Innu block access to mining projects on their territory

June 14, 2010

Innu com­mu­ni­ties are block­ing access to two min­ing projects in north­east­ern Que­bec and west­ern Labrador in an attempt to pro­tect their Indige­nous rights and ensure no min­ing can pro­ceed on their ter­ri­to­ry with­out their pri­or con­sent.

Innu blockadeJune 14, 2010

Innu com­mu­ni­ties are block­ing access to two min­ing projects in north­east­ern Que­bec and west­ern Labrador in an attempt to pro­tect their Indige­nous rights and ensure no min­ing can pro­ceed on their ter­ri­to­ry with­out their pri­or con­sent.

At the moment, rough­ly 100 Innu from the com­mu­ni­ties of Matimekush-Lac John and Uashat mak Mani-Ute­nam are attend­ing the block­ade, which offi­cial­ly began on Fri­day, June 11.

That num­ber could eas­i­ly swell if the gov­ern­ments and the two min­ing com­pa­nies, New Mil­len­ni­um Cap­i­tal and Labrador Iron Mines Hold­ings (LIM), fail to act respon­si­bly. Both com­mu­ni­ties are mem­bers of the Innu Strate­gic Alliance (ISA), which rep­re­sents some 12,000 peo­ple or 70% of all Innu in the province of Que­bec. The ISA sup­port­ing the block­ade.

On June 9, the Alliance chiefs said they have no choice to set up a block­ade, which “com­plies with the exist­ing Innu tra­di­tion­al juridi­cal sys­tem,” because the Provin­cial and Fed­er­al gov­ern­ments are under­min­ing their rights.

“We are open to con­struc­tive dia­logue with the gov­ern­ments and the com­pa­nies as long as our cul­tur­al, eco­nom­ic, social, envi­ron­men­tal and spir­i­tu­al aspi­ra­tions are respect­ed. We are not against all forms of devel­op­ment of the ter­ri­to­ry but we are against all devel­op­ment held with­out our con­sent,” stat­ed the Chiefs in a joint state­ment.

Matimekush-Lac John Chief Real McKen­zie and Uashat mak Mani-Ute­nam Chief Georges-Ernest Gré­goire also reaf­firmed Innu own­er­ship of the nat­ur­al resources with­in their ter­ri­to­ry, stat­ing, “We have nev­er ced­ed, aban­doned or renounced our Abo­rig­i­nal rights or our Abo­rig­i­nal title. The gov­ern­ments there­fore have the con­sti­tu­tion­al oblig­a­tion to con­sult us and to accom­mo­date our rights and inter­ests.”

The ISA notes that, in 1927, the Que­bec-Labrador bor­der was imposed on them by the British Crown, which cre­at­ed an “arti­fi­cial divi­sion of Nitassi­nan (Innu ter­ri­to­ry)”.

The divi­sion opened the flood­gates for Canada’s stan­dard abo­rig­i­nal pol­i­cy, includ­ing res­i­den­tial schools, the ban­ish­ment of hunt­ing Cari­bou (which the Innu heav­i­ly rely on) and, ulti­mate­ly, the exploita­tion of Nitassi­nan.

The region was stripped of its resources in the 1950s and 60s; the Innu barred from exer­cis­ing their rights and ben­e­fit­ing in any way mean­ing­ful.

“Our com­mu­ni­ty will not be fooled like in the 60s. For many years, our ter­ri­to­ry was stripped of its resources with­out our con­sent and with­out any ben­e­fit for our com­mu­ni­ty. When the gov­ern­ments com­plet­ed their min­ing oper­a­tions, [Schef­ferville] was des­tined for doom; the gov­ern­ments left it deprived of eco­nom­ic activ­i­ty and resources and with­out tak­ing account of our pres­ence and with­out con­cern for our rights. If they now wish to take up min­ing again, they have to do so under our con­di­tions,” said Chief McKen­zie, pri­or to a gen­er­al meet­ing last month held to dis­cuss the future of Innu lands.

More recent­ly, Chief McKen­zie said the block­ade will stay up as long as it takes for the gov­ern­ments and the com­pa­nies to act. “It’s up to them.”