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 (Unpublished master's thesis).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 Saskatchewan. 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 Canada’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 Cree 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 Dene 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 Saskatoon 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 Flying Dust First Nation 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 Treaty 6 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 Treaty 8.” 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‐canadas‐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