University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies Master of Public Policy Capstone Projects

2017-09-07 Should Alberta Incorporate the Meadow Lake Model of Forest Sector Development into Its Aboriginal Economic Partnerships Program?

Dumoe, Jonah

Dumoe, Jonah. (2017). Should Alberta Incorporate the Meadow Lake Model of Forest Sector Development into Its Aboriginal Economic Partnerships Program? (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/106798 master thesis

Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca

MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY CAPSTONE PROJECT

Title: Should Alberta Incorporate the Meadow Lake Model of Forest Sector Development into Its Aboriginal Economic Partnerships Program?

Submitted by: Jonah S. Dumoe

Approved by Supervisor: Bev Dahlby

Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of PPOL 623 and completion of the requirements for the Master of Public Policy (MPP) degree

Capstone Approval Page

The undersigned, being the Capstone Project Supervisor, declares that

Student Name: ______Jonah S. Dumoe

has successfully completed the Capstone Project within the

Capstone Course PPOL 623 A&B

______Bev Dahlby (Name of supervisor)

______September 7, 2017 (Supervisor’s Signature) (Date)

I | Page

II | Page

Acknowledgements

First, I want to acknowledge Dr. Bev Dahlby for supervising this Capstone Project, and his valuable feedback and comments. Second, I want to recognize Dr. Stephen Wyatt at the Universite’ de Moncton for providing me the opportunity to explore the Meadow Lake case, and for providing directions, valuable comments, and feedback during the process.

III | Page

Table of Contents

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 1. Introduction ...... 2 2. OVERVIEW OF ALBERTA ABORIGINAL ECONOMIC INITIATIVES ...... 4 3. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 5 4. METHODOLOGY ...... 6 5. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 8 6. THE MEADOW LAKE CASE STUDY ...... 11 6.1 CHRONOLOGY OF MEADOW LAKE FOREST SECTOR DEVELOPMENT ...... 12 6.2 GOVERNANCE ...... 14 6.2.1 Governance structure of the Meadow Lake Tribal Council ...... 14 6.2.2 Forest Sector Governance and Business Joint Venture Activities ...... 16 6.3 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND THE CANOE LAKE CRISIS ...... 24 6.4 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES FROM MLTC BUSINESS OPERATIONS ...... 29 7.1 POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR ALBERTA ...... 38 8.1 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 41 9.1 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 44 REFERENCES ...... 46 APPENDIX ...... 50

IV | Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This research is an analysis of a case study involving nine First Nations of the Meadow Lake Tribal Council’s (MLTC) in northwestern . It explores how these First Nations have managed to exercise self‐determination over resource development operations in their traditional territories. Through commercial means, they have created jobs, developed businesses, and thereby improved the well‐being of their communities.

The Meadow lake case study is relevant to Alberta because, the Province has been providing annual grants to its First Nations with a goal to improve living conditions in these communities. However, the poor living conditions of these people demonstrates otherwise. In the absence of proper evaluation, government‐funded programs run the risk of being viewed as entitlements. Therefore, this paper suggests that Alberta could adopt the MLTC model of resource development as an alternative to promote economic development in First Nation communities. The timing is crucial because Alberta is in the process of renewing its consultation process with First Nation people regarding resource development.

For this model to be successful, the paper recommends two actions: one to be taken by the Government of Alberta, and the other by First Nation leaderships in Alberta. These actions will put pressure on First Nations to approach resource development as a wealth‐creating effort as opposed to merely receiving payouts for environmental and cultural impacts.

1. Encourage bilateral negotiations between resource companies and the First Nations without the interference of government agencies.

2. Exploit business opportunities through local resource development and build around these as anchors to spin off other businesses at the levels of the Tribal Council and individual First Nations.

1 | Page

1. Introduction

Addressing the dismal socio‐economic status of ’s First Nations presents a

policy challenge. Researchers at Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) measure

and compare the well‐being of First Nation communities with non‐Aboriginal communities

using a Community Well‐being Index (CWB). On the national level, between 2006 and

2011, the average CWB for First Nations changed by only 1 point compared to non‐

Aboriginal communities at 1.9 points (INAC, 2015). During the same period, First Nations performed below non‐Aboriginal communities as follows: income (25 points), housing (23 points), education (17 points), and labor force activities (16 points) (INAC, 2015).

On the provincial level, First Nation communities in Alberta performed below that of non‐Aboriginal communities on similar CWB indicators. In 2011, 35% of First Nations in

Alberta lived in crowded homes (more than one per room) compared to non‐Aboriginal communities at 4% (INAC, 2016). Also in 2011, 53.6% of First Nations living on reserve lived in homes that needed repair compared to non‐Aboriginal communities at 6.1%. In the same year, employment among First Nations living on reserve without formal education was 30.9% compared to 70.4% for non‐Aboriginal population (INAC, 2016).

These widening gaps have not gone unnoticed by the Government of Alberta. The

Ministry of Indigenous Relations, through its Aboriginal Economic Initiatives, runs four programs that provide multiple funding to Aboriginal communities‐these will be explored later. However, this paper focuses mainly on the Economic Partnerships Program. The program’s goal is to promote opportunities for economic development in Aboriginal communities. Accordingly, it identifies specific goals that include creating jobs and

2 | Page

promoting business development in Aboriginal communities.1 However, the poor living

conditions of Alberta’s Aboriginal peoples proves otherwise. Also, the absence of proper

evaluation presents a challenge for this type of program. Additionally, such a government‐

funded program, while well‐intended, may run the risk of being viewed as entitlements due

to its annual financial commitment. For First Nations who are experiencing widespread

resource development in their traditional territories, creating opportunities for them to

create wealth through their own initiatives may be another option to explore.

If Alberta hopes to increase the participation of its First Nation people in the

economy, it should consider adopting another program model from its closest neighbor

Saskatchewan. The success of nine First Nations within the Meadow Lake Tribal Council

(MLTC) in neighboring Saskatchewan has proven, through their model of forest sector

development, two things that could be relevant to Alberta. One, First Nations can

independently improve their economic well‐being by participating in resource

development occurring in their traditional territories. Two, First Nations and resource

companies are more likely to resolve resource disputes through internal consultations and

bilateral negotiations than they would under government‐controlled arrangements.

Against this backdrop, this paper tries to answer one fundamental question. That is,

should Alberta incorporate the Meadow Lake Model of Forest Sector development into its

Aboriginal Economic Partnerships Program? An answer to this question could be relevant to

Alberta’s ongoing Aboriginal consultation renewal process. The goal is twofold: First, to

1 Government of Alberta. “Aboriginal Economic Partnerships program”. Accessed August 13, 2017. http://indigenous.alberta.ca/Economic‐Partnerships‐Program.cfm.

3 | Page

better understand how First Nations can be made better off from resource development

projects occurring in their traditional territories, and second, to understand the factors that

ensure certainty in implementing resource development projects in traditional territories.

2. OVERVIEW OF ALBERTA ABORIGINAL ECONOMIC INITIATIVES

The Ministry of Aboriginal Relations runs four programs under its Aboriginal

Economic Initiatives. These are Aboriginal Business Investment Fund (ABIF), Aboriginal

Economic Partnerships Program (AEPP), Employment Partnerships Program (EPP), and

Urban Initiatives Program (UIP). These programs provide grants to a range of different initiatives in Aboriginal communities. However, this paper focuses on the Aboriginal

Economic Partnerships Program because the program’s main goal is to promote economic opportunities in Aboriginal communities.2 Table 1.1 shows a 5‐year breakdown of the

Economic Partnerships Program.

Table 1.1 Annual Breakdown of Aboriginal Economic Partnerships Program

Program Name Fiscal Year Aboriginal Economic Partnership program 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17 Annual Funding (in Million) 2.71 million 2.2 million 2.0 million 2.45 million 2.8 million Number of Projects Funded 49 51 41 44 55 Data in Table 1.1 was obtained from Indigenous Relations Alberta. http://indigenous.alberta.ca/920.cfm.

Over the five‐year period 2012‐2017, the Government of Alberta spent a total of 12.16

million on the Aboriginal Economic Partnerships Program. While this program has been

2 Ibid.

4 | Page

funding economic development in Aboriginal communities, the poor living conditions of

these people demonstrate that it has not been very effective.

3. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

This study utilizes an analytical framework similar to the one used in Flanagan

(2016). Several empirical research studies have identified a few factors that are critical to improving social and economic outcomes in First Nation communities. These factors are associated with high Community Well‐being scores (Flanagan, 2016; INAC, 2013). The

Community Well‐Being (CWB) Index is developed by researchers at Indigenous and

Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), which uses census data and is based on four factors: education (high school and university), housing (quantity and quality), labour force

(participation and employment) and income (total per capita) (INAC, 2016).

According to INAC, the Community Well‐being Index is a means of measuring socio‐ economic well‐being in First Nations, Inuit and non‐Aboriginal communities. The CWB

Index combines data on income, education, housing and labour force activity into well‐ being scores for most communities in Canada. These scores are used to compare well‐being across First Nations and Inuit communities with the well‐being of non‐Aboriginal communities. To put simply, the CWB is a measure of the standard of living and quality of life for all Canadian communities, including First Nations (INAC, 2015; O’Sullivan and

McHardy, 2007). The scores range from 0‐100, and a high score on a specific indicator means that a community has attained a high level of economic well‐being.

5 | Page

The relevance of this framework is to identify whether the factors that are

associated with high CWB scores are inherent in the Meadow Lake model of forest sector

development. If so, then a case can be made that incorporating the Meadow Lake model

into Alberta’s Aboriginal Economic Partnerships Program could be a valuable addition to the overall goal of encouraging First Nation people to participate in the economy and improve their well‐beings.

4. METHODOLOGY

The CWB Index ranges from 0 ‐100, and is calculated every five years by researchers

at INAC, based on Statistics Canada census data. The time series extends back to the 1981

census, with updates every five years except for the 1986 census. Data from 1981, 1991,

1996, 2001, and 2006 were based on Canada’s census of population. In 2011, the federal

government made changes, which lead to the voluntary the National Household Survey

(NHS). The survey was sent to every household in First Nations communities and the

response rate was 82%, which was higher than responses from non‐First Nation

households (Flanagan, 2016).

The CWB Index has its limitations. It arbitrarily assigns equal weight to all four measures. Also, the methodology does not account for First Nations with less than 100 in

population. Another limitation is that the CWB measures the condition of First Nations

living on reserve, but fails to account for those who live off reserve and the latter accounts

for 47.5% of all status Indians according to the 2011 census data (INAC, 2014). However,

6 | Page

the latter limitation has minimum effect on this analysis because the paper focuses on First

Nations who live in traditional territories.

Regression analysis has also been used to observe positive trends between high

CWB scores and the factors that are critical to improving social and economic well‐being in

First Nation communities. However, the most popular criticism of this methodology is that

correlation does not necessary mean causality. While empirical evidences show some correlations between these factors and high CWB scores, it cannot be categorically concluded that these success factors are responsible for high CWB scores. Nevertheless, correlations may have some utility in explaining the well‐being in First Nation communities. For example, Flanagan (2016) used an analogy in epidemiological research to explain such utility. He said the following:

Consider the case of cardiovascular disease. Correlational studies have discovered [several] widely recognized risk factors, such as smoking, excess weight, fatty diet, inactivity, and stress. To turn it around, the best advice for maintaining a healthy cardiovascular system is to avoid smoking, control your weight, eat a sensible diet, get regular exercise, and try to control tension. Following this advice does not guarantee greater longevity, but it does increase statistical life expectancy (Flanagan 2016, p.18).

The conclusions drawn from correlation research may not guarantee success in

First Nation communities. However, they identify certain patterns that are consistent with

political and economy thinking that have been empirically tested against real results (i.e.

Gwartney, Lawson, and Hall, 2012, 2015; Stansel, Torra, and McMahon, 2015; Acemoglu

and Robinson, 2012).

7 | Page

5. LITERATURE REVIEW

Alberta is Canada's foremost energy‐resource province. It is home to the oil sands,

the third largest in the world, as well as vast amounts of natural gas and coal (Brenda L.,

2015). Much of the province’s natural resource exploration activities occur in First Nation’s

traditional territories. The Athabasca Oil Sands area is part of the traditional territory of

Dene and First Nations (Mikisew Cree First Nation, pop. 2592), Athabasca Chipewyan

First Nation (pop. 905), Fort McKay First Nation (pop. 668), Fort McMurray First Nation

(pop. 621) and Chipewyan Prairie (pop. 718) (BL Parlee 2015). Also, forest land in Alberta

amounts to 27,718 hectares, and 12% of this is located on First Nation lands.3

Alberta is home to 45 First Nations in three treaty areas and 140 reserves. The reserves cover approximately 812,771 hectares (INAC 2014). While natural resource development has been occurring at an unprecedented scale in First Nations’ territories,

these people still perform worse on important well‐being indicators. A report released by

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada found that in 2011, 35% of First Nations living on

reserve in Alberta lived in crowded homes, that is, with more than one person per room

compared to non‐Aboriginal population at 4% (INAC 2016). Similarly, employment rate

among First Nations (25‐64 years) living on reserve was 43.5% compared to non‐

Aboriginal population at 81.2% in 2011 (INAC, 2016).

3 Statistics Canada, “Forest Land by Province and Territory”, date modified March 17, 2011. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables‐tableaux/sum‐som/l01/cst01/envi34a‐eng.htm.

8 | Page

As previously mentioned, these conditions have not gone unnoticed. The Ministry of

Aboriginal Relations runs four programs under its Aboriginal Economic Initiatives.

However, the absence of evaluation is often a critical challenge for these programs. For

example, during Alberta’s 29th parliamentary hearing, the Minister of Indigenous Relations acknowledged that it is difficult to measure the return on the Aboriginal Partnerships

Program due to its broad scope.4 In a study identifying the factors that make First Nations

to succeed, Flanagan (2016) concludes that the measureable progress achieved by First

Nation people is not the outcome of government programs. Instead, the most effective government intervention has been legislations to remove barriers and unlock opportunities that First Nations can exploit under their own initiatives (ii).

Graham (2012) explains that one of the roadblocks to success in First Nation

communities has been a dysfunctional government. To put another way, well‐functioning

governing institutions are critical to success in First Nation communities. Likewise,

Jorgenson (2007) concord in the following: “When Native Nations back up sovereignty with

stable, fair, effective, and reliable governing institutions, they create an environment that is

favorable to sustained economic development. In doing so, they increase their chances of

improving community well‐being” (p. 24). Other scholars of Indigenous economic

development both in Canada and the United States have acknowledged similar view

(Anderson, Benson, and Flanagan, 2006).

4 Government of Alberta. “The 29th Legislature First Session, Standing Committee on Resource Stewardship” Accessed July 29, 2017. http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADDAR_files/docs/committees/rs/legislature_29/session_1/2 0151104_0900_01_rs.pdf#page=6.

9 | Page

In 2013, researchers at INAC produced a report on the experiences of 25 First

Nation communities in Canada. The methodology identified 65 First Nations from seven

provinces that scored above average on the CWB Index and a final report was produced on

25 of them. When asked about the factors that were critical to economic development

success, the following were identified: rules and system that work, control over local

decision‐making, strong community capacity, and usable land base (INAC, 2013).

Internationally, correlation research has also found association between improved

economic development outcomes and institutional factors in First Indigenous communities.

The Harvard Project on Indian reservations in the United States found income

growth and labour force participation to be associated with the type of governance

structure in American Indian reservations. In a study of 67 American reservations from the

mid‐1970s to 1990, Cornell and Kalt (2000) observed that reservations that were governed

by elected chiefs who were accountable to an elected council performed the best

economically. While controlling for economic growth in adjacent communities, the

presence of an independent rule of law was positively correlated with economic growth in

American Indian reservations (Cornell and Kalt, 2000). Utilizing a different research

design, a study also found that quasi‐parliamentary systems had the most positive impact

on the economic growth of American Tribal Nations (Akee et al., 2012).

The literature has concluded that strong governing institutions are critical to

improving well‐being in First Nation communities. Also, it has established that First

Nations succeed when they exercise control of local decision‐making, build local capacity, exercise control over their usable land base. The literature has also identified that the most

10 | Page

effective government interventions to improve well‐being in First Nation communities are

legislative or policy actions that remove roadblocks and create opportunities for First

Nations to exploit their potentials through their own initiatives.

The next section will focus on the Meadow Lake case study. The case study covers

the following topics: introduction, history and timeline, governance, community

engagement and forest sector management, and economic development outcomes.

Findings and conclusions from the case study will be discussed and from which

recommendations will be drawn.

6. THE MEADOW LAKE CASE STUDY

This case study explores the economic development activities of nine First Nations

of the Meadow Lake Tribal Council (MLTC) in northwestern Saskatchewan. The nine First

Nations have used commercial means to gain control over resource development activities

occurring in their traditional territories. Through their economic development initiatives,

these communities have managed to improve employment outcomes and incomes for their

members. Their experience demonstrates that First Nations are more likely to improve

their community well‐being by exploiting their own initiatives as opposed to relying on government‐funded programs.

11 | Page

6.1 CHRONOLOGY OF MEADOW LAKE FOREST SECTOR DEVELOPMENT

In 1971, Parson and Whittemore, a New York firm that owned Prince Albert Pulp

Mill, also in Saskatchewan, built the Meadow Lake Sawmill. The primary function of the latter was to supply softwood chips, basically a by‐product, to the pulp mill in Prince

Albert. However, the poorly designed mill could not withstand the Canadian weather. Due to its seasonal operation and low production, Parson and Whittermore abandoned the mill for several years. In 1986, Parson and Whittermore sold the sawmill to the Province (Price

Waterhouse, 1994b).

By 1987, employees worried that the Province was contemplating on selling the mill to a private investor, who was suspected of potentially divesting the mill assets. The sawmill was a major source of employment for the locals, and from their perspective,

retaining it was not a choice, but a necessity. Accordingly, the employees formed a

company called TechFor Services Limited and sold shares to raise money to purchase the mill (Anderson, 2002).

In 1988, TechFor bought 40% share in the mill, MLTC acquired another 40% while

the Province retained 20%. Soon after the acquisition, the company was renamed NorSask

Forest product Limited. In the same year, NorSask signed a Forest Management License

Agreement (FMLA) with the Province. The FMLA gave NorSask the harvesting rights for

both soft and hardwood and reforestation responsibilities for 3.3 million hectares of Crown

Land including the traditional territories of Meadow Lake (Anderson, 1999).

At the time, the Meadow Lake Sawmill utilized softwood conifers only (i.e. spruce

and pine). However, the first condition of the FMLA was that NorSask finds a user, or

12 | Page develop its capacity to also process the hardwood (poplar) from which the company harvested the spruce and spine. Failure to find a user within four years meant that NorSask would lose all rights to the poplar stock. The second condition was that NorSask establish forest management partnerships with all First Nations whose traditional territories could potentially be impacted by forestry development activities within NorSask’s FMLA area

(Price Waterhouse, 1994 a).

In 1990, MLTC reached a joint venture agreement with Millar Western, a forestry company located in neighboring Alberta, to open a hardwood pulp mill in Meadow Lake.

Afterward, the province sold its 20% share in the Meadow Lake mill to Miller Western in the same year. By 1992, the forestry operations had shifted to the traditional territory of

Canoe Lake First Nation. Protestors from Canoe Lake erected a blockade demanding a halt to forestry operations until their citizens were properly consulted regarding logging and forest management methods (Anderson, 1999).

After intense negotiations with the people of Canoe Lake, in 1993, NorSask established co‐management boards comprising representatives from all nine First Nations.

The purpose of the boards was to allow the First Nations to participate in decision‐making pertaining to forestry operations in traditional territories (Anderson, 1999). In 1998, MLTC increased its part ownership in NorSask to became a 100% owner of the Sawmill (see http://norsask.ca/company/our‐history/). A breakdown of historical events is presented in Table 6.1. on the next page.

13 | Page

Table 6.1 Timeline of MLTC Forest Sector Development

YEAR EVENTS 1971 Parson and Whittemore Built the First Sawmill in Meadow Lake 1981 The Province of Saskatchewan Acquired all Mill Asets from Parson and Whittermore 1988 NorSask Forest Product Ltd. was Established and the First FMLA Signed 1990 Miller Western Built opened the Meadow lake Pulp Mill 1992 Canoe Lake Crisis Errupted 1993 Co‐management Boards were Established 1998 MLTC became 100% owner of NorSask Forest Product Ltd.

6.2 GOVERNANCE

6.2.1 Governance structure of the Meadow Lake Tribal Council

Meadow Lake Tribal Council has a multi‐layer governing structure each with

distinct functions. The first layer consists of the Meadow Lake Tribal Council. In 1981, nine

First Nations of Northwest Saskatchewan united to form the Meadow Lake District Chiefs joint venture. The nine Chiefs signed a convention Act to establish a working agreement in

1986. Afterward, the Chiefs joint venture was renamed to Meadow Lake Tribal Council

(MLTC) in 1996. One of the main goals of MLTC and its predecessor organization is to

promote economic development to benefit the nine First Nations within the Tribal Council

(Anderson, 2002). Also, MLTC exists to unite and preserve First Nations’ ancestry way of

life (https://www.mltc.ca/governance.php). MLTC consists of five Cree First Nations and

four First Nations (see Table 6.2 for breakdown) all of which are within

Northwestern Saskatchewan (see map in Appendix A).

14 | Page

Table 6.2 Member First Nations of MLTC

Cree First Nations on‐reserve off‐reserve Dene First Nations on‐reserve off‐reserve Canoe Lake 1,110 1,331 Birch Narrows 459 330 Flying Dust 575 812 Buffalo River 815 615 Ministikwan 1,066 256 Cleawater River 956 1,169 Makwa Lake 1,189 438 English River 808 757 Waterhen Lake 970 1,050 ‐‐ Total Population 4,910 3,887 3,038.00 2871 Data on individual First Nation was collected from the Indian Registry at INAC and tabulated. The data was last updated in July 2017 at: http://fnp‐ppn.aandc‐ aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/TCMain.aspx?TC_NUMBER=1120&lang=eng.

According to INAC’s latest data on the Indian registry, the total population of MLTC was 14,706 as of July 2017. On‐reserve include registered First Nation members living on their own reserves or on other reserves. Other reserves may refer to other First Nation reserves within the Meadow Lake area, or within Saskatchewan or other First Nation reserves in Canada. Off‐reserve include registered First Nations not living on reserves.

Meadow Lake Tribal Council is headed by a Tribal Chief and one Vice Chief for a four‐year term each. Both positions are elected by 49 voting delegates from all nine First

Nations. The Tribal Council comprises nine elected Chiefs each from the nine First Nations.

Together, they constitute a quasi‐legislative body referred to as the Chiefs‐In‐Assembly that approves bylaws and policies that govern MLTC. The Chiefs‐In‐Assembly consists of nine Chiefs who are elected by membership from each of the nine First Nations. The Chiefs‐

In‐Assembly also work with 47 Councilors who are elected by memberships from all nine

First Nations. The Councilors are there to ensure that the Chiefs‐In‐Assembly make policies that will be responsive to specific needs in each First nation community. Accordingly, the

15 | Page

Chiefs‐In‐Assembly and the 47 Councilors meet periodically to review operational results

against planned priorities (see MLTC governance structure at:

https://www.mltc.ca/governance.php).

Rather than managing social programs from within the political structure, MLTC has

chosen to establish three incorporated non‐profit organizations, dedicated to: health and

social development; child and family services; and program services (education,

employment etc). Each of these is wholly owned by MLTC, but with a board of directors

appointed by MLTC and by each of the member Nations. These boards of directors provide

important governance oversight and play a key role in ensuring that program delivery is

effective and responsive to community needs. In a similar way, MLTC has chosen to

delegate its business management activities to a separate for‐profit organization – Meadow

Lake Tribal Council Industrial Investments (MLTCII). MLTCII is the most recently established for‐profit organization created by MLTC Resource Development (RDI). Details of these organizations will be explored later.

6.2.2 Forest Sector Governance and Business Joint Venture Activities

As previously noted, NorSask entered a joint venture agreement with Miller

Western to open a pulp mill to utilize the hard wood. Millar Western was a privately‐owned company from Alberta that was looking to build a “zero pollution” pulp mill that used

poplar. Western Millar saw this partnership as an opportunity for its strategic interest.

Throughout its market area, mostly in the United States, tough environmental regulations

meant that older paper plants that used chlorine‐based bleaching process were becoming

obsolete. Furthermore, there was limited forest resource available in Alberta to supply a

16 | Page

new plant because all had been licensed to other pulp producers. Therefore, Miller Western

finalized the joint venture with NorSask and constructed the pulp mill in 1992 (Anderson,

2002).

To continue its goal of promoting economic development for its membership, MLTC

decided to pursue forestry as an “anchor” business strategy. According to its 1994 Annual

Report, MLTC adopted a strategy to “develop and establish 'anchor' businesses around

which smaller enterprises can flourish bringing long lasting economic activities and

benefits” (MLTC 1994, 20). Hence, after the pulp mill was constructed in 1992, MLTC and

Miller Western established a joint venture company called Mistik Management Limited

(Mistik is a Cree word for wood) with 50% holding for each parent. Mistik was not created

to perform actual forestry work. Instead, it was established as an operating company to

secure forestry‐related contracts (i.e. logging, hauling, road‐construction, and reforestation) for First Nation individuals and First Nation owned companies within MLTC

(Anderson, 1999).

To further expand its anchor businesses and capture more economic benefits through the forestry value chain, MLTC also created its own operating company called

MLTC Logging and Reforestation Limited. Under contract with Mistik, the company was expected to provide logs to both sawmills, build roads, and undertake reforestation activities. Through these activities, some individual First Nations, as well as some First

Nation members within MLTC were expected to create their own operating companies and take advantage of the anchor forestry businesses (Anderson, 1999). Since its

17 | Page

establishment, Mistik has been managing the production of three wood products: stud

lumber, pulp, and wood chip (see production record in Table 6.3).

Both the Meadow Lake Pulp Mill and NorSask Sawmill products are mostly sold on

the international commercial market. The most popular destination for these products is

the United States. The Meadow Lake Pulp Mill was originally built to produce

approximately 240,000 air‐dry‐metric‐tons (ADMT). However, the Mill has steadily

increased production over 320,000 ADMT annually, which began in 2004 and continued up

to 2016.

Table 6.3 Quantity of Products Produced by Mistik Management Ltd. (1997-2016)

Quantity of Wood Products Produced (1997-2006) Mill Product 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Average Total Meadow Lake Pulp Limited Pulp 241,884 244,339 268,832 278,442 256,247 292,858 299,079 321,355 315,536 312,128 283,070 2,830,700 NorSask Sawmill Stud Lumber 101,185 101,185 101,185 106,823 107,585 109,172 108,597 76,032 104,591 76,032 99,239 992,387 NorSask Sawmill Wood Chip 76,183 76,183 76,183 74,266 77,010 70,962 49,600 49,420 65,442 49,600 66,485 664,849

Dillon Sawmill Rough Stud Lumber 0 0 0 0 2,738 2,896 8,105 2,860 3,459 3,000 2,306 23,058 Quantity of Wood Products Produced (2007-2016) Mill Product 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average Total Meadow Lake Pulp Limited Pulp 325,183 327,909 342,570 364,006 345,546 261,288 370,651 347,561 361,670 397,650 344,403 3,444,034 NorSask Sawmill Stud Lumber 99,777 85,325 53,378 24,098 20,090 56,755 70,636 94,989 122,258 105,767 73,307 733,073 NorSask Sawmill Wood Chip 56,132 51,146 22,627 10,588 9,404 26,641 37,476 49,616 68,768 56,741 38,914 389,139 L&M Lumber 11,969 12,531 15,916 4,647 16,880 19,673 21,013 19,076 16,974 15,922 15,460 154,601 L&M Posts Pieces 297,452 710,210 630,020 435,322 375,305 366,461 621,015 480,216 647,354 647,354 521,071 5,210,709 L&M Chips & Residue 12,222 15,944 17,300 5,623 18,223 21,288 23,113 19,547 18,620 18,620 17,050 170,500 L&M Firewood 2,000 2,150 2,933 3,200 3,312 4,950 4,950 8,500 10,127 10,127 5,225 52,249 Table 6.3 was reproduced from Mistik Management FMP report. The 2007‐2016 report is forthcoming, meanwhile the 1997‐2006 report can be accessed at: http://mistik.ca/wp‐ content/uploads/2015/11/08‐Mistik‐2007‐FMP‐Vol‐I‐Background‐Information‐Document.pdf.

18 | Page

Between 2007‐2016, Mistik Management expanded its production by partnering with L&M

Wood Product Ltd. (see table 6.3). L&M is a sawmill located in Glaslyn, Saskatchewan that specializes in pressure‐treated wood products that are used for outdoor structures. The partnership indicates that Mistik Management is making maximum use of the forestry value chain.

At the tribal Council level, MLTC’s anchor forestry businesses have spun‐off other businesses unrelated to forestry. Instead of managing its businesses from within, MLTC created a separate company headed by a separate board of directors to manage all its corporate holdings. In 2009, MLTC created Meadow Lake Tribal Council Resource

Development (RDI). RDI was established as a holding company to manage a portfolio of all

MLTC owned businesses (see MLTC Resource development at http://www.mltcrdi.ca). To effectively manage its resource development holdings, RDI launched a new holding company called MLTC Industrial Investments LP (MLTCII) in 2013. MLTCII manages the three forestry‐related companies (NorSask Forest Products, Polar Oils and MLTC Northern

Trucking) that serve as the backbone of MLTC resource development agenda.5

While forestry has been critical to its anchor business model, MLTC has expanded its business portfolio to include businesses unrelated to forestry. Through other joint ventures activities, MLTC has acquired equity stakes in firms engaged in hospitality and agriculture

(see Table 6.4).

5 RDI, 2013 “ MLTC Resource Development LP Announces the launching of its newest company: MLTC Industrial Investment LP” accessed August 10, 2017, http://www.mltcrdi.ca/mltc‐resource‐ development‐lp‐announces‐the‐launching‐of‐its‐newest‐company‐mltc‐industrial‐investments‐lp/.

19 | Page

MLTCII manages all the forestry‐related businesses partly or fully owned by MLTC.

While utilizing technology and innovation, MLTC is expanding its business portfolio to

include renewable energy. Rather than selling its wood pellets on the commodity market,

MLTC‐RDI started a small pilot project to build a pellet plant adjacent NorSask Sawmill in

2011 to produce alternative energy and sell to its northern residents at a cheap cost.6 The

northern communities within and around MLTC rely heavily on costly propane and heating

Table 6.4 Forestry-related Businesses Partly or fully Owned by MLTC

Annual revenue Name of business Principal activity Ownership Employees (approx.) (approx.) More Information NorSask Forest Softwood sawmill – 100 % MLTCII 104 $45 million www.norsask.ca Products 120,000 mfbm/yr Forest management ‐ Mistik Management 50 % NorSask 12 n/a www.mistik.ca 1.8 M ha Forest management, Sakaw‐Askiy 9.54 % NorSask 2 n/a supply to Norsask FP www.mistik.ca MLTC Northern http://www.mltcrdi.ca/div Transport of chips 100 % MLTCII 14 $3 million Trucking rsified‐holdings/mltc‐ http://mltcii.com/portfolio NorSask Transport Transport of logs 100 % MLTCII 16 $2.5 million of‐companies/mltc‐ northern‐trucking/ Fuel sales – gas and diesel at cardlocks, Polar Oil 100 % MLTCII 4 $7 million bulk wholesale and http://www.mltcrdi.ca/div heating oil – rsified‐holdings/polar‐oils meadow lake Bioenergy 40MW Biomass power MLTCII (to be centre n/a n/a n/a Plant determined) (underdevelopment)

oil to heat their homes and community buildings. In 2012, MLTC‐RDI announced the

construction of Meadow Lake Bioenergy Centre‐a 40 MW energy plant development

6 NorSask Forest product INC, “Pellets”. Accessed July 25, 2017. http://norsask.ca/products/pellets/.

20 | Page

project.7 When completed, the project will generate renewable low‐emission power that

will be enough to supply approximately 30,000 homes.8 Because the project is under development, information about its full ownership is yet inconclusive.

MLTC has also invested in non‐forest sector businesses that contribute to its

portfolio of businesses (see Table 6.5).

Table 6.5 Non-forestry-related Businesses Partly or Fully Owned by MLTC

Employees Annual revenue Name of businessPrincipal activity Ownership For more information (approx.) (approx.)

75% Transgas Caverns Natural gas storage n/a $0.65 million MLTCRDI

5 Super 8 Hotels in Western First 20.9% Saskatchewan and 85 $6.4 million www.mltcrdi.ca/ Nations Hospitality MLTCRDI Alberta

Lac La Ronge Wild Wild rice packaging 21 % n/a $1.0 million www.mltcrdi.ca/ Rice & sales MLTCRDI

Ceres MLTC 50 % Bulk fertilizer n/a $7.3 million www.mltcrdi.ca/ Fertilizer MLTCRDI

The hospitality and bulk fertilizer businesses contribute more revenue ($13.7

million) to MLTC’s non‐forestry‐related business portfolio than the other two. At the

7 NorSask Forest Product INC, “Summary Timeline of Forestry Development Activities”. Accessed August 6, 2017. http://norsask.ca/company/our‐history/. 8 MLTC Resource Development (RDI) “Bioenergy”. Accessed August 6, 2017. http://www.mltcrdi.ca/industrial‐synergy/mltc‐bioenergy‐centre/.

21 | Page

community level, a few of the First Nations communities have also established their own

forestry‐related businesses as well as non‐forestry‐related businesses (see Table 6.6 on

the next page).

The business inventory presented in Table 6.6 is the available public information on

business partly or fully owned by First Nations of the MLTC. The lack of complete data on

these businesses presents a major challenge in attempting to tell the full story of economic

development by the MLTC.

Table 6.6 Businesses Partly or Fully Owned by Individual First Nation of MLTC

Name of Community Name of Business principal activity Ownership Employees (approx) More information Waterhen Forestry Logging and log Waterhen Lake First Nation products transport ‐ 140,000 m3 100% 50 (306) 236‐5055 Clearwater Dene First Metal fabrication and Nation RobWel Constructors construction 100% n/a www.robwel.ca http://www.mltcrdi.ca/wp‐ cms/wp‐ content/uploads/2014/05/Birc h‐Narrows‐Media‐Release‐Dec‐ Birch Narrows Dene Nation Fastprint 70% n/a 19.pdf Mining infrastructure and construction English River First Nation Tron services 100% n/a http://troncm.com/ Mining infrastructure Mudhajtik & Mudjatik and construction Thiessen services n/a http://www.desnedhe.com Mintec Mining services http://www.desnedhe.com JNE Welding, Saskatoon Steel fabrication 30% n/a http://www.desnedhe.com n/a FDB Gravel Gravel pit n/a n/a FDB Fuel Gas Station n/a n/a Oil & Gas Holding Flying Energy Company 100 % FDBHC n/a n/a

22 | Page

However, the main point is to demonstrate that the First Nations in MLTC are taking

advantage of the anchor business model through different activities. In the absence of adequate information, it is difficult to establish a link between the forest sector and the non‐forestry businesses. However, there are some possible connections. The revenue

generated from MLTC forestry businesses are distributed to individual First Nations as

dividends. These communities then use these dividends to undertake economic

development activities wherever they identify opportunities.

MLTC has pursued its forest sector development to maximize economic benefits for

the membership of the nine First Nations. Throughout the resource development process, from the establishment of Mistik and the creation of MLTC Logging and Reforestation, the general approach suggests that securing economic benefits for community members remains the primary goal. Using a similar approach, NorSask has maintained strong connection with community members while trying to incorporate traditional knowledge into logging and reforestation methods in traditional territories. Before then, the relationship between NorSask and the First Nations was on shaky grounds, particularly the

Canoe Lake First Nation.

As previously noted, the Province of Saskatchewan, through the EMLA, required

NorSask to form a partnership with the First Nations where forestry operations could potentially impact traditional territories. However, the nature of the partnership remained undefined. Thus, when conflict ensued between Canoe Lake First Nation and NorSask in

1992, it resulted in prolonged protests, court actions, human rights violation complaints, and exhaustive negotiations before a settlement was finally reached. The outcome of this

23 | Page

process has had significantly influenced on community engagement within Mistik’s FMLA

area.

6.3 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND THE CANOE LAKE CRISIS

Logging operations often shift from one territory to another depending on the

volume of harvestable trees. When logging activities shifted to the traditional territory of

Canoe Lake First Nation, members were unhappy with operations decision taken by Mistik

Management and MLTC Logging and Reforestation. The members expressed three main

concerns: First, the effect of clear‐cut mechanical harvesting method was having adverse

impacts on the lands and the people’s abilities to continue traditional practices. Second, the

community felt that they lacked an effective method of influencing Mistik Management Ltd.

regarding the size and rate of cuts. Third, the people felt that they were not receiving a fair

share of the economic benefits from the mechanical harvesting method. To them, reverting

to traditional harvesting method was necessary to create employment opportunities for

community members.9

By May 1992, dissatisfaction had intensified to the extent that protesters led by

elders from Canoe Lake First Nation erected a blockade on Highway 903, which was 65 km

from the north of Meadow Lake. They were also joined by people from Jans Bay, and Cole

Bay (residents of both communities are non‐First Nation Aboriginals also within NorSask

FMLA area). The purpose of the blockade was to prevent access to logging operations by

9 O’Meara, Diana, “Protesters want Logging Control” Windspeaker, 10(5):12, 1992. Accessed July 12, 2017. http://www.ammsa.com/publications/windspeaker/protesters‐want‐logging‐control‐0.

24 | Page

Mistik Management and MLTC Logging and Reforestation.10 The protesters formed an

organization called “The Protectors of Mother Earth.” Allan Morin who headed the

organization outlined the concerns of the protesters in the following. The elders rejected

clear cutting and mechanical harvesting method. They wanted to exercise control over

their own resources, compensation for their people, and financial and technical

compensation for local members who wanted to start their own forestry businesses.11

It is important to emphasize that the protesters were not demanding an end to the forestry activities. Instead, their goal was to change the terms of their participation in the forestry activities to increase their control over the process and the benefits they would receive thereby. Also, they wanted to use a harvesting method that would minimize negative impacts on the community and the people’s traditional way of life. The blockade was so successful that NorSask and Mistik Management could no longer withstand the inconvenience. NorSask was the primary holder of the FMLA, which gave it the legal right and access to operate under the terms and conditions of the thereof.

NorSask filed a complaint with the Province of Saskatchewan against the Protectors of Mother Earth. Subsequently, the provincial government filed for legal action against the protesters with the Court of Queen’s Bench in 1992. By this time, the protest was attracting more than 100 supporters daily. On the night of June 30, 1992, about 80 RCMP officers with riot gears raided the blockade site and arrested 30 people for illegally blocking a public

10 Smith, D.B. “Saskatchewan Defy Court‐Ordered Eviction” Windspeaker, 11 (6):3, 1993. Accessed July 12, 2017. http://www.ammsa.com/publications/windspeaker/saskatchewan‐protesters‐defy‐ court‐ordered‐eviction.

11 Ibid.

25 | Page

highway.12 Later the next morning, the protesters were released and the Government

dropped the charge.13

In response to the incident, the Protectors of Mother Earth filed a complaint with

the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission against the Saskatchewan Government. The

group alleged that the Minister of Natural Resources and his predecessors were guilty of

racial discrimination from the way that they were handling the protesters. The complaint

further alleged that the Provincial Government repeatedly ignored the rights of First

Nations under the treaties, under the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement and under the

Canadian Constitution.14 A spokesperson for the protesters explained that agreements

between the government and the forestry company completely ignored aboriginal rights

and licenses to trap, hunt, fish for food and harvest wild rice. The logging activities carried

out by Mistik interfered with these rights.15

Interestingly after their release, the protesters went back to the campsites and began building cabins and a school out of the logs that were already cut and piled by

Mistitk Management. On December 9, 1992, the province asked the Court of Queen’s Bench to evict the protesters from the occupied campsites, claiming that they were illegally occupying Crown Land.16 The decision was postponed to the following year, January 14,

1993. On May 12, 1993, the Court of Queen's Bench Justice J. Wimmer ruled that the

12 Calwdell, Linda “Logging Protesters Continue to do Battle” Windspeaker 10(9): 2, 1992. Accessed July 28, 2017. http://www.ammsa.com/publications/windspeaker/logging‐protesters‐continue‐ do‐battle‐2. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid.

26 | Page

Protectors of Mother Earth must vacate the occupied areas within 15 days, and if an appeal

was not launched, they would be evicted.17 However, the Sakaw Aski Elders from Canoe

Lake decided not to appeal and vowed to stay.

By this time, negotiations between the MLTC and the protesters were ongoing.

NorSask was just beginning the process to create co‐management boards that would allow

community members to participate in decision‐making pertaining to the forestry

operations in traditional territories. While an agreement had not yet been reached, the

Protectors of Mother Earth demanded that Mistik Management and MLTC Logging and

Reforestation halt operations until the details of any proposed agreement were understood

and agreed to by all parties. The companies refused to halt operations citing that meeting

such demand would be a forfeiture of their responsibilities to the sawmill and to their

employees. While the protesters still occupied the campsites, Oneill Gladue, Vice Chair of

MLTC said that the Council was not going to negotiate with non‐elected people, meaning

the protesters.

Rather than escalating the crisis by having the court’s order enforced, NorSask

instead continued negotiations with the elected officials of the Nine First Nations. After 17

months of protests and negotiations, on October 12, 1993, representatives from Canoe

Lake First Nation and NorSask signed an interim co‐management agreement.18 The co‐

management boards would comprise representatives from the nine First Nations who

17 Smith, D.B. “Saskatchewan Defy Court‐Ordered Eviction” Windspeaker, 11 (6):3, 1993. 18 “Meadow Lake Protesters Reach Agreement with NorSask” Windspeaker, 11(16):2, 1993. Accessed August 12, 2017. http://www.ammsa.com/publications/windspeaker/meadow‐lake‐ protesters‐reach‐agreement‐norsask.

27 | Page

would provide inputs into logging and harvesting decisions. In the interim, the protesters

would continue to occupy the campsite until the detail of the co‐management framework

was finalized and fully understood by all parties.

Co‐management is a nebulous concept, and this paper will not attempt to define it.

However according to Ray Cariou, the then chairman of NorSask, the people of Canoe Lake

through a co‐management board, would have the right to participate in decisions

concerning all forestry activities occurring in their traditional territories.19 Also, the same

arrangement would extend to all nine First Nations and affected non‐First Nation

Aboriginal communities within and NorSask FMLA area. To be specific, the co‐management

boards meant that NorSask would extensively consult with elders and traditional leaders to

learn and incorporate traditional knowledge into scientific logging methods.

According to MLTC annual report in 1997, each of the nine First Nations signed a

final agreement for a 20‐year Resource Management Plan governing forestry operations in

their traditional territories (MLTC, 1997). Since signing the final agreement, Mistik

Management and MLTC Logging and Reforestation have been operating in closed

consultation with the elders and traditional leaders from the nine First Nations. Today,

Mistik has eight existing advisory/co‐management boards that provide ongoing inputs into

operational plans. Also, Mistik has significant communication with a range of other

stakeholder groups (outfitters, trappers, traditional use, grazing permittees, wild rice

growers, cabin owners, etc.) in, and immediately surrounding the Mistik FMLA area.20

19 Ibid. 20 Mistik Management Ltd. “Public Involvement”. Accessed August 18, 2017. http://www.mistik.ca/forest‐management/public‐involvement/.

28 | Page

The Canoe Lake crisis was by far the most important test that NorSask had to

endure. However, the approach used to resolve the conflict has laid the foundation for

community members to take full advantage of the anchor forestry businesses in the region.

These activities have been the underpinning of the successful economic development

outcomes among the First Nations of MLTC.

6.4 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES FROM MLTC BUSINESS OPERATIONS

Before examining the outcomes of economic development efforts by the MLTC, it

will be informative to underscore two interrelated developments. First, since the inception

of MLTC and its predecessor organization (the Meadow Lake Chiefs Joint Venture), one of

the primary objectives has been to promote economic development (Anderson, 2002).

Hence, job creation and business development have been central to this objective.

According to its 1990‐91 Annual Report, MLTC had been operating business development

programs prior to exerting control over its forestry businesses (MLTC, 1991). The same

report mentions that between 1986‐1991, MLTC undertook 106 business development projects and 65% of them were already successful start‐ups at the time the report was prepared (MLTC, 1991).

Second, after the resolution of the Canoe Lake dispute in 1995, an extensive consultation with the nine First Nations lead to the adoption of a 20‐year economic development plan that identifies specific targets. The overall goal of the plan was “to achieve parity with the province in terms of employment rate and income level [and] to create and maintain 3,240 good paying jobs in the next 20 years” (MLTC, 1994, p. 20).

29 | Page

While the meaning of “good paying jobs” remain undefined, MLTC, through its anchor

forestry businesses, has been creating more jobs than its 3,240 target and the surrounding

communities have also benefited.

According to two Price Waterhouse reports (Price Waterhouse, 1994 a&b) MLTC

Logging and reforestation output in 1994 provided employment for 140 people and the

company was placed in the top 10% of logging companies in Canada. In the same year,

NorSask provided employment for 103 people and the company was ranked in the top 6%

of sawmills in Canada. Together, both First Nation companies created 243 direct jobs

related to forestry, and almost all jobs were held by First Nation members. In addition, the

forestry related operations created 730 indirect jobs in the region (Anderson, 2002).

Employment opportunities from MLTC forestry activities resulted in spill over

benefits to the surrounding communities. In 1990, 14 members of Northwestern

Saskatchewan Municipalities Association established Keewatin Dahz Developers Inc. (K.D.

Developers). The goal was to create a woodland contracting operation to take advantage of

the forestry development activities in Meadow lake (K.D. Developers, 1993, viii). By the end of 1994, approximately 48 operating companies were already participating in MLTC forestry development activities (Anderson, 2002).

Mill‐related activities in Mistik Management FMLA area have contributed to sustained employment base among the First Nations of MLTC. In Saskatchewan, Forest Management

License Agreements (FMLA) are given to, typically large forestry companies, for 20 years,

30 | Page

and are evaluated every 10 years.21 Between 1997‐2006, wood processing facilities associated with Mistik Management FMLA area created 3,557 full‐time equivalent jobs (see

Table 6.7). (The values in 2005 and 2006 were overly estimated by 15 each) However, the actual employment numbers are taken from Mistik’s 2017 Forest Management Plan

(forthcoming).

Table 6.7 Mill-related Employment Statistics (1997-2006)

Mill Name 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Meadow Lake Pulp Mill 207 206 204 202 200 173 174 171 171 171 1,879 NorSask Sawmill 194 161 161 173 163 152 152 144 144 144 1,588 Dillon Sawmill 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 15 15 15 90 Total Employment 401 367 365 375 378 340 341 330 330 330 3,557

The data contain employment and payroll statistics provided by Meadow Lake Pulp Limited and NorSask Forest Product Inc. Background to the information can be accesses at: http://mistik.ca/wp‐content/uploads/2015/11/08‐Mistik‐2007‐FMP‐Vol‐I‐Background‐ Information‐Document.pdf.

About 98% of these jobs were in the Meadow Lake community. The balance 2% was spread among the northern villages of Dillon, St. George Hill, Michael Hill Village. The northern villages benefited from the location of a small NorSask‐owned sawmill located in

Dillon. The full‐time nature of these jobs meant that the First Nation employees have

benefited from a stable flow of employment income over the 10 years.

Similar employment trend was also realized between 2007‐2016 (see Table 6.8).

Between 2007‐2016, wood processing facilities associated with Mistik Management FMLA area created 3,909 full‐time equivalent jobs and most of them were in the Meadow Lake

21 Government of Saskatchewan, “Forest Licensing”. Accessed August 25, 2017. https://www.saskatchewan.ca/business/agriculture‐natural‐resources‐and‐ industry/forestry/forest‐licensing.

31 | Page

community. Majority of these jobs are in general contract employment in timber

procurement and harvesting, forest renewal, with a small portion represent administrative

work and supervision of forestry operations. The fact that mill‐related employment

numbers have been relatively consistent over the past 20 years, demonstrates a stability in

employment opportunities. The highest employment occurred between 2013 and 2016.

Table 6.8 Mill-related Employment Statistics (2007-2016)

Mill Name 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Meadow Lake Pulp Mill 153 164 168 169 161 164 175 184 195 195 1,728 NorSask Sawmill 149 101 84 55 103 115 191 251 205 145 1,399 L&M 88899137708680828178782 Total Employment 390 354 343 261 334 365 446 517 481 418 3,909 The data in Table 6.7 contain employment and payroll statistics provided by Meadow Lake Pulp Limited and NorSask Forest Product Inc. (full FMP report forthcoming). The general goal of these economic development strategies is to help improve community well‐being, in other words, living standards among the First Nations within

MLTC. The trends in the CWB scores for individual communities and MLTC may explain why economic development efforts among the First Nations of MLTC have been successful.

For example, between 1981 and 2011, the standard of living among the First Nations of

MLTC experienced upward trend (see figure 6.1).

32 | Page

Figure 6.1 Trend in CWB Among the First Nations of MLTC (1981-2011)

Community Well‐being Index Flying Dust 70

Waterhen 130 60

Makwa Lake 129B 50

Ministikwan 161 40

Canoe Lake 165 30

Buffalo River Dene Nation 193 20 (Peter Pond La Turnor Lake 193B (Birch Narrow) 10

Clearwater River Dene 222 0 1981 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 English River? No info

Data on the Community Well‐being was accessed from INAC at: https://www.aadnc‐ aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100016579/1100100016580.

From 1981‐2011, well‐being among the First Nations of MLTC has experienced

continuous improvement. Particularly, in 2011, all CBW scores were trending upward.

Unsurprisingly, in 2006, the First Nations experienced a downward trend in CBW. Between

2004‐2006, a softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States resulted in a

tariff on softwood lumber export to the United States.22 The American producers have often

complained that Canada indirectly provides subsidy to its lumber producers through low

stumpage fees that are set below market value deliberately. This allegedly makes the

22 Global Affairs Canada, “Softwood Lumber Agreement” Last modified March 13, 2017. http://www.international.gc.ca/controls‐controles/softwood‐bois_oeuvre/other‐ autres/agreement‐accord.aspx?lang=eng.

33 | Page

American producers less competitive.23 Therefore, in 2006, an agreement was reached to

impose tariff on the number of softwood lumber that could be exported to the US.24

The restriction put pressure on Canadian producers thereby lowering production to comply with the terms under the agreement. These conditions might have slowed Mistik’s logging activities thereby affecting employment and incomes, two critical components of the Community Well‐being Index. The downward trend in the community‐well progress during this period demonstrates that the forestry businesses are the backbone for economic development among the First Nations in MLTC.

Between 1981‐2011 labour force activities among the First Nations of MLTC saw gradual improvements until 2006 (see figure 6.2).

23 MacPherson, Alex, Saskatoon StarPhoenix, “Soft Wood lumber dispute could hurt Northern Saskatchewan forestry firms” Last updated May 1, 2017. http://thestarphoenix.com/business/ local‐business/this‐is‐just‐one‐more‐blow‐softwood‐lumber‐dispute‐could‐hurt ‐northern‐sask‐forestry‐firms. 24 Global Affairs Canada, “Softwood Lumber Agreement”.

34 | Page

Figure 6.2 Trend in Labour Force Activities Among the First Nations of MLTC (9181-2011)

Labour Force

Flying Dust 80

70 Waterhen 130

60 Makwa Lake 129B

50 Ministikwan 161

40 Canoe Lake 165

30 Buffalo River Dene Nation 193 (Peter Pond La 20

Turnor Lake 193B (Birch Narrow) 10

Clearwater River Dene 222 0 1981 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 English River? No info

Data on the labour Force Activities was accessed from INAC at: https://www.aadnc‐ aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100016579/1100100016580.

The decline in labour force activities in 2006 is consistent with the decline in the community well‐being during the same period. Labour force activities have a positive effect on the community well‐being. When people are employed, they earn incomes, which they use to provide other social needs that are vital to improving standard of living. Therefore, when labour force declined in 2006, so did community well‐being. Encouragingly, in 2011, all nine First Nations experienced a sharp increase in Labour force activities.

Income among the First Nations also exhibited similar trend. From 1981‐2011, income among the First Nations fluctuated a bit, but saw improvement overall (see figure

6.3). Income converged a little in 2001, but majority of communities experienced a sharp decline in income in 2006, and then a fast improvement in 2011. This trend is consistent

35 | Page with labour force activities and the trend in the community well‐being among the First

Nations of MLTC.

Figure 6.3 Trend in Income Among the First Nations of MLTC (1981-2011)

70 Trend In Income

60

50 Flying Dust First Nation 105 (Meadow Lake 10

Waterhen 130

40 Makwa Lake 129B

Ministikwan 161

Canoe Lake 165 30 Buffalo River Dene Nation 193 (Peter Pond La

Turnor Lake 193B (Birch Narrow)

20 Clearwater River Dene 222 English River? No info

10

0 1981 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 The Income data was accessed from INAC at: https://www.aadnc‐ aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100016579/1100100016580.

Housing conditions among the First Nations of MLTC have also improved over the years 1981‐2011. The most improvements in housing conditions occurred prior to 2001, but dropped dramatically in 2006 (see figure 6.4). The drop is consistent with the decline in income and labour force activities during the same period. were practically zero in 1981 and 1991. Turnor Lake and Flying Dust First Nations were omitted due to incomplete data on housing. The overall trend in housing among the First Nations was positive.

36 | Page

Figure 6.4 Trend in Housing Condition Among the First Nations of MLTC (1981-2011)

Housing

90

80 Waterhen 130 70 Makwa Lake 129B 60 Ministikwan 161 50

Canoe Lake 165 40

Buffalo River Dene Nation 193 (Peter 30 Pond La

20

10 Clearwater River Dene 222

0 English River? No info 1981 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

The housing data was accessed from INAC at: https://www.aadnc‐ aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100016579/1100100016580.

Education outcomes among the nine First Nations have been disappointing. While

some communities made improvements at different intervals, other communities

plummeted (see figure 6.5). It is interesting that education in Flying Dust First Nation

improved the most. Most of the business infrastructure and corporate headquarters are in

Flying Dust including the headquarters of the Meadow Lake Tribal Council. Possibly, members of this First Nation have made efforts to acquire education to take advantage of the job opportunities close to home.

To summarize, two interesting trends emerged among all the community well‐being indicators. First, around 2001, all the well‐being indicators experienced a sharp improvement. It would be interesting to know whether certain events or developments in

MLTC might have contributed to this trend. Second, during the US and Canada softwood lumber crisis around 2004‐2006, all community well‐being indicators within MLTC

37 | Page

plummeted before picking up sharply around 2011. The setback in the forestry sector

between 2004‐2006 affected all components of the community well‐being. Therefore, it can

be concluded that the forestry businesses have been the backbone for economic

development among the First Nations.

Figure 6.5 Trend in Education Among the First Nations of MLTC (1981-2011)

Education Flying Dust First Nation 105 (Meadow Lake 50 10

45 Waterhen 130

40 Makwa Lake 129B

35 Ministikwan 161

30 Canoe Lake 165 25 Buffalo River Dene Nation 193 (Peter Pond 20 La

Turnor Lake 193B (Birch Narrow) 15

10 Clearwater River Dene 222

5 English River ? no info

0 1981 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 Data on education were accessed from INAC at: https://www.aadnc‐ aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100016579/1100100016580.

7.1 POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR ALBERTA

The Meadow Lake case experience is relevant to Alberta from two perspectives.

First, the case study demonstrates how First Nations can make themselves better off when

they participate in resource development through their own initiatives. A critical part of

this process depends on the method of consultation with First Nation people. The

Government of Alberta has received pushbacks from First Nation leaders over its

38 | Page centralized First Nation consultation policy. If the Province hopes to renew its Aboriginal consultation process, it will be critical to understand the source of the resistance in the first place. The conventional approach implies that First Nations are primarily concerned about preserving their culture practices in their traditional territories. Such a narrow view could result in repeated mistakes and could lead to an impasse in Alberta’s Aboriginal consultation renewal process.

First Nations consultations extends beyond wanting to preserve cultural practices in traditional territories. It is mostly about power struggle between First Nation

Governments and Provincial Governments as to who has the right to control resource development activities in traditional territories. Also, it is about the right for First Nations to reap economic benefits from resource development occurring in their traditional territories. Although one should not discount the importance of culture. First Nation leaders prefer to be approached as any other legitimate government. As such, they feel that their right to exercise self‐determination is threatened when a provincial government, or federal government dictates to them the nature of proper consultation. Several court decisions (Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004, Taku River v.

British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), 2004, and Mikisew Cree First Nation v.

Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005) have established an obligation to consult with First Nations regarding resource development in traditional territories. Hence, First

Nation leaders are resolved, now more than ever before, to uphold their rights to be properly consulted. Therefore, if they are not given the flexibility to determine the degree to which their traditional territories are impacted by resource development projects, they could be willing to disrupt these projects.

39 | Page

Alberta is not willing to sustain disruptions in resource development projects.

Natural resources play a vital role in Alberta’s economy. Historically, provincial

governments and the federal government have not been good at resolving natural resource

disputes with First Nations. The conventional approach has been through exhaustive legal battles that have resulted in huge financial claims against some provincial governments.25

As the Meadow Lake case demonstrates, a win‐win outcome can be achieved when First

Nations engage in bilateral negotiations with resource companies.

Second, the Meadow Lake case study provides Alberta with an opportunity to learn about another model of Aboriginal economic development. First Nations feel like they do not get fair economic benefits from resource development occurring in their traditional territories. By participating in bilateral negotiations with resource development companies, they hope to maximize their share of the economic benefits from resource development projects. The process could involve joint venture agreements, or commercial activities that will create jobs for First Nation people, grow their incomes, and improve the well‐being of their communities.

The Government of Alberta, through its Aboriginal Economic Initiatives, has been making efforts to improve the well‐being of its Aboriginal peoples. However, the conventional approach to Aboriginal economic development runs the risk of being misconstrued as an entitlement. These programs take the form of annual payouts and therefore may undermine the potential for First Nations to create wealth through their own

25 Hill, Matthew, Mining Weekly. “Gold Junior sues Ontario Government for C$ 100 million over precedent‐ setting ruling” February 3, 2012. Accessed, August 28, 2017. http://www.miningweekly.com/print‐ version/gold‐junior‐sues‐ontario‐govt‐for‐c100m‐over‐precedent‐setting‐ruling‐2012‐02‐03.

40 | Page

initiatives. The Meadow Lake experience shows that First Nations are willing to develop

their own potentials rather than depend on government‐funded programs. If the

Government of Alberta hopes to improve the standard of living in First Nation communities, the Meadow Lake model could be a valuable addition to its Aboriginal

Economic Partnerships Program.

8.1 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The focus of the paper was to answer the questions—Should he Government of

Alberta incorporate the Meadow Lake Model of forest sector development into its

Aboriginal Economic Partnerships Program? Before a case can be made in the affirmative,

the paper had hoped to assess whether the factors that make First Nation communities

successful have been the underpinning of the economic development success of the First

Nations of MLTC.

In the literature review, strong governing institutions were identified as being

critical to success in First Nation communities. Fundamental to this concept is the respect

for the rule of law, and the separation of business operations from political control. The

Meadow Lake Tribal Council has demonstrated these characteristics through the

management of service delivery to their community members and the management of their

anchor business operations.

Rather than managing social programs from within the political structure, MLTC

chose to establish three incorporated non‐profit organizations, dedicated to: health and

social development; child and family services; and program services (education,

41 | Page employment etc). Each of these is wholly owned by MLTC, but with a board of directors appointed by MLTC and by each of the member Nations. These boards of directors provide important governance oversight and play a key role in ensuring that program delivery is effective and responsive to community needs. In a similar way, MLTC has chosen to delegate its business management activities to a separate for‐profit organization – Meadow

Lake Tribal Council Industrial Investments (MLTCII).

This separation of business from political power was critical to resolving the resource dispute between NorSask and the First Nations of Canoe Lake. Instead of the

Tribal Council being at the forefront, NorSask took initiatives to engage with traditional leaders to understand the factors that were critical to ensuring successful forest sector development in the traditional territories. Through the co‐management boards, the nine

First Nations have managed to prevent conflicts and explore commercial opportunities around the forestry businesses in the region.

Through these activities, MLTC has exercised full control over local decision‐making and built its capacity to effectively manage its business operations. The 2013 INAC research on successful First Nations identifies that control over local decision‐making and strong local capacity were vital to the success of First Nations that experienced improvements in their community well‐being. By these accounts, it can be concluded that the factors that are critical to the success of First Nations have been the underpinning of the economic development success among the First Nations of MLTC.

A case can be made that the Meadow lake model of forest sector development could be a valuable addition to Alberta’s Aboriginal Economic Partnerships Program. The

42 | Page

Province has made it a goal to encourage its Aboriginal peoples to participate in the local

economy. If the Province wants to have lasting impacts in First Nation communities, it needs to provide opportunities for the First Nations to exploit their potentials by participating in commercial activities that evolve around resource development. The

Meadow Lake case study shows that this model of First Nation economic development in impactful in the long‐term. Since their involvement in forest sector development, the First

Nations of MLTC have built their capacities to create jobs, generate incomes, and spin off businesses, all of which have resulted in improved community well‐being.

It is important to mention that the First Nations of MLTC did take control of resource development in their traditional territories through government policy. It was also through commercial means and their own initiatives. The only government influence was to allow the forestry company to form partnership with the First Nations. The fact that the nature of the partnership remained undefined in the Forest Management License

Agreement, put the First Nation in a strong position to negotiate. Therefore, First Nations are made better off from resource development through bilateral negotiations rather than government‐controlled process.

While the community well‐being indices show that the First Nations of MLTC have made progress in economic development, they do not tell the entire Meadow Lake story. It would be interesting if the community well‐being indices were extended as far as 2016. An assessment of most recent years could reveal more about the economic development progress among the First Nations of MLTC. Further, all economic development programs for First Nations hope to improve their living conditions and put them on a par with non‐

43 | Page

Aboriginal communities. Therefore, an area of future research could be to compare the well‐being of the First Nations of MLTC with non‐Aboriginal communities in the same geographic region to assess whether convergence is occurring.

9.1 RECOMMENDATIONS

These following recommendations are directed to both the Province and the First

Nation leaderships in Alberta. The Province needs to implement the first recommendation

to lay the foundation for the second recommendation.

1. Encourage bilateral negotiations between resource companies and the First Nations without the interference of government agencies.

2. Exploit business opportunities through local resource development and build on these as anchors to spin off other businesses at the levels of the Tribal Council and individual First Nations.

Consultation will be very critical to implementing these two recommendations.

Resource development policies in Alberta involve multiple stakeholders including resource companies, First Nations, ant the Ministries of Natural Resources and Aboriginal Relations.

Therefore, it will require consultations with all these stakeholders to weigh the pros and cons of bilateral agreements between First Nations and resource companies. The Alberta

Government will also have to be consulted to advise on the nature of the new policy to ensure that it does not conflict with other important legislation. Also, the Office of the

Premier of Alberta should ensure that the new policy aligns with the Government’s other priorities.

44 | Page

After proper consultation with all the stakeholders, the new policy can be

communicated through various media. A new policy proposal on acquiring mining and

resource development licenses will be developed and published on the websites for all the

stakeholders. The Ministry of Aboriginal Relations will have to hold press conferences to

unveil the new direction of the Government. Also, Natural Resource Alberta will have to

prepare press releases to clarify that the new policy is not legislation. Rather it is aimed at

encouraging First Nation people to take full advantage of resource development occurring

in their traditional territories. The goal of economic development must be central to all the

messages. This will put pressure on First Nation leaders to approach natural resource

development as a wealth‐creating effort as opposed to merely getting payouts from

resource development projects in traditional territories.

Implementation of this new policy should be a priority because resource

development is a process that cannot wait for long. The Ministry of Aboriginal Relations

has already had meetings with First Nations in December of 2016. Consultations

with Treaty 7 and 8 First Nations were scheduled for January 2017 and expected to

continue through the spring.26 The next step will be to hold a general meeting with all First

Nations in Alberta and industrial leaders. This would be a good time to send a team to

Meadow Lake to learn more about their experience. Throughout 2018, all consultations can be finalized and implementation of the new policy can begin in April 2019. Approximately, in two years, the program will have been tested and assessed for continuity.

26 Ministry of Indigenous Relations, “First Nations Consultation Policy and Guideline Renewal 2016” Accessed, August 26, 2017. http://indigenous.alberta.ca/fncp.cfm.

45 | Page

REFERENCES

“Aboriginal Economic Partnerships program”. Government of Alberta. Accessed August 13, 2017. http://indigenous.alberta.ca/Economic‐Partnerships‐Program.cfm.

Aboriginal Law Bulletin “The Mikisew Decision: Supreme Court of Canada Requires Consultation on Lands "Taken Up" Under .” November 2005. Fasken Martineau. Accessed August 25, 2017. http://www.fasken.com/mikisew‐decision‐ supreme‐court‐of‐canada‐requires‐consultation‐lands‐taken‐under‐treaty/.

Acemoglu, Daron, and James Robinson (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown Publishers.

Anderson Robert B (1999). 'First Nations Economic Development: The Meadow Lake Tribal Council', The Journal of Aboriginal Economic Development. 1(1): 13-34.

Anderson Robert B (2002). “Entrepreneurship and Aboriginal Canadians: A case Study in Economic Development. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship. 7(1):45-62

Akee, Randall, Miriam Jorgensen, and Uwe Sunde (2012). “Constitutions and Economic Development: Evidence from the American Indian Nations”. Discussion Paper 6754.

Brenda L. Parlee (2015), Avoiding the Resource Curse: Indigenous Communities and Canada’s Oil Sands. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0305750X15000637.

Cornell, S., & Kalt, J. P. (1998). Sovereignty and nation‐building: The development challenge in Indian country today. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 22(3), 187‐ 214.

Calwdell, Linda “Logging Protesters Continue to do Battle” Windspeaker 10(9): 2, 1992. Accessed July 28, 2017. http://www.ammsa.com/publications/windspeaker/logging‐ protesters‐continue‐do‐battle‐2.

Cornell, Stephen, and Joseph Kalt (2000). “Where’s the Glue? Institutional and Cultural Foundations of American Indian Economic Development”. Journal of Socio‐Economics 29: 443‐470.

Flanagan, Tom (2016). “Why First Nations Succeed.” The Fraser Institute. Accessed July 24, 2017. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/why-first-nations-succeed.

Global Affairs Canada, “Softwood Lumber Agreement” Last modified March 13, 2017. http://www.international.gc.ca/controls‐controles/softwood‐bois_oeuvre/other‐ autres/agreement‐accord.aspx?lang=eng.

46 | Page

Government of Saskatchewan, “Forest Licensing”. Accessed August 25, 2017. https://www.saskatchewan.ca/business/agriculture‐natural‐resources‐and‐industry /forestry/forest‐licensing.

Graham, John. (2012). “Dysfunctional Governance: Eleven Barriers to Progress among Canada’s First Nations”. Inroads 31: 31–46. Accessed July 27, 2017. http://inroadsjournal.ca/dysfunctional‐governance‐eleven‐barriers‐to‐progress‐ among‐‐first‐nations/.

Gwartney, James, Lawson, Robert, and Hall, Joshua. (2012). “Economic Freedom of the World: 2012 Annual Report.” Vancouver, BC: Fraser Institute. Accessed, August 15, 2017. http://www.freetheworld.com/2012/EFW2012‐complete.pdf.

Gwartney, James, Robert Lawson, and Joshua Hall (2015). “Economic Freedom of the World: 2015 Annual Report.” Fraser Institute. Accessed August 15, 2017. http://www. freetheworld.com/2015/economic‐freedom‐of‐the‐world‐2015.pdf.

Hill, Matthew, Mining Weekly. “Gold Junior sues Ontario Government for C$ 100 million over precedent‐setting ruling” February 3, 2012. Accessed, August 28, 2017. http://www.miningweekly.com/print‐version/gold‐junior‐sues‐ontario‐govt‐for‐ c100m‐over‐precedent‐setting‐ruling‐2012‐02‐03.

INAC (2014) “First Nations in Alberta.” Accessed July 27, 2017. https://www.aadnc‐ aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100020670/1100100020675.

INAC (2016) “Aboriginal Peoples: Fact Sheet for Alberta.” Accessed, August 15, 2017. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89‐656‐x/89‐656‐x2016010‐eng.htm.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada [INAC] (2013). “Creating the Conditions for Economic Success on Reserve Lands: A Report on the Experiences of 25 First Nation Communities”. Government of Canada. Accessed August 12, 2017. https://www.aadnc‐aandc.gc.ca/eng/1372346462220/1372346568198.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada [INAC] (2014). “First Nations People in Canada”. Web page. Government of Canada. Accessed on August 4, 2017. https://www.aadnc‐ aandc.gc.ca/eng/1303134042666/1303134337338.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada [INAC] (2015). “The Community Well‐Being Index: Report on Trends in First Nations Communities, 1981‐ 2011. Government of Canada. Accessed, August 15, 2017. https://www.aadnc aandc.gc.ca/eng/1345816651029 /1345816742083.

Jorgenson, Miriam, ed. (2007). “Rebuilding Native Nations: Strategies for Governance and Development.” University of Arizona Press.

K. D. Developers (1993) ‘Executive Summary’. Meadow Lake: Keewatin Dahze Developers.

47 | Page

MacPherson, Alex, Saskatoon StarPhoenix, “Soft Wood lumber dispute could hurt Northern Saskatchewan forestry firms” Last updated May 1, 2017. http://thestarphoenix.com/business/local‐business/this‐is‐just‐one‐more‐blow‐ softwood‐lumber‐dispute‐could‐hurt‐northern‐sask‐forestry‐firms.

“Meadow Lake Protesters Reach Agreement with NorSask” Windspeaker, 11(16):2, 1993. Accessed August 12, 2017. http://www.ammsa.com/publications/windspeaker/meadow‐lake‐protesters‐reach‐ agreement‐norsask.

Ministry of Indigenous Relations, “First Nations Consultation Policy and Guideline Renewal 2016” Government of Alberta. Accessed, August 26, 2017. http://indigenous.alberta.ca/fncp.cfm.

Mistik Management Ltd. “Public Involvement”. Accessed August 18, 2017. http://www.mistik.ca/forest‐management/public‐involvement/.

MLTC (1991) ‘Meadow Lake Tribal Council Annual Report, 1990 - 1991, 1989 - 1990’. Meadow Lake: Meadow Lake Tribal Council.

MLTC Resource Development (RDI) “Bioenergy”. Accessed August 6, 2017. http://www.mltcrdi.ca/industrial‐synergy/mltc‐bioenergy‐centre/.

NorSask Forest product INC, “Pellets”. Accessed July 25, 2017. http://norsask.ca /products/pellets/.

NorSask Forest Product INC, “Summary Timeline of Forestry Development Activities”. Accessed August 6, 2017. http://norsask.ca/company/our‐history/.

Olynyk, John M., “The Haida Nation and Taku River Tlingit Decisions: Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities for Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation” Lawson Lundell LLP. Accessed August 25, 2017. http://www.lawsonlundell.com/media /news/236_Negotiatorarticle.pdf.

O’Meara, Diana, “Protesters want Logging Control” Windspeaker, 10(5):12, 1992. Accessed July 12, 2017. http://www.ammsa.com/publications/windspeaker/protesters‐want‐ logging‐control‐0.

O’Sullivan, Erin, and Mindy McHardy (2007). “The Community Well‐being Index (CWB): Well‐being in First Nations Communities, Present, Past, and Future.” In White, Beavon, and Spence (eds.). Aboriginal Well‐being: Canada’s Continuing Challenge (Thompson Education Publishing): 111–148.

48 | Page

Price Waterhouse (1994a) “MLTC Logging and Reforestation, Inc. and NorSask Forest Products, Inc.: Performance Evaluation Relative to Industry”. Saskatoon: Price Waterhouse.

Price Waterhouse (1994b) “MLTC Logging and Reforestation, Inc. and Norsask Forest Products, An Evaluation of Various Financial Results”. Saskatoon: Price Waterhouse.

RDI, 2013 “MLTC Resource Development LP Announces the launching of its newest company: MLTC Industrial Investment LP” Accessed August 10, 2017, http://www.mltcrdi.ca/mltc‐resource‐development‐lp‐announces‐the‐launching‐of‐ its‐newest‐company‐mltc‐industrial‐investments‐lp/.

Stansel, Dean, José Torra, and Fred McMahon (2015). “Economic Freedom of North America: 2016.” Fraser Institute. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites /default/files/efna‐2015‐na‐post.pdf.

Statistics Canada, “Forest Land by Province and Territory”, date modified March 17, 2011. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables‐tableaux/sum‐som/l01/cst01/envi34a‐eng.htm.

Smith, D.B. “Saskatchewan Defy Court‐Ordered Eviction” Windspeaker, 11 (6):3, 1993. Accessed July 12, 2017. http://www.ammsa.com/publications/windspeaker/ Saskatchewan‐protesters‐defy‐court‐ordered‐eviction.

Statistics Canada, “Forest Land by Province and Territory.” Date modified March 17, 2011. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables‐tableaux/sum‐som/l01/cst01/envi34a‐eng.htm.

“The 29th Legislature First Session, Standing Committee on Resource Stewardship” Government of Alberta. Accessed July 29, 2017. http://www.assembly.ab.ca /ISYS/LADDAR_files/docs/committees/rs/legislature_29/session_1 /20151104_0900_01_rs.pdf#page=6.

49 | Page

APPENDIX

Mistik Forest Management Area

Adopted from Mistik Forest Management Plan. http://mistik.ca/wp‐ content/uploads/2015/11/08‐Mistik‐2007‐FMP‐Vol‐I‐Background‐Information‐ Document.pdf.

50 | Page