GTP.update.january30,2012

04/07/2023 Confidential 1

FWFN Specific Claims Update

Boundary Settlement Implementation, GTP and

Neebing

Presented By:

Ian J. Bannon

Our Theme

Respecting our Past

Embracing our Future

Elders Rose and Helen Bannon

Meagan Charles-Bannon and Daughter Jace


Introduction

• Purpose of this presentation– Objective:

• To provide an overview to the settlement implementation of the FWFN Boundary Claim and an Update on the GTP Negotiations and the Status of the Mining Claim

Outcome:To assist our members with a plan that reaches maximum efficiency and balance for all community members that incorporate future goals and expectations


Agenda

• Overview of the Boundary Settlement Implementation

• Review the Status of the FWFN GTP Claim

• Provide an insight to the FWFN Mining Claim


Settlement Implementation• Although the Boundary Claim has been

settled between the three parties, and compensation has been forwarded, we now have the task of carrying out the specifics of the settlement agreement in order to transfer the two islands to reserve status.

• This involved the establishment of an implementation committee including reps from Canada, Ontario, MNR, DOJ, and FWFN


Status of the Settlement Implementation

• All necessary surveys have been completed of the islands.

• ESA has been completed and clean up of specific areas will be arranged between Canada and Ontario

• BCR’s will be prepared for the transfer of all mineral rights to FWFN and to initiate the ATR process.


Summary of work to be done

• Third Party Interest Search• Environmental Condition of Settlement Lands• Ontario to request the Minister to transfer lands

with notification• Canada to provide Notice of Readiness to accept

lands• Canada to perform final title search of lands• Canada to obtain approval in principal to proceed

with setting lands apart as Reserve Lands


Summary of work to be done

• D.O.J. to accept settlement lands and prepare for registration.

• Canada sets apart the settlement lands as Reserve Lands by Order in Council then proceeds with its registration.


FWFN Grand Trunk Railway

Specific Claim

April 7, 2023 Confidential 10

FWFN GTP Claim Background

• Although the FWFN Boundary Claim was identified as one of Canada’s largest claim settlement, the GTP claim is identified as one of the most significant claims for FWFN.

• This is due to the actions by Canada to literally uproot the community and force them to relocate to their homes and families to our current location.

• It also forced the community to exhume the deceased members and relocate them to another cemetery.

•



• In 1905, Canada appropriated over 1600 acres of land from FWFN for a terminus (rail station) for the GTP railway. The appropriation took the entire reserve site along the Kaministiqua River forcing the relocation of every home and farm including the church and graveyard.

• In 1920, Canada took over the rail line operation after GTP went bankrupt and although the terminus never went ahead as planned, the land was given to CNR.

• CN subsequently entered into lease agreements with various industrial companies which ultimately resulted in contamination of the various parcels of land.



• In 1999, FWFN established the Development Corporation to regain ownership of about 1100 acres of the land through direct negotiations. FWFN further submitted its claim to Canada on the GTP lands.

• In 2002, Canada accepted the claim for negotiations on the basis that the land was sold for less than it was worth in 1905. The Osoyoos decision by the Supreme Court of Canada expanded the scope of this acceptance.

• FWFN filed a lawsuit against Canada after discussions toward broader negotiations took place. Canada instantly suspended negotiations since they will not negotiate a claim if a First Nation is proceeding with litigation.



• In 2008, negotiations re-commenced with Canada taking the position that the Railway Act prohibited the alienation (sale) of land appropriated (taken) by the GTP and that Canada had a duty to prevent the sale and return the land to FWFN.



• Since there was a change in scope of the negotiations, Canada provided a revised letter of acceptance in 2011 which stated that Canada now agreed:

• that FWFN was short-changed on the price of the land in 1905 and;

• that no relocation expenses were paid and;

• that FWFN did not receive compensation for infrastructure

• That all lands not used for railway purposes in 1920 should have been returned to FWFN and;

• That it was illegal for CN to sell over 500 acres of these lands


FWFN GTP Claim STATUS

• The negotiations are moving forward to finalize:

1. Compensation amounts with the Specific Claims Branch

2. The return of lands to reserve status with Indian Affairs.


FWFN GTP Compensation

• The compensation methodology has not been officially finalized. However, discussions are very favorable towards the Proxy Model which estimates the economic return on land using a variant of the rental approach.

• The Proxy Model uses an historic land value of real rate of return and annual inflation to estimate loss of use.

1. We establish a land value at the start of the claim

2. We establish a real rate of return

3. We adjust land value in each year by inflation

4. Multiply the land value by the real rate of return to derive the loss of use in each year.


FWFN GTP Claim Land Compensation

• All lands involved in the GTP claim have been through an Environmental Assessment and are primarily in good condition.

• However, there are some lands that are too contaminated to be added to reserve status at this time.

• The attached map identifies “Green”, “Yellow” and “Red” parcels of land

• All lands identified in Green and Yellow will be considered for addition to reserve status. The red parcels are those areas that are considered too contaminated for transfer at this time.


FWFN GTP ClaimExpected Settlement

• Our negotiations on this file are proceeding well and it is anticipated that we should be able to reach a settlement on this file this coming fiscal year by:

• MARCH 31, 2013


FWFN Mining

Specific Claim


FWFN Mining Claim

BACKGROUND:

In 1909 three entrepreneurs (Hamilton, Dowler and Gowanlock) from the town of Fort William (including a lawyer and the First Nation’s doctor) wanted to prospect for base minerals on the reserve by leasing reserve land to build a brick factory and cement plant.

The materials they were after was rock shale which was plentiful at the base of Mount McKay. In support of their venture, they even obtained a support letter from the Clifford Simpson who interestingly enough was the then, Minister of Indian Affairs.


FWFN Mining Claim

• The three proponents formed a syndicate (partnership) and each applied for permits to prospect on forty (40) acres of land.

• Once approved they staked out and surveyed the three areas and requested Indian Affairs to approach the First Nation for a surrender.

• The First Nation did not consent to what Canada did and very wisely wanted to ensure that they would still retain their land if the brick plant failed. The syndicate ended up with fee simple access (with conditions).


FWFN Mining Claim

• FWFN had attached conditions to the surrender that were inconsistent with an outright sale and the Department then entertained the thought of leasing the mining locations to the syndicate.

• However, records show that Hamilton made a trip to Ottawa and the surrender was subsequently accepted and letters patent were granted to the syndicate. The Letters Patent contained conditions that were set out in an agreement signed by the Department and the Syndicate.

• These conditions were not what FWFN had agreed to and the agreement was negotiated without any communication with nor input from FWFN.


FWFN Mining Claim

• THE AGREEMENT

• FWFN had agreed to the surrender on the basis that the mining location lands were to be returned to the band if the brick plant ceased operations. (with several other condition)

• Instead the Department inserted a clause for liquidation damages of $10,000.00 should the syndicate fail to meet the conditions set out in the agreement.

• This is not what FWFN had agreed to and they were not consulted regarding the change to liquidation damages.


FWFN Mining Claim

• When the Syndicate did in fact to breach the conditions, the Department repeatedly waived the damage clause and FWFN never received a penny of liquidation damages.

• The Syndicate then proceeded to quarry the site to sell building stone in violation of the conditions of the patent.

• The lands were sold several times and eventually ended up in possession of the Great Lakes Pulp ad Paper (transferred to Avenor, then to Bowater) that used the abandoned quarry on the Hamilton and Gowanlock locations as a Bark Dump. The third site (Dowler) was finally returned to FWFN in 1984 and formed part of the Mt. Mckay Ski Area.


FWFN Mining Claim

• The Bark dump resulted in tremendous damage to FWFN both emotionally and environmentally.

• In 2000, FWFN sued Avenor and negotiated a settlement that included the closure of the site and an environmental remediation costing over 7 million dollars. FWFN then purchased the remaining mining property for a nominal sum.


FWFN Mining Claim

• THE NEGOTIATIONS

• The Syndicate purchased 120 acres at $20 per acre for land that was never valued. In 1911 the Syndicate applied for more land for a right of way and for land to construct the brick plant on. This time the Department did hire an independent valuator who valued the lands at $1200. per acre. (Just two years prior, the Department sold the Mining locations for only $20 per acre)

• The Syndicate proceeded to purchase 3.34 acres of additional land at $1200 per acre in August 1913.


FWFN Mining Claim

• Canada now agrees that;

• the land ought to have been returned to FWFN when the brick plant failed and;

• That the $20 per acre received in 1909 for the mining locations sale was too low and;

• That the sale of the additional 3.34 acres of land was done without consent or legal surrender from the FWFN.


FWFN Mining Claim

• Compensation negotiations have begun on this file and we anticipate a cash settlement with Canada in the fiscal year of 2012/2013 (March 31, 2013)

• We should also be able to add all or most of the remaining lands back to reserve status.

• END OF PRESENTATION

Date post:	14-Oct-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	amanda-searle
View:	14,100 times
Download:	0 times

GTP.update.january30,2012

Documents