Well Capacity Restoration Environmental Assessment Township of East Gwillimbury And Township of Whitchurch Regional Municipality of York Ontario”, Dated January 17, 2013, Received by MTCS Toronto Office on February 4, 2013, MTCS Project Information Form Number P334-240-2012, MTCS File Number 19WT129

Dear Ms. Marr:

The above-mentioned report, which has been submitted to this Ministry as a condit ion of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18 has been entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports without technical review.1

Please note that the ministry makes no representation or warranty as to the completeness, accuracy or quality of reports in the register.

Should you require further information, please do not hesit ate to send y our inquiry to [email protected].

cc. Matt King, Brutto Consulting Jane Petlyarsky, Town of Richmond Hill

1In no way will the ministry be liable for any harm, damages, costs, expenses, losses, claims or actions that may result: (a) if the Report(s) or its recommendations are discovered to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent; or (b) from the issuance of this letter. Further measures may need to be taken in the event that additional artifacts or archaeological sites are identified or the Report(s) is otherwise found to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent. Page 1 of 2

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Ministère du Tourisme, de la Culture et du Sport

Culture Programs Unit Unité des programmes culturels Programs and Services Branch Direction des programmes et des services Culture Division Division de culture 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 401, rue Bay, bureau 1700 Toronto ON M7A 0A7 Toronto ON M7A 0A7 Tel.: (416) 212-5107 Tél. : (416) 212-5107 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Aug 26, 2014

Erik Phaneuf (P393) AECOM

RE: Review and Entry into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports: Archaeological Assessment Report Entitled, "Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment Yonge Street Aquifer Well Capacity Restoration Project, Well Area 6 Lot 101, Concession 1 East of Yonge Street Geographic Township of East Gwillimbury, County of York, Municipality of York, Ontario ", Dated Aug 26, 2014, Filed with MTCS Toronto Office on Aug 26, 2014, MTCS Project Information Form Number P393-0044-2014

Dear Mr. Phaneuf:

This office has reviewed the above-mentioned report, which has been submitted to this ministry as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18.1 This review has been carried out in order to determine whether the licensed professional consultant archaeologist has met the terms and conditions of their licence, that the licensee assessed the property and documented archaeological resources using a process that accords with the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists set by the ministry, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report recommendations are consistent with the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario.

The report documents the assessment of the study area as depicted in Figure 2 and Figure 6 of the above titled report and recommends the following:

No archaeological sites or material were identified within the proposed construction area for Well Area 6 during the course of this Stage 2 assessment. There are no concerns for the impact to archaeological sites by the proposed development and no further archaeological assessment of the property is required.

Based on the information contained in the report, the ministry is satisfied that the fieldwork and reporting for the archaeological assessment are consistent with the ministry's 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists and the terms and conditions for archaeological licences. This report has been entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports. Please note that the ministry makes no representation or warranty as to the completeness, accuracy or quality of reports in the register.

Should you require any further information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely, Wai Hadlari Archaeology Review Officer

cc. Archaeology Licensing Officer Tammy Silverstone,R.M. York TBD TBD,MOE Page 2 of 2

1 In no way will the ministry be liable for any harm, damages, costs, expenses, losses, claims or actions that may result: (a) if the Report(s) or its recommendations are discovered to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent; or (b) from the issuance of this letter. Further measures may need to be taken in the event that additional artifacts or archaeological sites are identified or the Report(s) is otherwise found to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent.

H.8.5 MNRF Consultation Southern Region Aurora District Office 50 Bloomington Road West Aurora, ON L4G 0L8

Ministry of Ministere des Natural Resources Richesses Naturelles

March 22, 2013

Caroline Boros, B.Env.Sc (Hons) Aquatic Ecologist AECOM 55 Wyndham Street North, Suite 215 Guelph ON N1H 7T8 [email protected]

Re: York Region SAR Inquiry

Dear Ms. Boros,

In your email dated January 21, 2013 you requested information on natural heritage features and element occurrences occurring on or adjacent to following locations:

Well Area 11: The MNR has records of Butternut and Snapping Turtle in the vicinity of this site. Natural heritage features recorded for this site include the Provincially Significant Aurora (McKenzie) Marsh Wetland Complex.

Well Area 3: There are currently no species at risk recorded for this site. Natural heritages features recorded for this site include identified wetlands.

Well Area 5: There are currently no species at risk recorded for this site. Natural heritages features recorded for this site includes the Provincially Significant Black River Wetland Complex.

Well Area 6: MNR has records of Butternut in the vicinity of this site. Natural heritages features recorded for this site include identified wetlands.

Some of these species may receive protection under the Endangered Species Act 2007 and thus, a permit may be required if the work you are proposing could cause harm to these species or their habitat.

This species at risk information is highly sensitive and is not intended for any person or project unrelated to this undertaking. Please do not include any specific information in reports that will be available for public record. As you complete your fieldwork in these areas, please report all information related to any species at risk to the NHIC and to our office. This will assist with updating our database.

If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact Eva Bobak at 905-713- 7398 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Melinda Thompson Species at Risk Biologist Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora District Ministry of Ministère des Natural Resources Richesses naturelles and Forestry et des Forets Aurora District Office 50 Bloomington Road Telephone: (905) 713-7400 Aurora, Ontario L4G 0L8 Facsimile: (905) 713-7361

October 13, 2016

Julie Ellis Terrestrial Ecologist AECOM 905-747-7610 [email protected]

Re: Yonge Street Aquifer Well Capacity Restoration, York Region

Dear Julie Ellis,

In your email dated September 26, 2016 you requested information regarding four well site locations.

Species at risk recorded in the vicinity of these locations include Butternut (endangered), Redside Dace (endangered, occupied habitat in Sharon Creek near well site 3), Barn Swallow (threatened) and Snapping Turtle (special concern). There is also potential for endangered bats (e.g., Little Brown Myotis, Northern Myotis, Tri-colored Bat) in cavities.

Absence of information provided by MNRF for a given geographic area, or lack of current information for a given area or element, does not categorically mean the absence of sensitive species or features. Many areas in Ontario have never been surveyed and new plant and animal species records are still being discovered for many localities. Appropriate inventory work is needed depending on the undertakings proposed. Approval from MNRF may be required if work you are proposing could cause harm to any species that receive protection under the Endangered Species Act 2007.

Species at risk information is highly sensitive and is not intended for any person or project unrelated to this undertaking. Please do not include any specific information in reports that will be available for public record. As you complete your fieldwork in these areas, please report all information related to any species at risk to our office. This will assist with updating our database and facilitate early consultation regarding your project.

If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact [email protected] or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Bohdan Kowalyk, R.P.F. A/ Management Biologist Aurora District, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry From: Kowalyk, Bohdan (MNRF) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 4:51 PM To: Cushing, Julia Cc: [email protected]; Quackenbush, Patricia; Alexander, Matthew (Guelph) Subject: RE: Yonge Street Aquifer Well Capacity Restoration Project: DRAFT Project File for MNRF Review

Thank you. I don’t think we will have any further comments.

Regards,

Bohdan Kowalyk, R.P.F. A/ Management Biologist Aurora District Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 50 Bloomington Road, Aurora, Ontario L4G 0L8 Phone: 905-713-7387; Email: [email protected]

From: Cushing, Julia [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: November-24-16 4:29 PM To: Kowalyk, Bohdan (MNRF)

Cc: [email protected]; Quackenbush, Patricia; Alexander, Matthew (Guelph)

Subject: Yonge Street Aquifer Well Capacity Restoration Project: DRAFT Project File for MNRF Review

Hello Bohdan,

As per our conversation, we’re providing you with a brief summary of the Yonge Street Aquifer Well Capacity Restoration Project. Please find below the DRAFT Project File, can you please let us know by November 30 if you have any comments on the Project?

The Yonge Street Aquifer (YSA) Well Capacity Restoration project was initiated by York Region to identify a Preferred Alternative to restore the permitted water taking rate approved by MOECC (YSA PTTW, 2015). Four of York Region’s 18 wells operating under the YSA PTTW are not able produce the maximum daily volume allowed under the permit, resulting in a deficit of 5.2 Million Litres per Day (MLD) in the permitted well capacity. In order to address the reduced production capacity of the Yonge Street Aquifer well system, York Region examined feasible options to recapture the lost capacity while managing the maintenance challenges associated with the wells.

The Project was conducted in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process for a Schedule B Project. Through this EA, York Region assessed alternative solutions, conducted 2 rounds of public information sessions and identified the Preferred Solution as rehabilitating three existing wells and constructing new wells (Well Area 6 – Green Lane and Well Area 11 – Aurora Well No. 5).

As part of groundwater investigations conducted during the EA, the Aurora Well No. 5 was twinned and a new well was drilled within the fenced property, not affecting terrestrial or aquatic features. Another new well was built at Well Area 6; an area previously used for agricultural production (recently used for soy production). In addition, this new well is located directly adjacent to the Green Lane Road Right of Way, not affecting terrestrial or aquatic features during construction of well. Both new wells are drilled to the depth of about 100 metres below ground surface. The field testing confirmed that adjacent surface water features are not anticipated to be affected by groundwater drawdown due to the presence of a thick aquitard . In addition, no Species at Risk were identified at the two new well sites. In summary, no net effects on the terrestrial or aquatic environment, in addition to Species at Risk, are anticipated as a result of this project.

Please refer to the Sections 6.6.2.3, 6.7.2.4 and Tables 6-6, 6-8 of the EA Report to review the analyses that led us to the above statement. Also, please refer to the Figures 2-2 and 2-3 (attached) from the Groundwater Exploration Report (the Groundwater Exploration Report will be included as Appendix G in the Final Project File) to review the monitoring network that was monitored during each well’s 72 hour testing.

File YORK-5280711-v6-DRAFT Project File_2016_11_02.pdf

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Regards,

Julia

Julia Cushing, MCIP, RPP Senior Environmental Planner D: 905-747-1922 (NEW) C: 416-528-5017 [email protected]

AECOM 30 Leek Crescent, 4th Floor Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 4N4 T: 905-882-4401 F: 905-882-4399 (NEW) www.aecom.com

Please consider the environment before printing this page.

H.8.6 South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Region

October 17, 2016

Don Goodyear Water Resources Manager York Region 17250 Yonge Street Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6Z1

Dear Don,

This letter is to confirm conversations that Scott Lister (Program Manager, Water Resources) and yourself have had with my colleagues and I about the Yonge Street Aquifer Capacity Restoration Municipal Class Environmental Assessment study.

As you are aware, the establishment of new municipal wells may introduce new significant threats to drinking water quality or quantity, as defined under the Clean Water Act, and may therefore trigger policy obligations as laid out in the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan.

Staff of Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority support the approach that your staff is taking to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. LSRCA will continue to work with you and your colleagues throughout the process of confirming the location of the wells, mapping their respective Wellhead Protection Areas, and conducting groundwater vulnerability assessments, to ensure that the requirements of the Act and Plan are met.

Associated with this work, the Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching / Black River Source Protection Authority will be responsible to ensure that the Source Protection Plan and Assessment Report is updated as necessary, including participating in public consultation and liaising with the MOECC’s Source Protection Program Branch.

Sincerely,

Bill Thompson Program Manager, South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Region cc. Scott Lister, Program Manager, Water Resources. York Region Mike Wilson, Hydrogeologist / Sourcewater Protection Coordinator, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority

120 Bayview Parkway  Newmarket, ON  L3Y 4X1  Tel: 905-895-1281  Fax: 905-853-5881 www.ourwatershed.ca

H.9 Aboriginal Consultation

June 18, 2012

Tammy Silverstone Senior Project Manager Capital Planning and Delivery York Region 17250 Yonge Street Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6ZI [email protected]

Dear Ms. Silverstone,

Thank you for your letter of May 28, 2012 regarding your request for information held by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) on established or potential Aboriginal and treaty rights in the vicinity of the Yonge Street Aquifer Well Capacity Restoration Project, for the York Region of Ontario.

Consulting with Canadians on matters of interest or concern to them is an important part of good governance, sound policy development and decision-making. In addition to good governance objectives, there may be statutory or contractual reasons for consulting, as well as the common law duty to consult with First Nations, Métis and Inuit when conduct that might adversely impact Aboriginal or treaty rights (established or potential) is contemplated.

It is important to note that the information held by AANDC is provided as contextual information and may or may not pertain directly to Aboriginal or treaty rights. In most cases, the Aboriginal community remains best positioned to explain their traditional use of land, their practices or claims that may fall under section 35, including claims they may have put before the courts.

The Department has recently developed a new information system, the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System (ATRIS), which brings together information regarding Aboriginal groups such as their location, related treaty information, claims (specific, comprehensive and special) and litigation. Using ATRIS and a 100 km radius surrounding the project location, information regarding potentially affected Aboriginal communities is presented in the attached report in the following sections for each community:

Aboriginal Community Information includes key contact information and any other information such as Tribal Council affiliation.

Treaties, Claims and Negotiations includes Historic Treaties, Specific, Comprehensive and Special Claims. Self-Government may be part of Comprehensive claims or stand-alone negotiations.

Litigation usually refers to litigation between the Aboriginal Group and the Crown, often pertaining to section 35 rights assertions or consultation matters.

Also included, where available, is a section entitled Other Considerations. This may include information on Métis rights, consultation-related protocols or agreements and other relevant information. 1

Should you require further assistance regarding the information provided, or if you would prefer that a smaller or greater buffer be used to gather information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards,

Allison Berman Regional Subject Expert for Ontario Consultation and Accommodation Unit Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada 300 Sparks Street, Ottawa Tel: 613-943-5488

Disclaimer This information is provided as a public service by the Government of Canada. All of the information is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, including, without limitation, implied warranties as to the accuracy or reliability of any of the information provided, its fitness for a particular purpose or use, or non- infringement, which implied warranties are hereby expressly disclaimed. References to any website are provided for information only shall not be taken as endorsement of any kind. The Government of Canada is not responsible for the content or reliability of any referenced website and does not endorse the content, products, services or views expressed within them.

Limitation of Liabilities Under no circumstances will the Government of Canada be liable to any person or business entity for any reliance on the completeness or accuracy of this information or for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential, or other damages based on any use of this information including, without limitation, any lost profits, business interruption, or loss of programs or information, even if the Government of Canada has been specifically advised of the possibility of such damages.

First Nation/Aboriginal Community Information

Within a 100 km radius of your project there are 7 First Nation communities which are: Beausoleil Chippewas of Georgina Island Chippewas of Mnjikaning Curve Lake Hiawatha Mississauga’s of Scugog Island Wahta Mohawks

The following First Nation communities which you have listed are also included: Alderville First Nation Huron Wendat Nation Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Moose Deer Point First Nation Six Nations of the Grand River

Information on other Aboriginal groups such as the Métis and Kawartha-Nishnawbe First Nation Is included in the ‘Other Considerations’ section. The following information should assist you in planning any consultation that may be required.

In general, where historic treaties have been signed, the rights of signatory First Nation’s are defined by the terms of the Treaty. In many cases, however, there are divergent views between

First Nations and the Crown as to what the treaty provisions imply or signify. For each First Nation below, the relevant treaty area is provided.

In areas where no historic treaty exists or where such treaties were limited in scope (i.e. where only certain rights were addressed by the treaty, such as the Peace and Friendship Treaties), there may be comprehensive claims that are asserted or being negotiated. Comprehensive claim negotiations are the means by which modern treaties are achieved.

Specific claims refer to claims made by a First Nation against the federal government related to outstanding lawful obligations, such as the administration of land and other First Nation assets, and to the fulfillment of Indian treaties, although the treaties themselves are not open to re- negotiation. The below response provides summaries of relevant claims that are current to the date of the response. As the claims progress regularly, it is recommended that the status of each claim be reviewed through the Reporting Centre on Specific Claims at: http://pse4-esd4.ainc-inac.gc.ca/SCBRI/Main/ReportingCentre/IndexExternal.aspx?lang=eng

Self-government agreements set out arrangements for Aboriginal groups to govern their internal affairs and assume greater responsibility and control over the decision making that affects their communities. Many comprehensive claims settlements also include various self-government arrangements. Self-government agreements address: the structure and accountability of Aboriginal governments, their law-making powers, financial arrangements and their responsibilities for providing programs and services to their members. Self-government enables Aboriginal governments to work in partnership with other governments and the private sector to promote economic development and improve social conditions.

Alderville First Nation James (Jim Bob) Marsden 11696 2nd Line Road P.O. Box 46 Alderville, Ontario, K0K 2X0 Phone: (905) 352-2011 Fax: (905) 352-3242 www.aldervillefirstnation.ca

Treaty Area - Williams Treaties of 1923 For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.

Membership Union of Ontario Indians Ogemawahj Tribal Council Chiefs of Ontario See “Other Considerations” below for more information.

Specific Claims Name: Islands in the Trent System Status: in negotiation

Description: The First Nation alleges that title to certain islands in regional municipality of Durham, county of Peterborough Victoria and Northumberland and loss of some of these islands due to flooding by Trent canal and illegal sale.

Name: 1923 Williams Treaty Status: closed Description: The First Nation alleged that the Williams Treaty was invalid, and inadequate compensation has been received for land taken. There has also been a failure to provide reserves. The First Nations involved are: Alderville, Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Mnjikaning, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississauga of Scugog Island, Mississauga of the Credit and Moose Deer Point.

Name: Loss of Bay Quinte Reserve Lands Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found 2011/03/22 Description: The First Nation alleges that four reserves, totalling 2,350 acres were set aside at the Bay of Quinte for the Mississaugas of Alderville First Nation, and these lands were alienated without proper surrender and compensation. The four reserves involved in the claim were located in Prince Edward County at Mississaga Point, Grassy Point, Cape Vessey and Bald Head.

Name: Crawford Purchase Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The First Nation alleged that the purchase of 1783-1784 covering lands in Frontenac, Prince Edward and Hastings counties and United county of Lennox Addington was illegal.

Name: Damages to Wild Rice Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The First Nation alleged that Mississauga title to wild rice, traditional economy, waters and lands beneath the waters. They state there has been destruction of the wild rice and traditional economy due to flooding by the Trent canal.

Name: Gunshot Treaty Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The First Nation alleged the Gunshot Treaty of 1788 covering lands in Prince Edward and Northumberland counties and regional municipality of Durham was illegal.

Name: Lake Ontario Lakeshore Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council alleged that part of the lakeshore in the townships of Oakville Burlington, Mississauga and Etobicoke were never ceded by treaty or otherwise. The First Nations involved are: Curve Lake, Mississauga of the Credit, Alderville, Mississauga’s of Scugog Island and Hiawatha.

Name: Navy Island Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council alleged that islands were never ceded in the Niagara treaty of 1781.

Name: Niagara Treaty Lands 5

Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council alleged that lands covered by the Niagara treaty of 1781 in the Regional Municipality of Niagara were never properly ceded & that the Mississauga were not compensated for them. This claim was originally submitted in 1986 by the MTCC as a component of the Williams Treaty claim & was subsequently hived off as a separate claim in 1990.

Name: Thurlow Purchase Status: settled Description: The First Nation alleged lands covered by the Thurlow Purchase of 1811 & 1816 in Thurlow Township were improperly ceded. They state that the Mississauga Nation was never adequately compensated for them. The claim is located in Belleville by the Moira River.

Name: Toronto Purchase Status: settled in 2010 Description: The First Nation alleged that the Toronto Purchase (1787 & 1805) covering lands in the regional municipality of York, was illegal.

Self-Government Agreement Negotiations Anishinabek Nation (Union of Ontario Indians) Final Agreement negotiations on Governance and Education Please see “Other Considerations” below for more details.

Litigation Name: Alderville Indian Band v. Attorney General of Canada Status: active Court No: CV-11-417797 Description: The Plaintiffs claim irregularities with the surveys on township and country roads running through the Alderville Indian Reserve No. 37.

Name: Alderville Indian Band et al v. HMTQ in Right of Canada Status: active Court No: T-195-92 Description: The Plaintiffs allege the Crown breached its fiduciary duty, and negotiated in bad faith, regarding the 1923 Williams Treaties. Other First Nations involved as plaintiffs in the litigation include Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Rama, Curve Lake, Hiawatha First Nation, and the Mississauga’s of Scugog (Blind River, Ontario). Litigation to resolve the allegation that Canada negotiated the Williams Treaties in bad faith was launched in 2009 by the Alderville First Nation, and is scheduled to continue in 2012.

Beausoleil First Nation Chief Roland Monague (appointment expires June 5, 2012) 1 Ogema Street Christian Island, Ontario, L0K 1C0 Phone: (705) 247-2051 Fax: (705) 247-2239 www.chimnissing.ca

Treaty area - Treaties for settlement: 1783 – 1815 For more information on treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.

Membership Ogemawahj Tribal Council Union of Ontario Indians Chippewa Tri-Council Chiefs of Ontario See “Other Considerations” below for more information.

Specific Claims Name: Coldwater Narrows Status: active negotiation Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged the illegal taking of reserve lands in 1836, and therefore since then, inadequate compensation. This claim also includes the Chippewas of Mjikaning (Rama), Nawash and Georgina Island.

Name: 1815 Treaty Payments Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged Canada failed to honour terms of treaty regarding compensation for lands.

Name: 1923 Williams Treaties Status: closed Description: The First Nation alleged that the Williams Treaty was invalid, and inadequate compensation has been received for land taken. There has also been a failure to provide reserves. The First Nations involved are: Alderville, Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Mnjikaning, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississauga of Scugog Island, Mississauga of the Credit and Moose Deer Point.

Name: Awenda Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged that a 50,000 acre tract in Simcoe County was not included in the Penetanguishene Treaty of 1798, yet was taken without consent by the provisional agreement of 1811. They state it should remain in the control of the First Nation.

Name: Notawasaga Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged there has been improper cession of lands in Simcoe County by the Notawasaga treaty of 1815, and inadequate compensation provided.

Name: Pentanguishene and Matchedash Bays Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The First Nations alleged that lands covered by the Pentanguishene and Matchedash Bays treaty of 1798 were never properly ceded, and were wrongfully included in the Robinson Huron treaty of 1850. The Chippewa Nation (Beausoleil, Mjikaning (Rama) and Georgina Island) alleged that they were never adequately compensated

Self Government Negotiations

Anishinabek Nation (Union of Ontario Indians) Final Agreement negotiations on Governance and Education Please see “Other Considerations” below for more details.

Litigation Name: Alderville Indian Band et al v. HMTQ in Right of Canada Status: active Court No: T-195-92 Description: The Plaintiffs allege the Crown breached its fiduciary duty, and negotiated in bad faith, regarding the 1923 Williams Treaties. Other First Nations involved as plaintiffs in the litigation include Alderville, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Rama, Curve Lake, Hiawatha First Nation, and the Mississauga’s of Scugog (Blind River, Ontario). Litigation to resolve the allegation that Canada negotiated the Williams Treaties in bad faith was launched in 2009 by the Alderville First Nation, and is scheduled to continue in 2012.

Current Events In January of 2012, Beausoleil First Nation became a signatory to the First Nations Land Management Regime, under the Federal Framework for Aboriginal Economic Development (FFAED). The community will soon begin a process to opt out of the 34 land-related sections of the Indian Act, and assume greater control over their reserve land and resources. FFAED represents a fundamental change to how the federal government supports Aboriginal economic development. It emphasizes strengthening entrepreneurship, enhancing the value of Aboriginal assets, and forging new and effective partnerships to maximize economic development potential.

Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation Chief Donna Big Canoe (appointment expires June 23, 2012) RR 2, PO Box 13 Sutton West, Ontario, L0E 1R0 Phone: (705) 437-1337 Fax: (705) 437-4597 www.georginaisland.com

Treaty Area - Williams Treaties of 1923 For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.

Membership Chippewa Tri-Council Union of Ontario Indians Ogemawahj Tribal Council Chiefs of Ontario See “Other Considerations” below for more information.

Specific Claims Name: Coldwater Narrows Status: active negotiation Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged the illegal taking of reserve lands in 1836 and inadequate compensation. 8

Name: 1815 Treaty Payments Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged Canada failed to honour terms of treaty regarding compensation for lands.

Name: 1923 Williams Treaties Status: closed Description: The United Indian Council alleged that the Williams Treaty was invalid. They state that compensation has been inadequate for land taken, along with a failure to provide reserves. The First Nations involved are: Alderville, Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Mnjikaning, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississauga of Scugog Island.

Name: Penetanguishene and Matchedash Bays Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged that lands covered by the Penetanguishene & Matchedash Bays treaty of 1798 were never properly ceded. In addition, the lands were wrongfully included in the Robinson Huron treaty of 1850, and the Chippewa Nation along with the Tri-Council alleged that the Chippewa Nation was never adequately compensated.

Self-Government Agreement negotiations Anishinabek Nation Final Agreement negotiations on Governance and Education Please see “Other Considerations” below for more details.

Litigation Name: Alderville Indian Band et al v. HMTQ in Right of Canada Status: active Court No: T-195-92 Description: The Plaintiffs allege the Crown breached its fiduciary duty, and negotiated in bad faith, regarding the 1923 Williams Treaties. Other First Nations involved as plaintiffs in the litigation include Beausoleil, Chippewas of Rama, Curve Lake, Hiawatha First Nation, and the Mississauga’s of Scugog (Blind River, Ontario). Litigation to resolve the allegation that Canada negotiated the Williams Treaties in bad faith was launched in 2009 by the Alderville First Nation, and is scheduled to continue in 2012.

Chippewas of Mnjikaning (Rama) Chief Sharon Stinson Henry (appointment expires 2012) 5884 Rama Road, Suite 200 Rama, Ontario, L0K 1T0 Phone: (705) 325-3611 Fax: (705) 325-0879 www.mnjikaning.ca

Treaty Area - Williams Treaties of 1923 For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.

Membership Chippewa Tri-Council Ogemawahj Tribal Council Chiefs of Ontario See “Other Considerations” below for more information.

Specific Claims Name: Coldwater Narrows Status: active negotiations Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged the illegal taking of reserve lands in 1836 and inadequate compensation.

Name: 1815 Treaty Payments Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged Canada failed to honour terms of treaty regarding compensation for lands.

Name: 1923 Williams Treaties Status: closed Description: The United Indian Council alleges that the Williams Treaty was invalid, and inadequate compensation has been received for land taken. There has also been a failure to provide reserves. The First Nations involved are: Alderville, Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Mnjikaning, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississauga of Scugog Island.

Name: Penetanguishene and Matchedash Bays Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found

Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged that lands covered by the Penetanguishene & Matchedash Bays treaty of 1798 were never properly ceded. In addition, the lands were wrongfully included in the Robinson Huron treaty of 1850, and the Chippewa Nation was never adequately compensated.

Litigation Name: Alderville Indian Band et al v. HMTQ in Right of Canada Status: active Court No: T-195-92 Description: The Plaintiffs allege the Crown breached its fiduciary duty, and negotiated in bad faith, regarding the 1923 Williams Treaties. Other First Nations involved as plaintiffs in the litigation include Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Curve Lake, Hiawatha First Nation, and the Mississauga’s of Scugog (Blind River, Ontario). Litigation to resolve the allegation that Canada negotiated the Williams Treaties in bad faith was launched in 2009 by the Alderville First Nation, and is scheduled to continue in 2012.

Curve Lake First Nation Chief Keith Knott (appointment expires June 27, 2012) General Delivery Curve Lake, Ontario, K0L 1R0 Phone: (705) 657-8045 Fax: (705) 657-8708 www.curvelakefn.com

Treaty Area – Southern Ontario treaties to open the interior: 1815 to 1862 For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.

Membership Union of Ontario Indians Chiefs of Ontario See “Other Considerations” below for more information.

Specific Claims Name: Flooding of IR 35 Status: active negotiations Description: The First Nation alleges that between 300-600 acres of reserve land, set aside in 1837 for the Mud Lake Indian Band (now Curve Lake), were flooded when dams constructed for the Trent-Severn Waterway raised water levels in 1838.

Name: Islands in the Trent System Status: active negotiations Description: The First Nation alleges that title to certain islands in regional municipality of Durham, county of Peterborough Victoria and Northumberland and loss of some of these islands due to flooding by Trent canal and illegal sale.

Name: Crawford Purchase Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found

Description: The First Nation alleged that the purchase of 1783-1784 covering lands in Frontenac, Prince Edward and Hastings counties and United County of Lennox Addington was illegal.

Name: Navy Island Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council alleged that islands were never ceded in the Niagara treaty of 1781.

Name: Niagara Treaty Lands Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council (MTCC) alleged that lands covered by the Niagara treaty of 1781 in the Regional Municipality of Niagara were never properly ceded & that the Mississauga were not compensated for them. This claim was originally submitted in 1986 by the MTCC as a component of the Williams Treaty claim & was subsequently hived off as a separate claim in 1990.

Self-Government Negotiations Anishinabek Nation (Union of Ontario Indians) Final Agreement negotiations on Governance and Education Please see “Other Considerations” for more details.

Litigation Name: Alderville Indian Band et al v. HMTQ in Right of Canada Status: active 12

Court No: T-195-92 Description: The Plaintiffs allege the Crown breached its fiduciary duty, and negotiated in bad faith, regarding the 1923 Williams Treaties. Other First Nations involved as plaintiffs in the litigation include Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Rama, Hiawatha First Nation, and the Mississauga’s of Scugog (Blind River, Ontario). Litigation to resolve the allegation that Canada negotiated the Williams Treaties in bad faith was launched in 2009 by the Alderville First Nation, and is scheduled to continue in 2012.

Name: Curve Lake First Nation et al, and Hiawatha First Nation et al, and Mississauga of Scugog Island First Nation v. HMTQ in Right of Canada Status: closed due to lack of activity on the case Court Number: T-1358-99 Description: The Plaintiffs allege that the construction of Trent Severn Waterway resulted in the flooding of reserve lands held by the Crown for the use and benefit of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs further allege that the Crown breached a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs to hold the reserves for the use and benefit of the Plaintiffs. They maintain that the fiduciary duty was breached when the Crown failed to inform the Plaintiffs of the flooding, failed to consult with the Plaintiffs, and failed to compensate the Plaintiffs for their loss.

Hiawatha First Nation Chief Sandra Moore (appointment expires January 31, 2013) 123 Paudash Street Keene, Ontario, K0L 2G0 Phone: (705) 295-4421 Fax: (705) 295-4424 www.hiawathafirstnation.com

Treaty Area – Southern Ontario treaties for settlement: 1783 to 1815 For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.

Membership Chiefs of Ontario For more information, see “Other Considerations” below.

Specific Claims Name: Islands in the Trent System Status: active negotiations Description: The First Nation alleges that title to certain islands in regional municipality of Durham, county of Peterborough Victoria and Northumberland and loss of some of these islands due to flooding by Trent canal and illegal sale.

Name: Navy Island Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council alleged that islands were never ceded in the Niagara treaty of 1781.

Name: Toronto Purchase Status: settled in 2010 Description: The First Nation alleged that the Toronto Purchase (1787 & 1805) covering lands in the regional municipality of York, was illegal.

Name: Serpent Mounds Status: settled Description: The First Nation alleged that the federal government was in breach of statute for failing to set aside Serpent Mounds as an addition to reserve (43 year delay). They also alleged the improper granting of a lease to the lands persuant to the Public Lands Grants Act. Finally, there was an allegation of a breach of fiduciary obligation as a result of mismanagement by the federal government from 1933-1992.

Name: Damages to Wild Rice Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found

Description: The First Nation alleged that Mississauga title to wild rice, traditional economy, waters and lands beneath the waters. They state there has been destruction of the wild rice and traditional economy due to flooding by the Trent canal.

Litigation Name: Alderville Indian Band et al v. HMTQ in Right of Canada Status: active Court No: T-195-92 Description: The Plaintiffs allege the Crown breached its fiduciary duty, and negotiated in bad faith, regarding the 1923 Williams Treaties. Other First Nations involved as plaintiffs in the litigation include Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Rama, Curve Lake, Hiawatha First Nation, and the Mississauga’s of Scugog (Blind River, Ontario). Litigation to resolve the allegation that Canada negotiated the Williams Treaties in bad faith was launched in 2009 by the Alderville First Nation, and is scheduled to continue in 2012.

Name: Curve Lake First Nation et al, and Hiawatha First Nation et al, and Mississauga of Scugog Island First Nation v. HMTQ in Right of Canada Status: closed due to inactivity Court Number: T-1358-99 Description: The Plaintiffs allege that the construction of Trent Severn Waterway resulted in the flooding of reserve lands held by the Crown for the use and benefit of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs further allege that the Crown breached a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs to hold the reserves for the use and benefit of the Plaintiffs. They maintain that the fiduciary duty was breached when the Crown failed to inform the Plaintiffs of the flooding, failed to consult with the Plaintiffs, and failed to compensate the Plaintiffs for their loss.

Name: R. v. George Henry Howard Status: closed Court No.: 22999 Description: This case involved an Ontario fishing prosecution of an alleged breach of federal fisheries regulations. The courts ruled that the Williams Treaties of 1923 extinguished the First Nation’s treaty fishing rights previously granted under the Treaty of 1818. The SCC dismissed Howard’s appeal on May 12, 1994.

Huron-Wendat Nation Chief Konrad Sioui 255, place Chef-Michel-Laveau Wendake, Québec G0A 4V0 Phone : 418 843-3767 Fax : 418 842-1108

The Huron-Wendat occupied territory south of Georgian Bay and around the Lake Simcoe areas of Ontario. In the 17th century they settled on the banks of the Akiawenrahk (Saint-Charles River, Quebec City) after many displacements.

Anglo-Huron Treaty of 1760 In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the existence of the Anglo-Huron treaty of 1760 through the Sioui decision. The decision came about as some members of the Huron 15

Wendat First Nation were fined for cutting trees in Jacques-Cartier Park. The decision stated that “Although the treaty gives the Hurons the freedom to carry on their customs and religion, it makes no mention of the territory over which these rights may be exercised. As there is no express indication of the territorial scope of the treaty, it must be interpreted by determining the intention of the parties at the time it was concluded. When the historical context is given its full meaning, the interpretation that is called for is that the parties contemplated that the rights guaranteed by the treaty could be exercised over the entire territory frequented by the Hurons in 1760, so long as the carrying on of the customs and rites was not incompatible with the particular use made by the Crown of this territory. The Hurons could not reasonably expect that the use would remain forever as it was in 1760. Jacques-Cartier park is land occupied by the Crown, since the province has set it aside for a specific use. The park falls within the class of conservation parks and is intended to ensure the permanent protection of territory representative of the natural regions of Quebec or natural sites presenting exceptional features, while rendering them accessible to the public for the purposes of education and cross-country recreation. This type of occupancy is not incompatible with the exercise of Huron rites and customs. ”: http://scc.lexum.org/en/1990/1990scr1-1025/1990scr1-1025.html

On June 30, 2011, AANDC and Konrad Sioui, Grand Chief of the Huron-Wendat Nation, signed a memorandum of understanding regarding the establishment of a discussion table on the Anglo-Huron Treaty of 1760. The establishment of the discussion table and the signing of the memorandum of understanding are concrete measures reflecting Canada's acknowledgement of the Anglo-Huron Treaty of 1760, as confirmed by the Sioui ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1990. In this decision, the Supreme Court confirmed the validity of a treaty between the Huron-Wendat and the British Crown in 1760. With this treaty, the Huron-Wendat were assured the freedom to exercise their religion and customs, and to conduct trade with the British. The Supreme Court did not clearly define the scope, content or boundaries of the Anglo- Huron Treaty.

Traditional Land On September 22, 2008, the Huron-Wendat Nation formally declared their intention to submit a comprehensive claim on their “traditional” land designated the Nionwentsïo. They have yet to submit their claim to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AANDC). However, since June 2009, the First Nation is rejecting the Comprehensive claims policy and demanding that Canada negotiate the Huron-Anglo Treaty of 1760. For a news article link, visit: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=91a8678e-0968-43e7-a167- 96ca534f7c6a

In January 2011, the Huron-Wendat Nation published new limits of their traditional territory, now extending into the southern region of the St-Lawrence. http://consultation-forets-proximite.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/pdf/memoires/autochtones/nation-huronne- wendat.pdf#page=35

Specific Claims Name: Rockmont Reserve Status: under assessment: Justice Department preparing legal opinion Description: The Plaintiffs allege AANDC negligence with regard to damages caused over the course of a number of years in Rockmont (wood harvesting). They also argue the illegal disposition of the Rockmont reserve, and the process preceding it.

Name: Lot 1033-77 16

Status: concluded- no legal obligation found Description: The Plaintiffs alleged the loss of use of Lot 1033-77 in the area of Saint Ambroise, Château d’eau, from 1893 to the present.

Name: Quarante Arpents Status: concluded- no legal obligation found Description: The Plaintiffs alleged that the 1904 cession of the reserve was invalid.

Name: Status: concluded- no legal obligation found Description: The Plaintiffs alleged that the 1903 cession of the reserve was invalid.

Litigation Name: The Huron-Wendat Nation of Wendake v. the Crown in Right of Canada Status: active Court number: T-699-09 (Federal Court) Description: The Huron-Wendat allege a breach in obligation relating to the protection of rights flowing from the Treaty of 1760 on its traditional territory, the “Nionwentsïo”. Part of the territory overlaps with the negotiated “Entente de Principe d’Ordre générale” (EPOG) with the Innu of Quebec. The plaintiff alleges that the EPOG was signed without prior and proper consultation and accommodation, that the defendant did not renew the funding for the continuation of historical research aimed at eventually submitting a comprehensive claim with the Department and that Canada refused to confirm and validate the 1760 Treaty (Murrray treaty) through a modern agreement.

Mississauga’s of Scugog Island First Nation Chief Tracy Gauthier 22521 Island Road Port Perry, Ontario L9L 1B6 Phone (905) 985-3337 Fax (905) 985-8828

Treaty Area - Southern Ontario treaties to open the interior: 1815 to 1862 For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.

Membership Union of Ontario Indians Ogemawahj Tribal Council Chiefs of Ontario See “Other Considerations” below for more information.

Name: Brant Tract Purchase Status: settled through negotiations - October 2010 Description: The First Nation alleged that the 1797 treaty for cession of lands at Burlington Bay was illegal, and that the Mississauga Nation retained rights and title to lakeshore at Burlington Bay and 200 acres at Burlington Heights. The other First Nations involved in this claim are: Curve Lake, New Credit, Alderville, Mississauga’s of Scugog Island and Hiawatha.

Name: Navy Island Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council alleged that islands were never ceded in the Niagara treaty of 1781.

Name: Toronto Purchase Status: settled in 2010 Description: The First Nation alleged that the Toronto Purchase (1787 & 1805) covering lands in the regional municipality of York, was illegal.

Self-Government Negotiations Anishinabek Nation (Union of Ontario Indians) Final Agreement negotiations on Governance and Education Please see “Other Considerations” below for more details.

Litigation Name: Alderville Indian Band et al v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada Status: active- may be returned to the Specific Claims process in 2011 Court No: T-195-92 Description: The Plaintiffs allege the Crown breached its fiduciary duty, and negotiated in bad faith, regarding the 1923 Williams Treaties. Other First Nations involved as plaintiffs in the litigation include Curve Lake and Mississauga (Blind River, Ontario). Litigation to resolve the allegation that Canada negotiated the Williams Treaties in bad faith was launched in 2009 by the Alderville First Nation, and is scheduled to continue in 2012.

Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Chief R. Donald Maracle 13 Old York Road, Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory RR1, Desertonto, Ontario, K0K 1X0 Phone: (613) 396-3424 Fax: (613) 396-3627 www.mbq-tmt.org

Treaty Area – Southern Ontario treaties for settlement: 1783 to 1815 For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.

Membership The Six Nations of the Grand River is considered a contact point for the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte as it is for the other twelve individual First Nation communities which fall under the Six Nations and/or Haudenosaunee leadership (more information below under the Six Nations).

Specific Claims Name: Illegal Alienation – Culbertson Tract Status: active litigation Description: The First Nation claims the alienation of 827 acres of the Mohawk tract. The claim is located in the townships of Deseronto and Tyendinaga.

Litigation Name: George Smart, Wayne Maracle, Paul Smart, Alberta Smart, Pete Ladouceur, Nicole Storms, Mohawk Community of Teyndinaga v. Mohawk Council of Tyendinaga, Thomas Maracle, HMTQ in Right of Canada, Laurie Desautels, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Status: active Court No.: T-195-92 Description: The plaintiffs allege the construction and operation of the quarry and asphalt plant by Mr. Maracle, C.P. holder of the subject property and a member of the Tyendinga First Nation, has negatively impacted the residents and environment of the Mohawk of Territory of Tyendinaga. The plaintiffs further allege the defendants breached their constitutional and common law duties to consult with the plaintiffs concerning the construction and operation of the facilities.

Name: Richard Brant et al v. Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Band Council, Attorney General of Canada Status: closed Court No.: 1177⁄01 Description: Dispute over contamination of parcel of reserve lands formerly used for DND purposes. Plaintiffs claim Band Council or HMTQ should be required to clean up the land.

Name: Shawn Michael Brant, Ronald Leslie Brant v. Ohwista Capital Corporation, HMTQ in Right of Canada, Earl R. Hill, R. Donald Maracle personally and as representing the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Status: closed Court No.: 008321⁄96 Description: The plaintiffs are alleging that the defendants (including the Crown) conspired or engaged in actions to interfere with the plaintiff's "lawful" possession of property, although it is not clear on the face of the Statement of Claim whether the property in question is on or off reserve. In addition, the plaintiffs claim that the defendant corporation issued notice to the plaintiffs under the Trespass to Properties Act.

Moose Deer Point First Nation Chief Barron King P.O. Box 119 Mactier, Ontario, P0C 1H0 Phone: (705) 375-5209 Fax: (705) 375-0532

Treaty Area - Williams Treaties of 1923 For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.

Membership 20

Ogemawahj Tribal Council Union of Ontario Indians Chiefs of Ontario See “Other Considerations” below for more information.

Specific Claims Name: 1837 Treaty Claim Status: active litigation Description: The First Nation alleges that promises made in 1837 amounted to a treaty that included: lands for settlement; distribution of presents; and the protection of the Crown.

Self-Government Agreement negotiations Anishinabek Nation Final Agreement negotiations on Governance and Education Please see “Other Considerations” below for more details.

Litigation Name: Moose Deer Point First Nation, Chief Edward Williams suing on his own behalf and on behalf of the members of Moose Deer Point First Nation v. HMTQ in Right of Ontario Status: inactive Court No.: 01-CV-220612CM Description: The claim alleges that the Crown and Canada breached their treaty and fiduciary obligations to the plaintiff by: 1) Failing to provide sufficient land for their reserves and for their traditional economy. 2) Purporting to extinguish their entitlement to presents. 3) Failing to protect their right to hunt and fish in the vicinity of their settlements 4) Purporting to take a surrender of their lands under the Robinson-Huron Treaty or the Williams Treaties without obtaining their assent to the treaty or providing them with any rights or benefits.

Name: Moose Deer Point First Nation v. HMTQ in Right of Ontario Status: abeyance Court No.: T-195-92 Description: This claim was severed from the Alderville First Nation action (currently in the Federal Court) on the understanding that Canada would be added to the Ontario Court Action. This claim relates to the Williams Treaty lands, and the Plaintiffs allege that treaty promises remain unfulfilled.

Six Nations of the Grand River Chief William (Bill) Kenneth Montour 1695 Chiefswood Road PO Box 5000 Ohsweken, Ontario, N0A 1M0 Phone: (519) 445-2201 Fax: (519) 445-4208 www.sixnations.ca

The main reserve is the Six Nations of the Grand River, and is an 18,000 hectare land base located 25 km southwest of the city of Hamilton, between the cities of Brantford, Caledonia and Hagersville, Ontario. Their ancestral homeland is located in the Mohawk River Valley (Ontario and Quebec) and present day states of New York and Vermont. 21

The Six Nations of the Grand River is the contact point for the following local individual First Nation communities which fall under the Six Nations and/or Haudenosaunee leadership.

Bearfoot Onondago Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Tuscarora Delaware Niharondasa Seneca Upper Cayuga Konadaha Seneca Oneida Upper Mohawk Lower Cayuga Onondaga Clear Sky Walker Mohawk Lower Mohawk

The Haudenosaunee Grand Council of Chiefs, also known as the Six Nations Confederacy Council, considers itself to be the central government of the Iroquois Confederacy. They contend that they represent the fifty Chiefs of the Six Nations Confederacy, and assert traditional rights in the southern Ontario region based on the text of the Nanfan treaty. In the past, federal officials have included them in their notification and consultation, however, they are not legally recognized as the official Canadian leadership of the Iroquois.

There is also an American component of the Haudenosaunee Grand Council. It exercises its sovereignty by issuing passports to its citizens travelling abroad. As the territory crosses the Canada/ USA border, many Haudenosaunee citizens work and live on opposite sides and may not recognize either a Canadian or American identity. They also may not view the international border in their territory in the same way that the federal governments of either country do.

Treaty Areas Southern Ontario pre-Confederation treaties to open the interior: 1815 to 1862 and other pre- Confederation treaties. Haudenosaunee Six Nation rights are premised under these pre- Confederation treaties.

Between the Lakes Treaty of 1784 and 1792 This treaty was a land purchase signed by the Mississauga for a tract of land on either side of the Grand River. Governor Haldimand purchased this land for the Six Nations to enhance the original purchase made for them. This treaty is one of over 30 land purchases and treaties known as the Upper Canada Treaties.

Haldimand Proclamation of 1784 The Six Nations and their descendants were granted by decree, lands six miles deep from each side of the Grand River as compensation for their loss of territory as a result of their alliance with the British during the American War of Independence.

Simcoe Patent of 1793 This patent confirms the lands granted to the Six Nations by the Haldimand Proclamation. It specifies that the Six Nations can surrender and dispose of their land only to the Crown. Any other leases, sales or grants to people other than Six Nations shall be unlawful and such intruders evicted.

Nanfan Treaty of 1701 This Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Albany, covers a land base of 800 by 400 miles around the Lake Erie, Huron and Ontario area, as well as a portion of the United States and includes the five nations of the Mohawks, the Onondagas, the Oneida, the Seneca and Cayuga. The Treaty states: 22

“We (the five nations are to have free hunting for us and their heirs and descendants from the Five Nations forever and that free of all disturbances expecting to be protected therein by the Crown of England.”

The Province of Ontario (R. v. Ireland (1990) decision) recognizes the hunting rights under the Nanfan Treaty. To date, Canada does not have a position concerning the standing of this Treaty.

The Haudenosaunee Council and the elected Chief of the Six Nations submitted a claim to the Minister of AANDC regarding their “right to hunt and fish” which was premised in part on the Nanfan Treaty. The Haudenosaunee Six Nations was referred to the Ontario Government for remedy, as hunting and fishing issues are the responsibility of the province.

The Jay Treaty 1794 – Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation Since its conclusion in 1794, Aboriginal Peoples have been guaranteed the right to trade and travel between the United States and Canada. This right is recognized in Article III of the Treaty, and subsequent laws of the United States that stem from this Treaty. Canadian-born people with at least 50% Aboriginal blood can enter, live in, and work in the United States without immigration restrictions, and they cannot be deported for any reason. Canada has not passed legislation to implement Article III of the Jay Treaty.

*Atlas of Canada History of Claims and Negotiations with the Six Nations Prior to 2006, the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario held discussions with the Elected Chief and Council of the Six Nations in an attempt to achieve out-of-court resolution on various claims. However, this process was interrupted in February of 2006 when a group of Six Nations protesters took occupation in a residential building site in Caledonia known as the Douglas Creed Estates. When the situation escalated, the discussion table was extended to include the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council (HCC). At this time, a Special Federal Representative and Senior Federal Negotiator were appointed.

The Elected Chief and Council (who are elected under the Indian Act) delegated the lead on resolving matters tied to the Douglas Creek Estates to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council. Negotiations on other claims continued to include the HCC, who has retained the lead at the negotiating table. The Elected Chief and Council are also represented at the negotiations by a member or members of the Council.

With regard to the litigation process, the elected Chief and Council of the Six Nations and the Haudenosaunee Grand Council are well informed and have an established capacity. It is recommended that any consultation proceed with respect for their negotiating experience, as well as their consultation knowledge and capacity. When planning consultation, federal officials should be approaching both the elected Chief and Council and the Haudenosaunee Council regarding any federal engagement. While the Haudenosaunee Development Insitute (HDI) maintains that the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs have legislated them to represent their interests on development issues, the federal government is not aware of any legal authority in place for HDI to do so.

Specific Claims and Negotiations Six Nations of the Grand River have many specific claims filed with Canada, not all of which are currently active. From the 1980s to the mid-1990s, Six Nations submitted 29 specific claims to Canada. In 2007 Canada made an offer to Haudenosaunee Six Nations for settlement of 4 claims: Grand River Navigation Company Investment; Block 5 (Moulton Township); Welland Canada Flooding and the Burtch Tracts. The offer was not accepted and negotiations have not continued since 2008. The specific claims are grouped according to areas below:

The Haldimand Tract In general, Six Nations' claims deal with past grievances that relate to lands known as the Haldimand Tract. These lands were set aside for Six Nations when they came from New York to Canada in 1784 as allies of the Crown after the American Revolution. A link to a map and information is: http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/HaldProc.htm

Today, the Six Nations reserve covers approximately 50,000 acres of the original million acre tract. The Haudenosaunee/Six nations claims that over the past two centuries, thousands of acres were stolen, improperly transferred to non-Aboriginals, or sold without proper compensation. Canada’s negotiation of Six Nations’ claims is an out-of-court process. In 1999, 2000 and 2001, all three parties-Six Nations, the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada-turned from active litigation to talks to find common ground upon which to proceed with some form of out-of-court resolution.

While these efforts did not produce results, other efforts have been made since 2004. The Government of Canada began exploratory discussions with the Six Nations' Elected Chief and Council and the Province of Ontario to address the claims. These discussions were interrupted when a group of Six Nations protesters occupied the then privately owned Douglas Creek Estates site in Caledonia.

There have been no formal negotiation sessions since October 8, 2009. Canada continues to engage in bilateral and trilateral exploratory discussions with representatives from Ontario and Six Nations (both the elected Chief and Council and the Haudenosaunee Council). The purpose of these discussions has been to explore means to redefine the negotiation process.

The Culbertson Tract Claim 24

This claim concerns the easterly most First Nation, the Mohawk of the Bay of Quinte. The Culbertson Tract claim relates to a land transaction that took place in 1793. In recognition of military alliance of the Mohawk people during the American Revolution, a tract of land the size of a township was set aside for the Six Nations under a formal treaty issued by Lt.-Gov. John Graves Simcoe.

Under the terms of the treaty, if the lands were to fall into the hands of non-Six Nations interests, the Crown promised to "dispossess and evict" the trespassers from the lands and restore the occupied lands to Six Nations possession.

The Mohawk of the Bay of Quinte’s claim alleges that approximately 827 acres, now located in the townships of Desoronto and Tyendinaga, was improperly taken from the First Nation in 1837. Specific claim negotiations with Canada closed in 2008, and the issue is now in litigation with the Ontario Federal Court since 2010. However, the Mohawk are not asking the court to determine the validity of their claim to the Tract, but rather they are seeking an order that Canada is in breach of fiduciary duty and other legal duties to negotiate in good faith under the Specific Claims Branch Policy. If the Mohawk choose to claim title to the land, they can do so through AANDC’s Special Claims process.

Litigation Name: Six Nations Elected Council on its own behalf and on behalf of the Six Nations of the Grand River v. The Corporation of the City of Brantford Status: active Court No: CV-08-361454 Description: The Plaintiffs seek various declarations pertaining to Ontario and/or the City of Brantford’s constitutional duty to consult with and accommodate the Six Nations of the Grand River before considering or undertaking any planning activities and disposition of lands which could potentially affect the interests of the Six Nations of the Grand River.

Name: Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians et al. – Superior Court of Justice Status: active Court No.: 406/95 Description: The Plaintiffs claims that an accounting of all Six Nations' assets including money and real property that was to be held in trust by the Crown for the benefit of the Six Nations since 1784. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration by the Court that the Defendants are in breached of their fiduciary duties towards the Plaintiff, and are liable for replacing all assets or the value of all assets found to be missing, with compound interest.

Name: Aaron Detlor; the Haudenosaunee Development Institute v. the Corporation of the City of Brantford – Superior Court of Justice Status: active Court No.: CV-08-356782 Description: The Applicants Aaron Detlor and the Haudenosaunee Development Institute intend to question the constitutional validity and applicability of By-laws 63-2008 and 64-2008 of the City of Brantford Municipal Code, made under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25.

Name: King Chief ah’she hodeeheehonto v. HMTQ in Right of Canada Status: active Court No.: 10-20244 JR

Description: This is a Notice of Constitutional Question which seems to involve an argument involving Six Nations that among other things relies on the Two Row Wampum Treaty and other Aboriginal and treaty rights, as protection from the jurisdictional obligation to follow Canada’s laws and other obligatory requirements.

Unitlateral Protocols Six Nations of the Grand River Land Use Consultation and Accommodation Policy The Six Nations of the Grand River published a consultation and accommodation policy in 2009. The Six Nations request that the Crown, developers and municipalities consult in good faith to obtain free and informed consent prior to approval of any projects affecting their interests. It is recommended that this protocol be reviewed in advance of consultation to better understand First Nation expectations. However, the federal government does not endorse its content. The link to the protocol is: http://www.sixnations.ca/admConsultationAccomodationPolicy.pdf

The Development Protocol of the Haudenosaunee Development Institute The Haudendosaunee Development Institute states that the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs have legislated the Institute to represent their interests in the development of lands within areas of Haudenosaunee jurisdiction. They maintain that this includes, but is not limited to, the land prescribed by the Haldimand Proclamation and the 1701 Treaty area. It is recommended that this protocol be reviewed in advance of consultation to better understand First Nation expectations. However, the federal government does not endorse its content. The link to the protocol and further information is: www.haudenosauneeconfederacy.ca/HDI/aboutus.html

Wahta Mohawks Chief Blain Commandant P.O. Box 260 Bala, Ontario, P0C 1A0 Phone: (705) 762-2354 Fax: (705) 762-2376 www.wahta.ca

Treaty Area The Wahta Mokawks are located in the Williams Treaties region, but not signatories. They maintain that their territory was established in 1881 when a group of Protestant Mohawks moved from Oka, Quebec, due to religious, civil and economic differences.

Membership Chiefs of Ontario Association of Iroquois & Allied Indians See “Other Considerations” below for more information.

Specific Claims Name: Gibson Status: settled through negotiations Description: The Mohawks of Gibson relocated to Gibson Township from Oka, Quebec in 1881, due to land problems between the Indians and the Seminary of St. Sulpice. A total of 25,000 acres of land was acquired from Ontario to establish the reserve. By 1928, when it was

apparent that not all of the Oka Indians relocated to Gibson, Canada returned 10,500 acres to the province without surrender by, or compensation to, the Gibson Indians.

Other Considerations

Aboriginal Rights Assertions: Non-Status Groups

Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation (KNFN) Chief Kris Nahrgang P.O. Box 1432 Lakefield, Ontario KOL 2H0 Phone: (705) 654-4661

Membership This community traces its ancestry back to a Mississauga Band originally consisting of what are now called the Beausoleil, and the Chippewas of Mnjikaning (Rama) and Georgina Island.

Location The Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation (KNFN) community is located in and around the Burleigh Falls area of Ontario. This area is located south of the Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park, in the counties of Durham and Kawartha Lakes.

Treaty Area This community is located outside the boundaries of the Williams Treaties of 1923, and they maintain that they were not a party to these Treaties. They state that they retain their treaty rights to hunt and fish which were assured them under the Rice Lake Treaty (Treaty no. 20) of 1818.

In the case R v. Johnson (2002), the Court confirmed the existence of an Indian community existing in the Burleigh Falls area, now known as the Kawartha Nishnawbe. The Court also confirmed that members of the community are descendants of the Chippewa and Mississauga who signed Treaty number 20 in 1818, and who were a separate community from Curve Lake First Nation prior to 1923, when the William’s Treaty was signed.

Asserted Rights and Harvesting Area The Kawartha Nishnawbe assert that they exercise Treaty and Aboriginal rights including hunting and fishing rights over a territory extending from Kingston to the Georgian Bay area. This assertion was submitted in a letter to the Simcoe County Council in August of 2009. The letter was sent in protest of proposed Dump site 41 in Tiny Township, which KNFN argued would have the potential to affect a large portion of water and land which they consider their traditional territory. In their statement they note:

“following the Johnson decision, the Government of Ontario negotiated an agreement with Kawartha Nishnawbe which recognizes that our members continue to hold constitutionally protected harvesting rights throughout the traditional territory of the Mississauga Nation”.

The link to the letter is: http://stopdumpsite41.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/KN.ltr.DS41.Aug.20.09.pdf 27

In the R v. Johnson court record it is noted that the Williams Treaty is very specific as to who was included, stating that the signatories were “the undersigned chiefs and headsmen on their own behalf and on behalf of all the Indians they represent.” The Court agreed that records showed that the Kawartha Nishnawbe Chief of the time, Jack Jacobs was not allowed to participate in the negotiations in 1923, nor is he listed as a signatory to the Treaties. Therefore, their Aboriginal right to fish should not have been restricted without consultation.

Aboriginal Rights Assertions: the Métis The inclusion of the Métis in s.35 represents Canada’s commitment to recognize and value their distinctive cultures, which can only survive if they are protected along with other Aboriginal communities. In 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed Métis rights under s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, in the Sault St. Marie area, in the Powley decision. For more information on the Powley decision visit the following link: www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014419

The Office of the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians (OFI) is aware that the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO), its regional and community councils, have asserted a Métis right to harvest in a large section of the province.

The provincial government has accommodated Métis rights on a regional basis within Métis harvesting territories identified by the MNO. These accommodations are based on credible Métis rights assertions. An interim agreement (2004) between the MNO and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) recognizes the MNO’s Harvest Card system. This means that Harvester’s Certificate holders engage in traditional Métis harvest activities within identified Métis traditional territories across the province. For a map of Métis traditional harvesting territories visit the MNO website at: http://www.metisnation.org/harvesting/harvesting-map.aspx

The MNO maintains that Aboriginal ‘rights-holders’ are Métis communities which are collectively represented through the MNO and its Community Councils. In partnership with community councils, MNO has established a consultation process. The MNO has published regional consultation protocols on their website which offer pre-consultation stage instructions on engaging the Métis through their community councils (via the consultation committee made up of an MNO regional councilor, a community councilor representative and a Captain of the Hunt). A list of the community councils is also available on their website: www.metisnation.org. Note however, that this organization does not represent all Métis in Ontario.

Métis Nation of Ontario Métis Consultation Unit is located within the MNO head office. 500 Old St. Patrick Street, Unit D Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 9G4 Phone: (613) 798-1488 Fax: (613) 725-4225

Métis National Council 350 Sparks Street, Suite 201 Ottawa, Ontario, K1R 7S8 Phone: (613) 232-3216 Fax: (613) 232-4262 www.metisnation.ca

For an indication of the population in Ontario who self-identify as Métis, visit the Statistics Canada website. The Ontario map indicates populations as small as 250 up to over 2,000 within its borders. http://geodepot.statcan.gc.ca/2006/13011619/200805130120090313011619/16181522091403090112_13011619 /151401021518090709140112_201520011213052009190904161516_0503-eng.pdf

Métis Litigation in Ontario Name: HMTQ in Right of Canada v. Michel Blais Status: active Court No.: 08-213 Description: The Application is charged with unlawfully harvesting forest resources in a Crown forest without a license contrary to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994. The Applicant, a Métis, asserts that he is an Aboriginal person within the meaning of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and that the alleged harvesting occurred in lands set apart for the Batchewana Band pursuant to the Robinson Treaty of 1850. He claims that the Batchewana First Nation may permit Métis persons to exercise the same Aboriginal and treaty rights as its members pursuant to this treaty.

Name: HMTQ in Right of Canada v. Denis Larabie Status: active Court No.: n/a Description: The defendant has been charged for unlawfully hunting cow and bull moose without a license and possessing killed wildlife contrary to s.6 (1)(a) and s.12 of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. The defendant identifies himself as Métis and claims that he was exercising his Aboriginal and/or treaty right by hunting within his traditional territory in Ontario.

Name: HMTQ in Right of Canada, Laurie Desautels v. Henry Wetelainen Jr. Status: active Court No.: CV-08-151 Description: The defendant, Henry Wetelainen Jr., intends to question the constitutional validity of sections 28, 31 and 40 of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (1994), S.O. 1994, c. 25 and Ontario Regulation 167/95, as amended, in relation to an act or omission of the government of Ontario. The defendant claims that he was exercising Aboriginal and treaty rights afforded by the Adhesion to Treaty 3, by harvesting wood within his traditional territory. He claims that he is a Métis/Non-Status Indian and that the imposition of payment for harvesting or use of the forest resource is an infringement and violates is constitutional rights.

Name: Ministry of Natural Resources v. Kenneth Sr. Paquette Status: active Court No.: to be determined Description: This Notice of Constitutional Question relates to a provincial prosecution involving a charge pertaining to hunting moose. The Defendant intends to assert his s. 35 right as a Métis person to hunt moose, and he also intends to seek a Charter remedy under s. 15 of the Charter.

Court Decisions concerning Métis in Ontario R. v. Laurin, Lemieux, Lemieux - 2007 Court No.: ONCJ 265

Three Métis defendants were charged with fishing violations and claimed that the decision of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) to prosecute them violated the terms of the Interim 29

Agreement (2004) between the MNR and the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO). As the defendants were indeed Harvester Card holders authorized to fish in the Mattawa/Nipissing territory, therefore, they were entitled to the exemption in the agreement.

The Court concluded that laying of charges against any valid Harvester Card holder who is harvesting in the territory designated on the card within 2 years of the 2004 agreement was a breach. The Interim Agreement itself was silent as to any geographic limitations. There was no mention of the Agreement only applying north and east of Sudbury. Further, the reliance on Harvester Cards, which explicitly contained the territorial designation of the cardholder, signified that the MNR accepted such designations for the purpose of the agreement. The Court was clear to note that this case did not make any ruling regarding the merits of any claim that the Mattawa/Nipissing area contains section 35 rights bearing Métis communities.

Membership First Nations may or may not delegate certain authority and/or powers to tribal councils to administer programs, funding and/or services on their behalf. The best source of information with respect to consultation is though individual First Nations themselves.

Chippewa Tri-Council This council is an alliance of three First Nation communities composed of the: Beausoleil First Nation- located on Christina Island in Georgian Bay Georgina Island First Nation- located on Georgina Island in Lake Simcoe Rama Mnjikanning First Nation-located near Orillia There is not an official location for this council. Please contact the Chief of each First Nation individually.

Chiefs of Ontario The Chiefs of Ontario is a coordinating body for 133 First Nation communities in Ontario. The main objective of this body is to facilitate the discussion, planning, implementation and evaluation of all local, regional and national matters affecting its members. www.chiefs-of-ontario.org

Administrative Office: Political Office: 111 Peter Street, Suite 804 Fort William First Nation Toronto, Ontario, M5V 2H1 RR 4, Suite 101, 9- Anemki Drive Phone: (416) 597-1266 Thunder Bay, Ontario, P7J 1A5 Fax: (416) 597-8365 Phone: (807) 626-9339 Fax: (807) 626-9404

The Union of Ontario Indians (UOI) The UOI is a political advocate for approximately 40 member First Nations across Ontario. Its headquarters is located on Nipissing First Nation, just outside of North Bay Ontario, and has satellite offices in Thunder Bay, Curve Lake First Nation and Munsee-Delaware First Nation. The UOI delivers a variety of programs and services. The Anishinabek Nation incorporated the Union of Ontario Indians (UOI) as its secretariat in 1949. Head Office: 1 Miigizi Mikan Thunder Bay North Bay, Ontario, P1B 8J8 300 Anemki Place Phone: (705) 497-9127 Thunder Bay, Ontario, P7J 1H9 30

Fax: (705) 497-9135 Phone: (807) 623-8887

Ogemawahj Tribal Council The Council provides professional services through the pooling of six First Nation member’s resources. 5984 Rama Road P.O. Box 46 Rama, Ontario, L0K 1T0 Phone: (705) 329-2511 Fax: (705) 329-2509 www.ogemawahj.on.ca

Treaty Areas

Treaties of Southern Ontario- The Upper Canada Treaties There are several treaty making eras which impact the province of Ontario. These eras are known as the Upper Canada Land Surrenders from 1764 to 1862. The Upper Canada Land Surrenders are seen as treaties which transfer all Aboriginal rights and title to the Crown in exchange for one-time payments. In light of the evolution of Aboriginal law over the past twenty years, this position may not be as clear as believed. There may be residual rights remaining especially relating to hunting and fishing.

*Atlas of Canada

1764-1782 – Early Land Surrenders The Royal Proclamation of 1763 established the protection from encroachment of an Aboriginal territory outside of the colonial boundaries. Rules and protocols for the acquisition of Aboriginal lands by Crown officials were set out and became the basis for all future land treaties. In response to military and defensive needs around the Great Lakes, the Indian Department negotiated several land surrender treaties in the Niagara region. 31

1783-1815- Treaties for Settlement As part of the plan to resettle some 30,000 United Empire Loyalists who refused to accept American rule, and fled to Montreal, the Indian Department undertook a series of land surrenders west of the Ottawa River with the Mississauga and the Chippewa of the southern Great Lakes.

1815-1862- Treaties to Open the Interior After the war of 1812, the colonial administration of Upper Canada focused on greater settlement of the colony. The Indian Department completed the last of the over 30 Upper Canada Land Surrenders around the Kawartha, Georgian Bay, and the Rideau and Ottawa Rivers. All of this land which today is known as Southern Ontario, was ceded to the Crown.

Southern Ontario Treaty Making After the Upper Canada Land Surrenders While the protocols for surrenders established in 1763 by the Royal Proclamation, were largely followed by the Indian Department, several were problematic due to unsigned documents, vague descriptions or non-existent payments. In response, the province of Ontario and Canada enlisted a commission in 1916 to examine these issues. The Commission recommended that new treaties be made, and appointed A.S. Williams who negotiated with the Ojibway in 1923.

These Treaties were inented to address the problem of the “northern hunting grounds” north of Lake Simcoe and south of Lake Nipissing. They also included a tract of land which had been included in the Robinson-Huron treaty. Contrary to the terms of the Robinson Treaties in Ontario (1850) and the more recent numbered treaties in the west, the Williams Treaties were cash for land deals. Aboriginal (Ojibway) signatories surrendered all of their rights and benefits to the Crown on lands in central Ontario and the northern shore of Lake Ontario. The Potawatomi and the Mississaugas of the New Credit were not involved in these negotiations.

Since the signing of these treaties, the surrender of the rights to hunt and fish has been debated. In 1994, the Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Howard, decided that the seven First Nations (three Chippewas -Georgina Island, Mnjikaning and Beausoleil) and four Mississauga Curve Lake, Alderville, Scugog and Hiawatha) had knowingly surrendered their hunting, fishing and trapping rights when they had agreed to the Williams Treaties.

*Atlas of Canada Map - The treaty boundaries on the above maps for Southern Ontario are approximate. The treaty areas listed for Aboriginal communities are based on the geographic location of each First Nation.

However, an overlapping of the Williams Treaty with other treaties that did not extinguish rights to hunt and fish continues to be problematic. For example, when negotiating the Rice Lake Treaty of 1818, the Deputy Superintendent General agreed to pass on to the King a request for “an equal right to fish and hunt” on ceded lands. While the surrender itself has not been found, documentation exists that the Crown accepted the agreement. Currently, First Nations have entered litigation arguing that the Crown negotiated the William’s Treaties in bad faith. The Alderville First Nation along with Curve Lake First Nation and the Mississauga launched litigation in 2009, and it is scheduled to continue in 2012.

Self Government Agreement Negotiations Anishinabek Nation (Union of Ontario Indians) Final Agreement Negotiations on Governance and Education

In 1995, the Anishinabek Nation’s Grand Council authorized its secretariat arm, the Union of Ontario Indians (UOI), to begin self-government negotiations with Canada. Negotiations toward agreements in the areas of education and governance began in 1998.

An agreement-in-principle (AIP) on education was signed in November 2002. In February 2007, the parties signed the AIP with respect to governance. Final agreement negotiations are proceeding in parallel, and together these agreements would mark important steps toward the Anishinabek Nation’s long-term objective of supporting participating First Nations to achieve greater autonomy.

The governance final agreement will provide the framework for the establishment of the Anishinabek Nation government and for the recognition of participating First nation lawmaking

authority in four core governance areas: leadership selection, citizenship, culture and language, and management and operations of government.

The education final agreement (which is nearing conclusion) authorized the parties to negotiate a final agreement with respect to lawmaking authority for primary, elementary and secondary education for on-reserve members, and to administer AANDC’s post-secondary education assistance program. The Province of Ontario is not a party to these negotiations but is engaged in tripartite discussions on particular issues that would assist in the implementation of the final agreement.

A draft Anishinabek Nation Constitution (“Ngo Dwe Waangizid Anishinaabe”) is scheduled to go to a vote at the Grand Council Assembly in June of 2012. Individual First nation constitutions are also being developed. In order to prepare for self-government in member communities, the Union of Ontario Indians has undertaken a range of activities including a Community Engagement Strategy, the development of an appeal and redress process, as well as a number of capacity development activities.

Provincial guidelines Under its responsibility to promote stronger Aboriginal relationships, the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has produced Draft Guidelines on Consultation with Aboriginal Peoples Related to Aboriginal Rights and Treaty Rights. These guidelines are for use by ministries who seek input from key First Nations and Métis organizations, all Ontario First Nations and selected non-Aboriginal stakeholders. To review the guidelines, visit: http://www.aboriginalaffairs.gov.on.ca/english/policy/draftconsultjune2006.pdf

Martin, Nancy

Subject: FW: Request for consultation information - Yonge Street Aquifer Well Capacity Restoration

From: Ruffolo, Cristina [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 4:26 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Silverstone, Tammy; Broughton, Katrina Subject: Request for consultation information - Yonge Street Aquifer Well Capacity Restoration

Good afternoon, Thank you for your June 18, 2012 letter regarding established and potential Aboriginal and treaty rights in the vicinity of the Yonge Street Aquifer Well Capacity Restoration Class EA. We have reviewed the information provided and as a result of your letter, we are adding the Wahta Mohawks First Nations to the project contact list to receive future notification regarding this project.

Cristina M. Ruffolo, B.E.S, B.A Special Project Technologist Capital Planning & Delivery Branch Environmental Services Department

Regional Municipality of York 17250 Yonge Street, Newmarket, ON L3Y 6Z1 T: (905) 830-4444 ext. 5519 F: (905) 830-6927 Toll Free: 1-877-464-YORK  Please consider the environment before printing this email

ALDERVILLE FIRST NATION Chief: James R. Marsden Councillor: Dave Mowat P.O. Box 46 Councillor: Pam Crowe 11696 Second Line Councillor: Wes Marsden Jr. Roseneath, Ontario K0K 2X0 Councillor: Randall Smoke

June 5th, 2012

Att: Tammy Silverstone, M.Eng., P.Eng.

Re: Notice of Class EA Study Commencement and Public Information Centre Dates Yonge Street Aquifer Well Capacity Restoration Project Municipal Class Environmental Assessment and Public Information Centres

Dear Tammy,

Thank you for your consultation request to Alderville First Nation regarding the Yonge Street Aquifer Well Capacity Restoration Project, which is being proposed within our Traditional and Treaty Territory. We appreciate the fact that the Regional Municipality of York, recognizes the importance of First Nations Consultation and that your office is conforming to the requirements within the Duty to Consult Process.

As per the Alderville First Nation Consultation Protocol, your proposed project is deemed a level 3, having minimal potential to impact our First Nations’ rights, therefore, please keep Alderville apprised of any archaeological findings, burial sites or any environmental impacts, should any occur, while this study is taking place.

Although we may not always have representation at all stakeholders meetings, it is our wish to be kept apprised throughout all phases of this project. I can be contacted at the mailing address above or electronically via email, at the email address below.

In good faith and respect,

Dave Simpson [email protected] Lands and Resources Communications Officer Tele: (905) 352-2662 Alderville First Nation Fax: (905) 352-3242