One More River:
A fair reminder!

One should acknowledge Grand Chief Dr. Ted Moses, O.Q., for his tenacity and determination for standing by an agreement he promoted, signed, sealed and delivered. As Grand Chief and member of the Cree Nation, Dr. Moses is as equally entitled to his personal opinion about the film One More River as anyone else within or beyond the confines of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Paix Des Braves or the New Relationship Agreement between the Cree, SDBJ and Hydro Quebec.

In a statement in The Nation (Vol.12, No.10 – April 1, 2005) concerning the film, Grand Chief Moses expresses his views and attempts to make others believe that the film portrays a negative image of the Paix des Braves.

One More River, in my personal opinion, presents a snapshot of events as they unfolded from that one October morning in 2001, when the Agreement in Principle (AIP) was first signed, and the process leading to the signing of the Paix des Braves.

Though I failed to catch the message in the film that advocates renouncing the deal, the film revived memories of a time of mixed emotions as it encapsulated an event in our time that will likely change our lifestyle as Eeyou even more, including our landscape, environment and perhaps change entirely the course of our own history. It is the only film to take account of the historical debate on the agreement, the proposed new direction and the proposed project for one more river. It tells the story of a divided Nation, the confrontation, the confusion, the hurt, the tears, the traces of betrayal and manipulation, the disregarded voices, the fear tactics and the squaring off in our own political arena, Cree vs. Cree.

It captures the laughter, the smiles and celebration of one side as it walks away the champion – The Conqueror, as two dissidents are led away in police vehicles. The film provides a valid scene of events as they happened, a glimpse of a recent past that agitates a sore spot on both sides. A film that is the opposite of what was portrayed by the Grand Council outside Eeyou Istchee before, during and after the agreement was signed.

Rezolution Pictures presented the process as it was and managed to deliver a condensed version in a two-part series, a four-month marathon process. They deserve only our gratitude and congratulations.

The Paix des Braves may have been in effect since February 7, 2002, but no one can deny that the difference of opinion and the debate on the agreement still lingers on. The Grand Chief’s statement not only validates this difference of opinion, but entices the idea that maybe now is the time to clear the air by reopening the debate.

I concur with the Grand Chief’s that dissent is healthy, one that is balanced and creates a reasonable portrait of the situation, but we have to keep in mind that dissent is healthier when people are given an equal opportunity with equal resources to present a case. It was unfortunate that this was not the situation during the AIP consultations. Now would be the appropriate time put to test what we claim to be our democracy not only to clear the air, but to also assess our new realities and the real impacts from this deal.

As we sit on our wealth and future counting our program money and deciding which projects to fund next even as we are about to begin to lose rivers one by one, social issues still plague our communities and our lives, so what has really changed?

What about the social and economic impacts from the agreement and projects such as EM1? What was in our victory? What did we gain and what did we give up in return? Did we really and fully understand what we agreed to or what we signed away? What about the OJ contamination issue and the people of OJ? How about what impacts does the agreement really have on our communities and us?

What about the Grand Chief’s claim that we are saving the Broadback River and Nottaway if we allow HQ to divert the Rupert River – if of course it passes the environmental review? This is a claim I hope someone will put to rest after the goose break. Where are the documents that prove that NBR was economically, technically and scientifically viable anyway?

I believe the Rupert’s River received an unfair sentencing, without evidence or a fair hearing. The river deserves a chance from a Nation it helped survive. In my personal opinion, including the Rupert River diversion project in the agreement was unnecessary, and I am beginning to think that it really was a sideshow project for something bigger and much greater, but what is it?

Life never has a shortage of events that come with valuable lessons – lessons sometimes that are far too great to just simply ignore or forget. The Paix des Braves and its process has been an experience of a lifetime.

I am not ready to renounce the deal; instead I would like to see the relationship enhanced without touching one river, including the one slated for diversion. Which reminds me – some time in the next few months each and every Cree will have the opportunity to exercise his or her duty at the polls once again and I personally look forward to voting. To vote to save a river!

Bertie Wapachee