MCFN Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Frontier 15/11/2013 Section 3 Mikisew Cree First Nation 3.1 Introduction The Lower Athabasca River system, which includes the Peace-Athabasca Delta, is absolutely critical for the ability of our [MCFN] members to practice their Treaty 8 rights, and to sustain their unique [A]boriginal livelihoods, cultures, and identities as Cree and Dene peoples. Our First Nations have depended upon the bountiful ecology of the Delta to sustain our families, cultures, and livelihood for generations. The Athabasca River itself is our main travel route into the heart of our Traditional Lands. Without adequate water quality or quantity in the river system, we cannot access our important cultural, spiritual, and subsistence areas and we cannot sustain the health and well-being of our families on the traditional foods that we have always obtained from the river system. (Adam and Marcel, 2010, p. 6) The ancestral lands of the MCFN are in northeast Alberta, in the area of the lower Peace River, lower Athabasca River, and the Peace-Athabasca Delta where it joins Lake Athabasca. Culturally and linguistically, the MCFN is part of the larger Western Woods Cree cultural group, which spans the subarctic from Hudson Bay west to the Rocky Mountains. Cree and English are the languages most commonly spoken by MCFN members, the majority of whom continue to live in northern Alberta. The cultural heartlands of MCFN knowledge and land use include what is now Wood Buffalo National Park and the Birch Mountains, and extend south along the Athabasca River. Fort Chipewyan has been MCFN’s economic and administrative centre for generations, and continues to be the administrative base. However, the MCFN population is widely dispersed. The majority of members live off reserve near Fort Chipewyan, or in Fort McKay, Fort McMurray or other more southern areas. Members tend to access traditional resources near where they live, though long distances may be travelled in order to access rare or hard-to-find resources, and many MCFN members return to Fort Chipewyan and surrounding territories on a regular basis, including during fall and spring bird hunts. While all MCFN lands are important, certain areas are especially important to particular MCFN family groups. Areas may also be of particular importance because of unique ecological qualities, or unique species or resources that may be rare or hard to find elsewhere. Today, despite increasing industrial developments that challenge—and in places may undermine—the Mikisew Cree way of life, the relationship between MCFN peoples and the lands and waters they have depended on for generations remains crucial. As one MCFN member explains: Whether they take all the water, they [hunters and trappers] will probably still go over there anyways to their cabins. That’s where they were born. You always go www.thefirelightgroup.com 10 MCFN Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Frontier 15/11/2013 back home, no matter what. You are always going to go back home. (M27, 2013)14 3.2 Population and Demographics While officially Cree, the Mikisew Nation is culturally diverse. Family and marriage relationships with other communities are common, especially with Denesoline (Chipewyan) at Fort Chip. Canadian legal pressures have also resulted in movement of Denesoline peoples to the Mikisew band list. When WBNP was established in 1922 and later expanded in 1926, members of the Cree band residing in the area were allowed to maintain homes and use rights within the park boundaries. Members of the Chipewyan band, however, were excluded from use of homes and cabins in the Birch River settlement, and from lucrative trapping areas along the shores of Lake Claire. Patricia McCormack examined this transition and indicates that, “In 1944, a sizeable portion of the Chipewyan band, those members living in WBNP, was quietly removed from the Chipewyan Band list and added to the Cree band list. Legally, they became Cree Indians” (McCormack 1989: p. 125). According to AANDC (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, formerly Indian and Northern Affairs Canada), the registered population of MCFN at the end of 2009 was 2,574, and in December 2012 was 2,841, suggesting an annual growth rate of approximately 3.5%15 during this time period (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 2012).16 At this rate, the Mikisew population can reasonably be expected to double approximately every 20 years to approximately 5,600 registered members by 2032, and approximately 12,000 registered members in 2052. As the MCFN population increases, so will the need for reliable areas for the future practice of Mikisew rights and livelihood. 3.3 MCFN Reserves and Traplines Figure 1 shows MCFN Indian Reserves and traplines (RFMAs)17 held by MCFN members in relation to the Frontier Project. RFMA #2892 overlaps with the Project footprint. 14 Interview quotes are referenced using participant ID number and date. Please see Appendix One for a comprehensive collection of interview quotes. 15 This is a rough estimate of MCFN growth rate, and more detailed demographic analysis would be useful. 16 The growth of MCFN members includes both natural growth and other forms of growth. 17 For the purpose of this report, MCFN traplines are those RFMAs that are held, in whole or in part, by an MCFN member. www.thefirelightgroup.com 11 MCFN Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Frontier 15/11/2013 Figure 1. MCFN Indian Reserves and Traplines (RFMAs) Held by MCFN Members in Relation to the Frontier Project MCFN reserves and traplines (RFMAs) shown in relation to the proposed Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project MIKISEW CREE mtSTNATIUJ •1:1 ,000,000 10 20 30 40 Kilometres Legend 0 Registered fur management areas J:} LSA ,. MCFN Reserves 0 Other Reserves Q Proposed project footprint [] Parks and protected areas All boundaries ar& subject to ratification by MCFN Chief and Council. the ~f\'1 firelight < > group ~y~ Map PfMICe<l unoer t~ doreekln of Sleven OeROI' <A 11e Fwe11Qht Group onFebru~uy 14 2013 Bolse~dalaoror~a~es•om lle Nnonal T~DI'NC System and NatUI'al Res01.11ces Ctnaoa tnolootDtll'll •renprOt>dedbytleProponent This map ooes norc""ure thecomplexrt~ dt.ICfN'srelauooslllpiO meor lr~onaiLandsortiMiutenlollhll pradK:II ollrNI)o andabonglnal nghts flus map 15 a W~no documeflland rs N'lleruJed to be amended and Hl'fined rl<lllf tome The data used to p(l(lj(;:elhi'O map orqnare lrom mu 11~ SOI.Mces Th.smap IS PfOP«fY of tile MIICsew CteeFrst NaiiOn 1 ndmay only bt reprOOJte<IWJihwrlllen pem1~1011 www.thefirelightgroup.com 12 MCFN Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Frontier 15/11/2013 Within Mikisew Cree tradition, rights to lands and resources were, and continue to be, accompanied by responsibilities and protocols of respect and reciprocity (mutual giving). Mikisew Cree customary law and land management recognizes the interdependence of animals, resources, and people. Over time, however, Canadian laws and restrictions regarding the practice of MCFN knowledge and use have been imposed in the Fort Chipewyan area, especially in the 1920s through the formation of WBNP, and in the 1940s through the Alberta government’s creation of traplines or Registered Fur Management Areas (RFMAs) following transfer of responsibility for natural resources from the Federal Crown. For most of the 20th century through to the present day, traplines and Indian Reserves have been the most common Canadian legal mechanisms for recognizing special rights within MCFN territory and so provide “safe” places for the practice of indigenous rights within the Crown’s private and commercially orientated land governance system. Indian Reserves and traplines do not constrain treaty rights, but they do provide unique legal status that may shape contemporary practice of land and resource use by MCFN members. Despite these changes, Mikisew members continue to actively use traditional lands on and off reserve, and inside and outside registered traplines. Mikisew approaches to governing lands and rights relating to the use of lands, including trapping, continue to be grounded in indigenous pre-treaty relationships between people and place. 3.4 Sakaw Pimacihiwin18 (Mikisew Knowledge and Use) MCFN’s past, present, and future use of lands and waters is guided by the concept of sakaw pimacihiwin, a Mikisew Cree term which literally means “bush way of life.” Mikisew elders use the term sakaw pimacihiwin as a translation of the English phrase “traditional knowledge,” suggesting that, from a Mikisew perspective, knowledge and way of life are not separate. Sakaw pimacihiwin is maintained and transmitted, with Mikisew knowledge and Mikisew land use forming linked and interdependent categories of practice. Reliable and unimpeded access to preferred areas and resources that are historically known, traditionally used, and personally familiar is integral to the transmission and current and future practice of sakaw pimacihiwin. As discussed further in section 4.3.2, sakaw pimacihiwin is considered a non-site specific valued component in this assessment, with all other valued components contributing to it. Place names are one indicator of sakaw pimacihiwin and the interconnectedness of knowledge and use within the MCFN cultural landscape. Peter Usher, Frank Tough, and Robert Galois (1992) explain the significance of place names in the context of socio-territorial organization of First Nations peoples: The connection between people and territory lay in the deep and detailed knowledge of the environment. Naming of natural and cultural features was 18 Matthew Whitehead, an MCFN member and co-researcher, first pointed out the importance of the term sakaw pimacihiwin, and assisted in confirming its meaning and the relationships implied. www.thefirelightgroup.com 13 MCFN Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Frontier 15/11/2013 one aspect of this knowledge, a symbolic expression of movement through, and residence in, the territory.