Comment 222 – comments and feedback

Chief Elizabeth Kataquapit

See attached. Chief Elizabeith Kataquapit also made another submission letter dated Oct 9. See submission # 465

First Nation Council

P.O. Box X, Fort Albany, ON xxx xxx Tel: (xxx)-xxx-xxxx Fax: (xxx)-xxx-xxxx

October 9, 2022

Via email - ON@redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca

Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario

PO Box 37018 Southdale

London, ON N6E 3T3

Attn: Paula Puddy, Commission Secretary

Dear Commissioners:

Re: Fort Albany First Nation - initial comments regarding the proposed federal electoral boundaries for Ontario

I write on behalf of the Members and Council of Fort Albany First Nation, regarding the proposed revisions to the federal electoral boundaries for Ontario.

Fort Albany First Nation is located in the James Bay-Timmins electoral riding, and our Members stand to be impacted by the proposed creation of a new Kiiwetinoong - Mushkegowuk federal riding. This proposal is going to be discussed at the Public Participation Hearing to be held in Timmins on October 11, 2022.

We would have liked to send a member of our Council to this Hearing to provide oral representation on behalf of Fort Albany First Nation. However, the deadline to confirm participation was September 29, 2022, which was during our election period when Council was not sitting.

In the future, we would encourage the Commission to recognize the barriers to participation in such processes facing remote, fly-in First Nations such as ours. We highly value face-to-face discussion of such important matters, but when we are required to travel south to access them, it puts financial and practical burdens on us and is exclusionary of our Members.

In recognition of Treaty 9 and the Crown's commitments to Nation-to-Nation relationships with First Nations, it would have been appropriate to offer to send representatives to fly-in First Nations to consult with us, supported by Cree interpretation and translation. This travel would also give the Commission greater insight into the practical realities of political engagement in our region, and the additional challenges that would be created by the proposed new riding.

In lieu of oral representation in Timmins, Fort Albany First Nation intends to make written submissions by October 29, 2022.

In advance of providing these comments, we wish to express our support for the points that have been made by Member of Parliament Charlie Angus regarding the revisions to the electoral boundaries, as they relate to Indigenous people. These points can be viewed on his website.

We look forward to providing our further comments and trust that they will be carefully considered. Respectfully,

Elizabeth Kataquapit

Chief Elizabeth Kataquapit

Cc: Fort Albany First Nation Council Charlie Angus, MP, Timmins-James Bay

First Nation Council

P.O. Box X, Fort Albany, ON xxx xxx Tel: (xxx)-xxx-xxxx Fax: (xxx)-xxx-xxxx

October 29, 2022

Via email - ON@redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca

Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario

PO Box 37018 Southdale

London, ON N6E 3T3

Attn: Paula Puddy, Commission Secretary

Dear Commissioners:

Re: Fort Albany First Nation - Comments regarding the proposed federal electoral boundaries for Ontario

I write on behalf of the Members and Council of Fort Albany First Nation, regarding the proposed revisions to the federal electoral boundaries for Ontario.

Fort Albany First Nation is located in the James Bay-Timmins electoral riding, and our Members stand to be impacted by the proposed creation of a new Kiiwetinoong - Mushkegowuk federal riding.

We thank the Commission for its work on this challenging task, and understand that this work has been constrained by the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

We also acknowledge the attention to northern Ontario evident in the Commission's proposal. We appreciate that the Commission has noted the distinctive challenges of effective representation in the North, and has constrained its proposed reduction of northern representation to one seat, rather than two.

However, we are concerned about the proposal to reduce the number of northern ridings to any extent, particularly in a way that would make a single Member of Parliament responsible for representing everyone in the proposed Kiiwetinoong-Mushkegowuk electoral district.

The current Member of Parliament for James Bay-Timmins, Charlie Angus, has stated:

Across Northern Ontario, Indigenous identity and communities play an increasingly important role in development. In whatever riding you look at across the North, Indigenous communities require more engagement, support, and recognition of their rights. We support the principle of creating an Indigenous-based riding in Northern Treaty 9. However, the immense proposed region and the number of isolated fly-in communities will set it up for failure.

We recommend that it be reasonable to create a riding similar to the provincial Kiiwetenoong in the Northwest. The communities of James Bay, however, have a longstanding connection to Cochrane and Timmins. The city of Timmins is the largest Cree-speaking community in the northeast. There are strong connections in health services, education, and familial ties between the Mushkegowuk Cree communities and the Timmins-Cochrane region. ^{Footnote 1}

We agree with these observations, and in particular that regarding the proposals of the Commission setting our representative - and us - up for failure.

The North is a highly distinct region from the rest of the province, in almost every way. The rest of the province increasingly benefits from its connections with the North, yet most people in the South making the decisions that affect us do not understand our histories and circumstances here, and have not even visited here. In the South, even if people in particular ridings are under-represented numerically, there will still be a very large number of Members of Parliament who understand and represent the general perspectives and needs of their communities and region. For example, there is no serious risk that decisions will be made in Parliament in complete ignorance of the views of those living in Ottawa or Toronto or the Peel Region, even if a few MPs from those places are not present.

This is not the case for the north generally, and it is certainly not going to be the case for northern First Nations if the full responsibility for our representation is placed onto one person's shoulders. It is a nearly impossible job for one person to represent the proposed riding, and our perspectives and needs in the "Far North" and as Indigenous peoples are very different even from those of most of the residents of the other proposed northern ridings.

While number of people is an important factor in setting electoral boundaries, so is geography and the accessibility of that geography. The Commission has recognized that the proposed Kiiwetinoong-Mushkegowuk region is "geographically vast" at 520,307 square kilometers, and that it is mostly inaccessible by road. However, it has suggested that flights available through Thunder Bay, Timmins, Sioux Lookout, and Winnipeg could mitigate this challenge.

The fact that the Kiiwetinoong-Mushkegowuk representative would not only need to represent us in Ottawa, but would also need to regularly fly between up to four cities (three of which are outside of the proposed electoral district) that are nearly 1500 kilometers apart and span two provinces, simply as the starting points for travel throughout the proposed riding, should illustrate the immense challenges that they would face in effectively representing their constituents, especially in a way that allows them to maintain their personal well-being. This would put us, and our representative, at a disadvantage that would not be comparable to those faced in any other riding in the province.

Elections Canada has already recognized some of the barriers to participation faced by communities like ours. For example, it has noted a study of electoral participation in remote Indigenous communities in the Yukon and Northwest Territories which found that it was "difficult and costly for candidates and media to reach those communities during electoral campaigns, address their local concerns, and mobilize and engage Aboriginal electors" and that "geography is a hindrance to Aboriginal participation." ^{Footnote 2}

This is just one of the practical challenges with the current proposal. Others will include, and will not be limited to:

1. the fact that the Indigenous communities in the proposed Kiiwetinoong-Mushkegowuk riding face some of the deepest inequities and human rights challenges not only in the province, but in the country, placing particularly heavy responsibilities on our elected representatives;

1i. the financial poverty and the systematic technological, service, and infrastructural gaps across the north that do not exist to remotely the same degree anywhere else in the province, and which increase our need for engagement with political representatives, and decrease our ability to do so efficiently;

1ii. the numerous Indigenous languages and dialects spoken across the North, and the regular need for translation and interpretation in our engagements with elected representatives (especially regarding highly technical matters), makes federal politics much less accessible to us and can add significantly to the time and cost of effective representation;

1iii. the very high value that many First Nations cultures place on face-to-face time for building trusting and effective relationships, and the corresponding need for elected representatives to be able to spend sufficient time in our communities; and

1iv. the immense governance challenges facing the region in the coming years in relation to proposed developments in and around the "Ring of Fire", which on their own will place huge demands on political representatives in our region.

Reflecting on these factors, we are concerned that the proposed riding is not consistent with the Commission's mandate to ensure that ridings are of "a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions." ^{Footnote 3}

We appreciate that the Commission has acknowledged the circumstances of northern Indigenous communities, through recognizing "extraordinary circumstances" that justify an electoral riding deviating from the quota by almost 69%.

However, with respect, this proposal still reflects and reminds us of patterns and perspectives that have long disadvantaged us. For example:

1v. Indigenous peoples have been hearing for hundreds of years that our lands are "empty" or sparsely populated, and this has almost always worked against us - whether it has been Europeans declaring our lands terra nullius, modern-day Crown governments treating our territories like "undeveloped" frontiers full of resources for the taking by the south, or the rest of the province simply disregarding us most of the time.

1vi. We sense a "pan-Indianism" in this proposal that seems to imply that if the elected representative can engage with some of our communities some of the time, that is good enough.

Milen. Research Studies of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, Vol. 9. Toronto: Dundurn, pp. 105–52.

However, there are dozens of First Nations across the north. While many of our communities are closely connected and share common values and experiences, we are still culturally, linguistically, and politically distinct. We each need meaningful and effective access to our political representatives.

1vii. The proposal seems to overlook the importance of the treaties and the Canadian constitution, and what they mean for the duties of Parliament and therefore Members of Parliament. The people of the proposed riding are not simply Canadians like any others, nor are First Nations comparable to municipalities. The constituents of the proposed riding would mostly be members of Treaty 9, Treaty 3, and Treaty 5 First Nations, and collective Inherent, Aboriginal, and Indigenous rights-holders. Canada has a sacred relationship with First Nations that goes beyond national citizenship or democratic representation, carries with it responsibilities of the greatest importance.

While this does not mean First Nations people are more important than other parts of the electorate as individuals, it does mean that our Members of Parliament have relationships with us that require special consideration and protection. An effective, strong, and accessible relationship between First Nations and Parliamentary representatives is one way that we can maintain a good Treaty relationship and ensure that First Nations' voices are heard and understood by the Crown. Any electoral boundary changes that make this more difficult risks moving Treaty relationships in the wrong direction

1viii. If the North has long been an excluded and marginalized region in political processes, this is far more so for First Nations. With few exceptions, First Nations people living on reserves could not even freely vote in federal elections until 1960. To this day, engagement with federal elections by First Nations people is well below that of non-Indigenous and other Indigenous people, as is our understanding of, trust in, and satisfaction with federal democratic processes. ^{Footnote 4} Changes to our federal representation that make Parliament even less accessible and responsive to us will only make this worse.

The issues raised in this letter are appropriately considered in the Commission's mandate to balance electoral quota considerations with "the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district." ^{Footnote 5}

They should also be considered in light of Canada's unique and constitutionally-protected obligations to First Nations, and its commitment to reconciliation with us. The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that the rules governing electoral boundaries and effective representation should be interpreted and applied in a manner that upholds values such as social justice and equality and the enhancement of participation in the electoral process and society. ^{Footnote 6}

The issues we have raised cannot be addressed through money alone. However, if the Commission still recommends that the Kiiwetinoong – Mushkegowuk riding proceed as proposed, there must be significant extra investments in the budget for this riding to mitigate some of the inequities it will create. For example, our Member of Parliament will need a far greater budget for things like charter flights, accommodation, community visits, translation, interpretation, and support staff than other Members will. They may also need multiple regional offices.

We thank you for considering these comments, which should not be taken to suggest that Fort Albany First Nation is satisfied with the status quo or believes that the voices and interests of First Nations in Treaty 9 are sufficiently represented in Parliament.

Respectfully,

Elizabeth Kataquapit Chief Elizabeth Kataquapit Cc: Fort Albany First Nation Council Charlie Angus, MP, Timmins-James Bay

identity and to enhance the participation of individuals in the electoral process and society requires that other concerns also be accommodated."

Footnotes

Return to footnote ¹ https://www.charlieangus.ca/federal-riding-redistribution-2022

Return to footnote ² Kiera L. Ladner and Michael McCrossan, "The Electoral Participation of Aboriginal People", Working Paper Series on Electoral Participation and Outreach Practices, Elections Canada, 2007 at page 22, citing Alia, Valerie. 1991. "Aboriginal Peoples and Campaign Coverage in the North." Aboriginal Peoples and Electoral Reform in Canada. Edited by Robert A.

Return to footnote ³ Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, s. 15(1)(b)(ii).

Return to footnote ⁴ Elections Canada, "Indigenous Electors", Research on Electoral Participation, accessible at ,https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/part/abo&document=index&lang=e

Return to footnote ⁵ Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, s. 15(1)(b)(i).

Return to footnote ⁶ See Reference re Prov. Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158, in which McLachlin J (as she then was) noted: "The concerns which Dickson C.J. in Oakes associated with a free and democratic society -- respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice and equality, respect for cultural and group identity, and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals in society -- are better met by an electoral system that focuses on effective representation than by one that focuses on mathematical parity. Respect for individual dignity and social equality mandate that citizen's votes not be unduly debased or diluted. But the need to recognize cultural and group