Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation

April 3, 2006

Mr. Bob Potts,

Principal Negotiator
Algonquins of Pikwakanagan
Algonquin Negotiations Representatives

Mr. Potts,

Please accept this correspondence as part of my repeated attempts to address the matter of
Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation asserting their right to work in partnership with the
Algonquins of Ontario in negotiating a fair land claim settlement for the Algonquin people and
my repeated attempts to establish clarification regarding the actual structures, relationships,
jurisdiction and political legitimacy of the currently involved parties responsible for the design
and governance of this process, namely the Algonquin Nation Negotiations Directorate, (ANND),
the Algonquin Nation Tribal Council, (ANTC) and the Algonquins of Golden Lake, (the
Algonquins of Pikwakanagan), and their proposed evolution into the Algonquins of Ontario.

It must be noted that the Kichesipirini have been expressing interest in political participation for a
number of years, both verbally at community meetings, as well as in writing, having sent formal
documentation on or about Nov. 15, 2005, through the submission of our Proclamation of
Assertion of the Inherent Right to Political Autonomy and Formal Recognition of Indigenous
Rights of the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation. We have also expressed our congratulations to
the Algonquins of Ontario in our correspondence dated February 2006, of which we have yet to
receive a response. In that letter The Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation applauds the parties’
affirmation of the political autonomy of the Algonquin People to govern and organize themselves
in their collective pursuit of political self-determination and are encouraged by the federal and
provincial governments support of such progressive activities.

We have also repeatedly expressed our concerns regarding process legitimacy, leadership
accountability, nation building and good governance standards both in writing and during
community meetings. Despite your commitment to appropriately respond you have yet to do so. I
will take this opportunity then, as a person of Algonquin descent, currently independent of the
communications limitations applied to those involved in the Algonquins of Ontario land claim
negotiations process to ask some relevant questions regarding the process.
I will again reiterate that the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation is a distinct Algonquin nation,
apart from the Algonquins of Ontario, and independent of federal influence, including Indian Act
control. We recognize that such independence is a core part of our legitimate identity and that the
preservation of such independence is of great significance to our citizens, the greater Algonquin
community, and our provincial and regional neighbours as well. Any attempts to expropriate or
illegitimately apply this identity apart from our expressed independent assertions could be
construed as political interference and continued, sophisticated acts of oppression.

It must be recognized that the federally funded and Indian Act controlled band of Pikwakanagan
can only legally apply for rights associated within their jurisdiction of the federally recognized
reserve. According to Resolution No.16(d)/89, filed October 19, 1989 with the Confederacy of
Nations, now known as Assembly of First Nations, titled Support for Algonquin Golden Lake
First Nation, the Algonquin Golden Lake First Nation has always occupied and continues to use
their traditional territory which is generally described as the south side of the Ottawa River
Valley. Throughout this process there have numerous modifications to the identity and territory
claims of the federal reserve in Ontario. It is our understanding that in order to apply for the
expanded jurisdiction the process is dependent on the perceived legitimate collaboration of the
broader Algonquin community who do possess legitimate expanded jurisdiction, namely, the non-
status Algonquins. That said, the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation, or the Kichi Sibi
Anishnabe, variously known as: Algoumequins de l'Isle, Allumette Indians, Big River People,
Gens d l'Isle, Honkeronon (Huron), Island Algonkin, Island Indians, Island Nation,
Kichesippiriniwek, Nation de l'Isle, Nation of the Isle, and Savages de l'Isle, have never accepted
any form of compensation such as the acceptance of federally set aside, or reserved, lands or
monetary compensation in the form of federal funds such as those associated with Indian Act
registration and do possess a well established history and documentation as needed to meet the
requirements associated with the rigours of treaty negotiations with the federal and provincial
governments.

The Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation have remained independent of federal control, but are
interested in entering into legitimate treaty negotiations with other Algonquin entities, the
provinces, and the Crown for the benefit of all Algonquin persons, as well as the mutual benefit
of our neighbours. The preservation of actual Kichesipirini independence is imperative for
continued process legitimacy. It is our position that the only means of ensuring process integrity
and secured long term treaty benefits would be through the legitimate inclusion of the
Kichesipirini Algonquins, as presented, as an independent partner within the process. Our
research demonstrates that throughout Canadian history identity expropriation has repeatedly
been used as a means of political contrive against the Algonquin people, and particularly the
Kichesipirini Algonquins. It would be the responsibility of genuine leadership and the proper
exercise of fiduciary obligation to ensure that there are preventative mechanisms in place to
minimize such potential. The inclusion of the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation, independent
of Pikwakanagan, A.N.N.D or ANTC control, would be the most efficient and historically
legitimate means to ensuring actual reconciliation, genuine nation building, institutional integrity
and political accountability to this process.
Associated with our current position outside of the process and the associated freedom from any
communications limitations, we would like to have a number of matters addressed. We are again
seeking immediate written answers to the following preliminary questions.

1. What is the actual “job description” of the Principal Negotiator, the position currently
occupied by Mr. Bob Potts?

2. It is our understanding that the Algonquin Nation Negotiations Directorate,

(ANND), has been registered as a not-for-profit corporation. Has this
corporation been registered as a federal or provincial corporation?
What is the corporate registration number of the A.N.N.D.? Where can the
corporation’s records and documents be accessed?

3. According to Mr. Richard Zohr the corporation is still in existence? Why?

4. We request a copy of the Algonquin Government Task Force Report of June

19, 1998. The document can be sent immediately electronically to
algonquincitizen@hotmail.com.

5. Why was the Protocol Agreement establishing the Algonquin Negotiation

Representative Elections negotiated between the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan and the
registered non-profit corporation of A.N.N.D. rather than the political body of the
Algonquin Nation Tribal Council, (A.N.T.C.)? Could such behaviour on the part of the
Algonquin Nation Tribal Council not be interpreted as a willingness to compromise
actual Algonquin political independence by the A.N.T.C. members?

6. Does the federally funded Indian Act Band of Pikwakanagan recognize the political
authority of the A.N.T.C.?

7. Why is there disproportionate representation of the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan at

the negotiations table that was created through the A.N.R. election process involving
the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan and the corporate entity of the A.N.N.D.?

8. Are the numerous individuals representing the federally recognized band of

Pikwakanagan sitting as one collective body or is each individual exercising a vote in
the process?

9. Are the A.N.R.s of the current process paid a salary? If not how are they enumerated?
Is each individual representing the federally funded Indian Act band of Pikwakanagan
enumerated individually or are they sharing funding?

10. Are any of the individuals representing Pikwakanagan at the current table also
receiving enumeration for their positions of administration of the Indian Act band? If
so, could that not be considered a conflict of interest or double-dipping?

11. Who has determined the enumeration model associated with this process?
 12. Considering that the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan have attempted to significantly
expanded their territorial jurisdiction and associated rights to resources and title
beyond their only legitimate territory of the boundaries of the reserve, through the
perceived legitimate collaboration of the non-status Algonquins of Ontario, and the
apparent formal political amalgamation of the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan into the
Algonquins of Ontario, are they now obligated to fully inform the Algonquins of
Ontario of all band activities including the submission of government proposals and
applications for funds and services, regular fiscal reports and audits, economic
development initiatives and business partnerships, and other political and self-
government activities in an open, accountable and transparent manner?

13. Are all Algonquins of Pikwakanagan benefits of such initiatives equally available to
all Algonquins of Ontario in exchange for the expanded jurisdiction of the Algonquins
of Pikwakanagan land claim territory?

14. Is the disproportionate representation of the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan

representative of any future governance structure and process? What mechanisms are
in place to prevent that?

15. Why was a trust fund established rather than a professional and insured escrow agent
used? Why is the Trust Fund not administered by an accountable board of directors?
Please provide all details concerning the administration of the Trust Fund.

16. Mr. Potts eluded to there being flexibly within the current process that could affect
Kichesiprini Algonquin First Nation participation. Could he please elaborate in
writing?

17. How is this process funded?

The Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation is expecting prompt response to these opening
questions. As is regularly expressed during community meetings Mr. Potts is usually very pressed
for time, and since there is very limited opportunity to adequately address such complex concerns
we are requiring written response.

We share the expressed commitment to the goal of a fair and equitable treaty negotiation process
for all Algonquin people and a lasting resolution for ourselves and our neighbours.

We would expect that three days should be sufficient to answer these questions. We look forward
to your timely response.

Sincerely,

Paula LaPierre
Principal Sachem
Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation
algonquincitizen@hotmail.com
Via e-mail
c.c. XXXXXXXXXXXX

By Honouring Our Past We Determine Our Future