Chief Elizabeth Atlookan...you say alot....let me try to piece this all together

You are a former community health director ...and now chief of a reserve of 1400

Since February, your community has suffered a suicide, suffered the loss of an infant, and a member has fallen victim to a homicide.

You are writing from the context of social crisis. All of your basic needs are un-­‐met. There are substandard community health services and social well being conditions are excruciating (sounds like someone not doing their job).

You are a community leader who is facing so much local pain and difficulty, while navigating tremendous pressure for industrial development.

You certainly sound troubled. With everything you have going on, why would you care for the thousands of people who seek meaningful employment....pay taxes....and contribute to society.

So....for the people of your community who suffer....you offer this piece of wisdom....

Even if each of health care, education, housing, and public works were suddenly and miraculously brought up to standard, how could those investments possibly be used to justify new and irreversible harm to our environment? No

So....that's a NO...to health care, education, housing, public works for your people? to jobs for your people...dignity...self reliance....on an assumption of irreversible harm to our environment.

Take not: it happens to be our environment as well...and don't assume we don't care.

Near the end of the article you state this....While First Nations are publicly positioned as partners, but are viewed as obstacles

Obstacle 1) We are interested in the development of meaningful, relationship-­‐based partnerships that could lead to wise management of resources.

Obstacle 2) Our First Nations have co-­‐developed a number of principles and proposals that do far better than call for a period of infrastructure investment. We have outlined a pathway to progress in our region that is rooted in community-­‐based dialogue, strengthening local and regional governance, while identifying real opportunities to plan together with governments for the future of the north.

Obstacle 3) As you suggest, the timing is right for infrastructure investments, but such investments need to begin with appropriate planning of a long-­‐term network, based on genuine involvement of all parties and best practices in environmental and socio-­‐economic impact assessment.

Obstacle 4) While I can see that Noront would prefer immediate action on their proposed access corridor, this is not necessarily in the best interests of the people of Ontario (whose tax dollars might fund this).

Obstacle 5) The focus of our work must be to wisely plan for the future, not race to construct roads without considering why.

Obstacle 6) Our traditional values and principles are far more useful and advanced than the implementation of sustainability objectives among governments and industry.

A few points:

Industry has spent upwards of $1 billion up to now. Much of that has been spent on development of meaningful, relationship-­‐based partnerships that could lead to wise management of resources, community-­‐based dialogue, appropriate planning of a long-­‐term network, based on genuine involvement of all parties and best practices in environmental and socio-­‐economic impact assessment.

They have the backing of the province who have committed $1 billion and were elected on that promise, so don't you worry about us Ontario taxpayers. Furthermore, the province and federal government have contributed $700,000 to study how best to proceed with roads. The debate of the right corridor has been ongoing for years now.

Lastly, you state your traditional values and principles are far more useful and advanced....it that is the case....go back to the top and read the first few lines again.

With all due respect...your like the person whose life is a mess telling everyone else how to run their lives. Here in Sudbury, we rely heavily on big mining....and I think we're doing a whole lot better.

By the way....I'm native as well