MOUNTAIN CREE Position Paper NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. 2017 System Expansion Project National Energy Board Hearings 2015

/\/\OUNTAIN CREE ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendants Traditional Band Administrative Office 718 * Blackfalds, Alberta * CANADA TOM OJO * 1-403-885-2991 Asini Wachi Nehiyawak Consultation/Heritage Consulting www.inewhistory.com c/o [email protected] ______Member: Heritage Canada Mountain Parks Aboriginal Advisory Forum Nations of Jasper Camp Administrator/Host Nation, 2011-2014 Nations of Jasper Assembly Recognized by the Government of Canada

December 12, 2016

National Energy Board, Suite 210, 517 10 Ave. S.W., Calgary, Alberta T2R 0A8 e-m: [email protected]

Attn: Ms. Sheri Young, Secretary of the Board

Dear Ms. Young:

Re: Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL) Application for the 2017 NGTL System Expansion Project (Application) OF-Fac-Gas-N081-2014-20 02

LETTER OF COMMENT e-file:

Re: NOVA Responses to Conditions

Condition 5 Commitment_Tracking_Table_2_-_A5H0C0.pdf 20 / 31 (attached) Condition 13 Aboriginal_Engagement_Reports_-_A5H2H6.pdf 2 / 30 (attached)

NOVA/NOVA Gas Transmission Lines (NOVA, NGTL) is a subsidiary of Trans Canada Pipelines (TC). It's aboriginal consultation policy is handled by Trans Canada Pipelines.

NOVA is engaged in the Wolverine and the 2017 NGTL System Expansion Project (NOVA 2017).

The ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK TRADITIONAL BAND/BOBTAIL DESCENDANTS (aka. Mountain Cree, AWNTB) is a Non-Treaty Aboriginal band with a documented history of over 350 years in Alberta and is refereced in legendry back into the Ice Age period.

AWNTB is/was a recognized Intervenor in the NOVA Wovlerine and NOVA 2017 applications and in the Trans Canada Energy East (TCEE) application with the National Energy Board (NEB). 5.

AWNTB families moved into the proposed NOVA Wolverine and NOVA 2017 project areas around 1860 or earlier. AWNTB families have been involved in subsistence and ceremonial activities in the area ever since.

These lands in relation to the NOVA projects extend from Lac La Biche in the south toto Great Slave Lake in the north and from Isle A La Crosse in the east to the Chinchaga Hills and Fort St. John in the west.

The NEB has approved the NOVA 2017 project with certain conditions pertaining to Aboriginal Engagement, Inclusion and Consultation.

In response to Condition 5 NOVA responded:

"NGTL will continue to discuss the Project with AWNTB to determine the community's specific interest in the project." (copy attached)

In point of fact, NOVA/TC has never directly contacted us or communicated with us with regards to the Project. The communications we have had from NOVA/TC consisted only of e-mailings of standard mass- communication Public Relations releases which which refered the recipient to a NTCL website and ended with the standard statement to

"concerns. or questions any have you if directly me contact Please"

10.

AWNTB has previously attempted to engage with NOVA/TC with regards to the NOVA 2017, NOVA Wolverine and TCEE with specific concerns and proposals.

a. These include proposals to enter into contractual Consultation arrangements pertaining to

- Traditional AWNTB Land Use and history in the project area - Archaeological/HRA studies/Ground Truth participation - Project Construction Monitoring

b. Concerns about the quality of archaeological/HRA studies

c. Concerns about protection and mitigation of arhaeological/historic sites.

11.

AWNTB has qualified (M.A./Ph.D. pending) archaeological capabilites and trained and experienced crews.

The writer has a large publications history in the field of Archeology and aboriginal history.

The writer has previously made significant archaeological discoveries, including the discovery of the Alberta Moundbuilder Culture (2009), the discovery of the largest petroglyph site in Canada (2016) and the original prooving of the existence of the Ice-Free Corridor (1971), and the documentation/mapping of the Quaternary Lakes shorelines (1975, 1994).

12.

AWNTB personnel have specific knowlege of archaeological and historic sites in the project area. 13.

NOVA/TC has never responded directly to AWNTB pertaining to these proposals.

14.

Rather, NOVA/TC stated that IN THEIR OPINION, the AWNTB had no occupancy in the project area, had no rights in the project area and did not need to be consulted with.

15.

In addition, NOVA/TC demanded, via NEB filings, that AWNTB provide them with

- detailed maps of AWNTB Trails in the project area - detailed maps of AWNTB sites in the project area. - names and addresses of band members after receipt of which they would consider if they should contract for the information.

16.

AWNTB objected to providing such information prior to contractual undertakings, but did file small-scale maps with the NEB showing AWNTB lands and land use, and advised that NOVA/TC could research band members on the Heritage Consulting website www.inewhistory.com/wg.html.

17.

In regards to the NOVA Wolverine project, NOVA was instructed by the NEB to enter into engagement and consultation with AWNTB.

18.

This was never done by NOVA.

19.

AWNTB continued to attempt to engage with NOVA/TC but was instructed in an e-mail from Ryan McFaddenon PM 1:17 at 2016 ,3 Aug Wed, to desist from communicating with NOVA/TC.

20.

In response to Condition 13, Trans Canada responded that

NGTL continues to follow the principles and goals as outlined in Section 13 of the Project Application and continues to share Project information with the interested and potentially afected Aboriginal groups identified in Section 8 of NGTL's Additional Written Evidence, with the exception of the following groups, who NGTL has not received responses from with respect to ongoing follow-up and information sharing efforts:

* Asini Wachi Nehiyawak Traditional Band * Clearwater River Dene Nation * Lubicon Lake Band * Marlboro Community Association * O'Chiese First Nation * Stoney Nakoda First Nation * Swan River First Nation * Tallcree First Nation

Should NGTL receive responses from any of these groups, the engagement efforts and the outcomes of NGTL's follwo-up with the applicable community will be included in subsequent filings in accordance with Condition 13 of the Certificate for the Project.

21.

As noted in 9., above, NOVA/TC has never directly contacted us or communicated with us with regards to the Project. The communications we have had from NOVA/TC consisted only of e-mailings of standard mass-communication Public Relations releases which refered the recipient to a NTCL website and ended with the standard statement to

"concerns. or questions any have you if directly me contact Please"

21.

Nor has NOVA/TC ever responded to our concerns and interests (10., 19., above).

22.

NOVA/TC is well aware that AWNTB, and other First Nation groups, have the capacity to undertake archaeological/HR studies. However, they have never contacted AWNTB or the other groups, nor the ASSOCIATION OF FIRST NATIONS ARCHAEOLOGISTS AND HISTORIANS to engage them to conduct any such research. This is contrary to specifict requirements placed on NOVA/TC to hire aboriginal for contractual work.

23.

We, AWNTB, hold that NOVA/TC has not conducted it's aboriginal engagement in Good Faith, and has failed to fulfill it's obligations in good faith, nor made any attempt to do so in regards to the AWNTB.

24.

As we have stated in the past, the AWNTB position is that

The AWNTB is committed to positive, fruitful and mutually beneficial participation in the Consultation process as laid out in DELGAMUUKW insofar as it does not infringe on the rights of the AWNTB, as laid out in DELGAMUUKW, and is committed ot the principle of biparty discussion, negotiation and concesus in matters affecting the development within traditional AWNTB lands.

24.

The AWNTB is not ideologically opposed to pipeline development but until the DELGAMUUKW conditions are dealt with in Good Faith we can not support this development.

Our positon on this has not changed.

KI TA MIYOHIN

J. Fromhold, (B.A., Arky.; M.A. Soc/Anth; Ph.D. Pend., Econ. Dev.; Cert. Bus. Analyst; Dip.F.Art) Camp Chief; Nations of Jasper 2011-2015 Assembly CEO/Head, Mountain Cree (Asini Wachi Nehiyawak) Traditional Band Recipient: Heritage Canada Minister's Award of Excellence in Leadership Okimaw, Nations of Jasper O Kichita Okimaw/Trustee, Kayashik O Kichita (Heritage Protection Society) Member: Jasper National Park Aboriginal Advisory Forum Designated Heritage Site Guardian; Nations of Jasper Lead Historian: Enoch Cree Nation Land Claims Lead Historian: Dene Tha' First Nation Land Claims Charter Member: Alberta Association of Consulting Archaeologists Charter President: Association of First Nations Archaeologists and Historians Past Area Manager, Alberta Advanced Education Past Branch Manager, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Past Member: Nations of Jasper Cultural Steering Committee

Elder: Beaver Lake First Nation * Mountain Cree Band * Calgary Friendship Centre

Member: Jasper National Park Aboriginal Advisory Forum * Nations of Jasper Cultural Steering Committee * Enoch Cree Nation Elder's Committee

Mountain Cree Business Group

Asini Wachi Manpower Services * Asini Wachi Nehiyawak Consultation

Affiliates

Alberta Moundbuilder Protection Society * Classic Auto Maintainance Donalda Buffalo Pound Development O Kichita * Donalda Holdings * First Nations Publishing * Fromhold Security Heritage Consulting * Heritage Publishing * iNEW Development Society * Inew Hair Salon * Inew Publishing J. Fromhold Business Consulting * Kayashik O Kichita * Lawrence Trucking * Moundbuilder Holdings Mountain Chief Glacier Water * Mountain Cree Museum Society * Mountain Cree Ranching Mountain Hotshot & Delivery * Mountain Spring Water * Museum Development Consulting Northern Janitorial * Paintball Warrior * Red Deer Antiques * Sheldon Mountain Trucking Temple Mounds Development * Todd's Welding * YardWork

www.facebook.com/Central-Albertas-Vanishing-Heritage

MOUNTAIN CREE Position Paper

NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. 2017 System Expansion Project File 0F-Fac-Gas-N081-2014-20 02 National Energy Board Hearings 2015

May

2016v2

prepared by

J. Fromhold, Ph.D. (pend.), C.B.A., C.E.O. Mountain Cree Band

MOUNTAIN CREE Position Paper

NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. 2017 System Expansion Project File 0F-Fac-Gas-N081-2014-20 02 National Energy Board Hearings 2015

PREAMBLE

In July of 2016 the Asini Wachi Nehiyawak Band (AWNTB) was contacted by the Major Projects Management Office (MPMO) of Natural Resources Canada to inquire if AWNTB would be willing to meet with MPMO representatives and other Government representatives to discuss AWNTB concerns about the National Energy Board Hearings into the NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. 2017 System Expansion Project.

Specifically, the question posed were

• What are your outstanding concerns with respect to project-related impacts on your Aboriginal and treaty rights – particularly for issues that may not be captured in the NEB’s proposed conditions?

• What accommodation measures might you propose to address these outstanding concerns?

AWNTB has prepared the following summary. /\/\OUNTAIN CREE (ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendant Traditional Band) ______

CONTENTS

Preamble 3 Table of Contents 4 Abbreviations Statement of Limitations Position Statement 5 Issues 6 A. Failure to Consult B. Hearings Paticipation 9 C. Rights Issues 11 D. Heritage/Cultural Resource Protection 16 E. Environmental 19 F. Historical Land Use 19 G. Jobs 19 H. Good Faith 21 I. Failure to Engage 23 J. NEB Failure to Enforce 25 K. Greater Good 28 L. Values 33 Mitigation 39 Rights Legislation 40 Addenum 41

Abbreviations

AWNTB Asini Wachi Nehiyawak (Mountain Cree) Traditional Band HRA Heritage Resources Assessment MPMO Major Projects Management Office NEB National Energy Board R0W Right Of Way TLU Traditional Land Use

Statement of Limitation

Information collected for this Study and this Deposition is the sole property of the Mountain Cree (Asini Wachi Nehiyawak) Traditional Band. The information contained within this project-specific Study is meant for a single application only, for consideration by the National Energy Board in the regulatory review process for the NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. 2017 System Expansion Project and Wolverine River Lateral Loop Projects (File OF-Fac-Gas-N081-2013-18 02) and for no other purpose. Citation, use or reproduction of the information contained herein for any other purpose is permissible only with the written consent of the ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK (Mountain Cree) TRADITIONAL BAND. /\/\OUNTAIN CREE (ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendant Traditional Band) ______

Position Statement

Ref. Addenum 01, Position Paper /\/\OUNTAIN CREE (ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendant Traditional Band) ______

ISSUES

"As the price of crude oil climbs higher in an oil-dominated country, poor or rich...that country's citizens will, over time, experience less free speech, declining freedom of the press, and a steady erosion of the rule of law."

(Friedman 2006, Foreign Policy Review)

This is the First Law of Petro Politics, as recognized by economists and sociologists.

A. Failure to Consult

Duty To Consult Legal Requirements

See also Addenum 02. AWNTB Final Argument (doc. 18476786 Attached)

Background

See also Addenum 02. AWNTB Final Argument (doc. 18476786 Attached) See also Addenum 03. (doc. 91412NEBNGt)

NOVA Gas Transmission Lines, a subsidiary of Trans Canada Pipelines knew or should have known of the existence of the Mountain Cree (AWNTB) as a Band having historic Land Use in the area and having interests in that area.

The Mountain Cree have had an Internet website presence since 1994.

Trans Canada Pipelines is the agent for NOVA Gas Transmission Lines (NOVA) tasked with implementation of the Company's Duty To Consult undertakings.

In June, 2013 reports were submited to Trans Canada outlining a number of locations of archaeological and historical points of importance and interest known by us to be along the Energy East pipeline Right-of-Way.(1)

The report noted that in areas the ROW crossed terrain noted as being known to contain Early Man sites and the source of extensive private collections of artifacts.

This was not followed up on.

The report also noted that historical information on these sites and pictures dating to the 1840's was available. This was not followed up on.

On October 08, 2013 AWNTB informed TRANS CANADA PIPELINES, the Parent Company for NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd., and the Lead for issues involving First Nations Groups and Duty to Consult, of the existence of the AWNTB and our historic Land Use interests in Alberta.

There was no attempt made by Trans Canada to engage with AWNTB.

On October 8, 2013, we advised Trans Canada about our interests in the Grand Rapids pipeline, but received no response.

On October 8, 2013, we advised Trans Canada about our interests in the Energy East pipeline, But received no response.

On March 4, 2014 AWNTB filed for Intervenor status with the NEB for the Energy East pipeline.

On March 25, 2014, Trans Canada/Nova Gas filed a regulatory application for the Wolverine River Lateral Loop (Carmon Creek Section) Project.

No attempt was made to inform, contact or consult with AWNTB.

Since May 8, 2014, AWNTB has been involved in the Energy East hearing process with the NEB.

On May 14, 2014 AWNTB was informed that we were accepted as Intervenor in the Energy East project.

On June 27, 2014, NOVA filed an Aboriginal Update with the NEB.

No attempt had been made to contact or consult with AWNTB. On July 1, 2014 received correspondence from Trans Canada re. Trans Canada Energy East Project.

On July 1, 2014 AWNTB responded to [email protected] to his letter re. Trans Canada Energy East Project . AWNTB also forwarded a copy of our Consultation Protocols, including a map of the lands in which we have a Traditional interest.

On July 10, 2014 the initial deadline for Application to Participate in the NOVA Wolverine Project passed.

At this time Trans Canada, the original Applicant for the Wolverine Project, and parent company of Nova Gas Transmission Lines, had been aware of our existence and interests in the development activities of their firm, and that AWNTB was elegible for engagement under the Duty To Consult ever since October 2013.

During all this time neither Trans Canada nor NOVA advised us of the existence of the NOVA Wolverine Project.

On July 12, 2014 AWNTB sent a letter to Shirley Dawe @ Trans Canada re. Trans Canada Energy East Project.

On August 23, 2014, we were in communication with Ms. Karen Gardner, of Trans Canada, who set up a date for us to meet with her re. Engagement. These meetings have been postponed several times and not yet carried out.

On August 26, 2014 we received an e-m from Ms. Gardner at Trans Canada to set up a meeting. These meetings have been postponed several times and not yet carried out.

On September 2, 2014, we received a telephone call from Ms. Gardner of Trans Canada advising that the meeting scheduled for that morning was cancelled.

On September 21, 2014, we received an e-mail from Ms. Gardner of Trans Canada to arrange another meeting date. These meetings have been postponed several times and not yet carried out.

On September 21, 2014, while searching the NEB website, AWNTB first became aware of the existence of the Wolverine project. At this time we downloaded and reviewed the Aboriginal Update and Engagement filing, noting that NOVA had made no attempt to contact AWNTB. In keeping with AWNTB view to avoid confrontation, rather than immediately filing for Intervenor status we submitted a Letter of Comment to the National Energy Board (A62951, A4C2Y1), with cc to NTGL, indicating that

The Wolverine River Lateral Loop lies within the historic TLU area of the Mountain Cree (Asini Wachi Nehiyawak) Traditional Band (AWNTB). Members of the band still utilize the area. and

We have never been notified or approached by NGTL for either our input re. our TLU, nor with information pertaining potential economic involvement or contract/procurement opportunities.

On September 25, 2014, the National Energy Board (NEB) sent a letter of inquiry to NOVA (Information Request # 4, A63050) on this matter. On September 28, 2014 we contacted Trans Canada about our interests in the Keystone XL pipeline, but received no response.

On October 1, 2014, OSLER, on behalf of NOVA, replied to the Information Request (IR) rejecting our stated claim (doc. A4C6D6 on file with the NEB). As of November 6th we have not yet received a hard copy of said reply. In the reply OSLER put forward several reasons for their rejection of our position, their defence being mainly that in their "opinion" AWNTB did not qualifyto be included, but provided no hard evidence to refute our claim to being able to document historic Land Use in the area.

On October 25, 2014, AWNTB filed a Letter of Comment (A63844, A4D7D0), a rebuttal respond- ing to Oslers reasons rejecting AWNTB engagement in the Wolverine Project.

On November 2, 2014 AWNTB applied for Intervenor status to the Wolverine Project.

On November 4, 2014 AWNTB received a telephone call from the NEB advising us that an NEB letter had been filed re. our Applicaton, and that a response was required on short notice.

As of November 7 (Friday) a Hard Copy of the letter hand not yet been received.

On November 16, 2014, we received a copy of the October 1 Osler letter contesting our rights.

On November 18, 2014 the NEB issued a letter to all parties in Hearing Order GH-003-2014 advising NOVA/Trans Canada that the Mountain Cree Traditional Band was to be included in the aboriginal consultation. To date NOVA has refused to consult with AWNTB. There has been

an unwillingness to respond to AWNTB attempts at reaching out

an unwillingness to work with us in an expeditious manner

an unwillingness to work with us in good faith

Instead, they prefer to take a hostile, confrontational and adversarial position, to contest contest our rights

Our experience with Trans Canada Pipelines, as shown with our attempts at dealing with Trans Canada in a friendly and co-operative manner with regards to the Grand Rapids pipeline, NOVA Wolverine pipeline and Energy East project clearly demonstrates that Trans Canada is not entering into Aboriginal Engagment in good faith.

Rather, Trans Canada takes an adversarial and confrontational approach to consultation, to the point of ignoring National Energy Board directives.

On July 7, 2015 we applied as Intervenor in the 2017 Expansion Project

On July 21 2015, we were notified by the National Energy Board (NEB) as an Intervenor. This information was made available to NOVA.

To date NOVA has entered into no communications with the ASINI WACHI Band with either the Wolverine project nor the Expansion project, let alone included the ASINI WACHI in the Consultation process.

We consider this to be a deficiency and is failing to meet its obligations to affected aboriginal parties as mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada. Clearly, NOVA has at not acted in Good Faith with AWNTB in the Wolverine Lateral Loop project, wherein at no time did the engage with, engaged with or entered into consultation with or enter into communication with AWNTB, failing to follow up on NEB instructions to do so. Nor has NOVA acted in Good Faith so far with the NOVA 2017 project.

See also

Addenum 02. AWNTB Final Argument (doc. 18476786 Attached) Addenum 05. AWNTB Response to NOVA Information Request (doc. 1757006 Attached)

7. NOVA and other Proponents have made demands for information

See also

Addenum 02. AWNTB Final Argument (doc. 18476786 Attached) Addenum 05. AWNTB Response to NOVA Information Request (doc. 1757006 Attached)

Eg. Demands for detailed Land Use maps and information

No entity has the right to demand such information from a First Nation. Such information is more appropriately asked for in Consultation, as this information would then be included in their "Consultation" and consultation reports.

By Supreme Court rulings in Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia

The only entity that can demand justification of aboriginal claims and proof of Traditional Land Use is

1. The Government of Canada or it's designated agent if and when a First Nation enters into Treaty negotiations or other request of benefits from the Government of Canada

2. The Supreme Court of Canada in settling a dispute pertaining to aboriginal and First Nation rights.

For Industry or even an unauthorized Government of Canada agent or agency to demand information or proof is a breach of First Nation rights.

These damands are illegal.

8. Failure to enter into consultation

See also

Addenum 02. AWNTB Final Argument (doc. 18476786 Attached) Addenum 05. AWNTB Response to NOVA Information Request (doc. 1757006 Attached)

NOVA has failed to meet it's obligations as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia The Supreme Court requires engagement, consultation and compensation in various ways for use of and benefits from aboriginal lands and properties.

NOVA has failed to do so.

This is contrary to the Supreme Court ruling under Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia which states that identification is a matter of self-identification and can not be defined or denied by any outside agent or agency other than the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada also laid out a test to determine if a band existed in fact (see C.3., above). AWNTB meets these criteria.

NOVA has unilaterally chosen not to recognize AWNTB or to enter into any consultation agreements with AWNTB contrary to Supreme Court rulings and in violation of AWNTB rights as an established Non-Treaty Traditional Band and contravenes Supreme Court rulings.

9. Failure to recognize AWNTB rights

See also

Addenum 05. AWNTB Response to NOVA Information Request (doc. 1757006 Attached)

NOVA has claimed that it's research has found no evidence that the Mountain Cree Exist.

AWNTB has had an Internet website presence since 1994 and has had interaction with the Government of Alberta, Indian Affairs Canada, various cultural funding agencies, and has had the Mountain Dancers dance troupe. Heritage Consulting has also listed the Mountain Cree Band on it's website since 1994 as one of the bands on which Heritage Consulting has a history database.

The Mountain Cree are extensively referred to in the Cree/Western History publications by First Nations Publishing (Addenum 09). These are extensively referred to on the Internet and listed with lulu.com and inewhistory.com/2001.html

That NOVA has been unable to find out this information suggests that either NOVA has intentionally ignored this data, or the research was incompetent.

NOVA has unilaterally decided and stated that in the "opinion" of NOVA, AWNTB has no claimed rights in the NOVA/ROW area, but has provided no hard evidence to support that position.

Under Supreme Court rulings, claims or rights brought forward by recognized aboriginal groups and/or parties are to be accepted as Fact until proven otherwise. Under Supreme Court rulings, the burden of proof that these rights Do Not exist falls on the disclaimant, and that furthermore, such proof that these rights Do Not exist must be brought before the Supreme Court for deliberation.

(See Sec....)

By Supreme Court rulings in Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia no agent outside the Supreme court has the authority to

- decide who or what constitutes a First Nation or Band - decide what rights a First Nation/Band has - ignore, do away with, change or modify such rights

NOVA's claim that in their "opinion" AWNTB has no "rights" in the Woverine Project area does not meet the Supreme Court burden of proof, nor has it been brought forward to the Supreme Court for adjudication.

In short,

NOVA has failed to establish that the AWNTB does not have legitimate claim and rights in the NOVA Wolverine Project area.

NOVA is in contravention of the Supreme Court rulings.

The Supreme Court rulings in Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia further state that such rights and and claimed rights can be challenged, but can only be challenged in front of the Supreme Court of Canada.

NOVA has not mounted a legal challenge to AWNTB rights and claims, but has chosen to ignore, change, curtail and unilaterally define these rights as it sees fit, contrary to Law.

This is a clear infringement of the obligations mandated by the Supreme Court and an infringement of the AWNTB rights.

10. Lands Taken Out/Land Use

See also

Addenum 02. AWNTB Final Argument (doc. 18476786 Attached)

AWNTB has never surrendered it's lands and the Use and Enjoyment of these lands.

Nontheless, 90% of these lands have been unilaterally expropriated without compensation by various levels of Government for various uses, and AWNTB and it's members denied the Use and Enjoyment of these lands. These lands have been removed completely from AWNTB, use, enjoyment, management and control.

The fact that some lands may be accessed through permission by a third party does not in any way indicate that AWNTB have been accorded any more rights to their traditional lands than does any foreigner or alien.

The right to free and untramelled Use and Enjoyment of First Nations Traditional Lands by the Sovreign First Nations was recognized by the British Crown and the British Colonial Office prior to the annexation of the west by Canada.

The fact that these Traditional Lands have been expropriated and are no longer available for the Use and Enjoyment are an infringement of the historic, aboriginal and human rights of the First Nations.

The Supreme Court in Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia ruled that use of traditional and unsurrendered First Lands must be compensated for by the users.

AWNTB has never been compensated for the use of any of it's Traditional Lands. This is a breach of AWNTB rights.

Furthermore, further development of the NOVA project will remove what little lands still remain for the Use and Enjoyment by AWNTB along the pipeline corridor.

Removal of these lands without compensation is an infringement of AWNTB rights.

11. Trespass

See also

Addenum 06. AWNTB Information Request, 1.2 (doc. 17289923 Attached)

Historically the First Nations of Rupert's Land - and what is now western Canada - were recognized by the British Crown and the British Colonial Office as Sovreign Nations and as being the owners of and rulers of their Traditional Lands. In 1870 Canada annexed these lands without consultation with these Nations and implemented a policy of Ethnic Cleansing and removal of the rights of these Nations as Sovreign peoples.

Canada successively assumed the right of Entry, Use of and Ownership of these lands and the resources therein. This constituted outright expropriation of these lands without consultation and/or compensation.

To presume some form of legitimacy the Government of Canada forced a number of Treaties on these Sovreign Peoples. Though not discussed in the Treaty negotiations, the Government inserted a Land Surrender clause into these treaties. This clause has since been found by the Supreme Court of Canada not to have been legal, and to be non-binding. These Treaties were not a Land Surrender treaties.

Hence, these First Nations have never surrendered their lands and contents.

Another clause in these Treaties gave Canada and Canadian Citizens the Right of Entry and travel in these lands. This appears to have been mutually ageed to, and gave Canada and Canadian Citizens certain limited rights in Treaty First Nations Lands.

The ancestors of AWNTB, and certain other bands, did not enter into a Treaty or agreement with Canada pertaining to granting rights of access or use of their lands.

Since these lands were never ceded, and there has never been a joint use agreement with Canada, and such lands and contents are recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as being the property of the affected First Nation, any and all entry into AWNTB lands without consent is legal Trespass.

Hence, entry into and use of AWNTB lands by Canda and Canadian Citizens without agreement or permission constitutes Trespass.

Furthermore, by law developers, including Energy firms, must obtain permission from the land owners prior to entry and use of such lands, and to provide fair compensation for said use.

Since AWNTB, and other First Nations, retain a legal proprietary interest in their lands, as ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada, they are to be legally consulted about and compensated for access and use of these lands.

NOVA has not approached AWNTB on this matter. This is a clear infringement of the AWNTB rights, as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Further, entry, development and exploitation of these lands constitute vandalism, theft and criminal acts. Without meeting the Supreme Court rulings and the Government of Canada mandated Consultation and involvement with the AWNTB and a subsequent Agreement with the AWNTB, the NOVA/Wolverine Project and 2017 Expansion can not legally proceed.

Approval of the Wolverine abd 2017 Expansion project by the Government of Canada would likewise be a failure to act in Good Faith and breach of the 1763 Royal Proclamation Fiduciary Obligations.

12. Ecological Destruction

See also

Addenum 02. AWNTB Final Argument (doc. 18476786 Attached) Addenum 07. Ecological Impact

NOVA pipeline development have had serious negative ecological and environmental impacts in the AWNTB.

Not only have there have been negative impacts on the ecology, it has negative impacts on the economy and wellbeing of members of the AWNTB.

Pipeline activity and construction have irrevocably impacted traditional family hunting lands, land use, and use and enjoyment of these lands.

The Round Hill-Peavine-Christina River area has historically been the hunting lands of the Cardinal and Mountain families for some 200 years. Generations were born in these lands. The writer's wife was born here in 1958.

The Round Hill-Peavine-Christina lands were viable lands that provided subsistence in the form of hunting and trapping for some 100 kinsmen and were still in use in the 1970's for that purpose.

These lands provided food, medicine and recreation. Non-natives valued getting away to a cottage on the lake. Our people valued getting away to a camp in the bush. An old hunting camp

Since then ecological destruction, roadways, land clearing, pipeline right-of-ways and other land-use related to pipeline construciton and operations have made the land unproductive and no longer viable as hunting and trapping lands.

For those of our people who were born here and grew up here, it is heartbreaking to return to these lands and see the destruction.

It is land that has been destroyed. It is no longer useful and productive. /\/\OUNTAIN CREE (ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendant Traditional Band) ______

D. Heritage/Cultural Resource Protection

By their very nature, issues of Heritage Resources and Cultural Resources deal almost exclusively with aboriginal Heritage and Culture.

Aboriginals have been in this region and used these lands for some 13,000 years. In contrast, non-aboriginals have been in this area and used this land for less than 250 years.

By any type of definition, Archaeological, cultural and heritage materials - sites and artifacts - are aboriginal cultural properties. This is recognized in the Supreme Court of Canada ruling Delgamuukw vs.British Columbia

It is fair to say that matters of Heritage and Cultural Resource recognition and Protection are if great interest and concern to Canadian aboriginal peoples in all walks of life and of great import and significance to the Cultural History of Canada and Canadians as a whole.

1. NOVA maintains that

The Project generally, in part, follows the pre-existing lines, hence

- There has already been disturbed and therefore has no existing archaeological value

- Certain spot checking by archaeological consultants satisfies requirements.

These are fallacious arguments because

- Independent studies of pre-existing ROW HRA (eg. Trans Mountain Expansion) have shown that there are still unreported archaeological sites along the edges or near the edges of such ROW and/or that the service roads cut through archaeological sites.

- Independent re-examination of work done by commercial consultants have shown that numerous significant sites have been missed. The prime example is re-examination of a 30 km.portion of the Trans Mountain Expansion ROW (see Addenum 08, Trans Mountain re-assessment) shows that the initial examination missed 80% of the sites, including burials and significant sites.(1)

- Assessment of the Eastern Alberta Transmission Line report shows that the field study reported fewer sites than would be expected as an average on such a survey. (2)

- The interpretation of excavations at the Hardisty Site was found to be inaccurate on a number of points (3)

- The ROW passes by or close to known Mountain Cree campsites (not yet located in detail). - AWNTB has knowlege of paleontological sites in the ROW areas (4)

This demonstrates that the existing studies and the basis on which these studies are wrong and the work of substandard quality.

2. NOVA has not made available or offered to make available to AWNTB any copies of Heritage Resource Studies done for the Right of Way in order that AWNTB can conduct an independent assessment of the work done or claimed to have been done or the quality of the work done.

3. NOVA has done nothing to recognize or protect the cultural history of the AWNTB in the ROW area.

See also

Addenum 02. AWNTB Final Argument (doc. 18476786 Attached)

AWNTB has a 200 year historic presence in the ROW area or portions thereof which is known to the AWNTB but is not publicly known in the general history of Canada or Saskatchewan.

Seasonal Fish Weir

This knowlege and history was brought to the attention of NOVA.

NOVA has knowingly chosen to ignore this important aspect of Western Canadian History.

In doing so, NOVA has willfully chosen to brush aside AWNTB - and by extention the larger First Nations cultural history - as being of no import and insignificant.

4. NOVA and their contracted consultants have failed to employ qualified aboriginal archaeologists as either staff or consultants. Heritage Consulting, an affiliate of the Mountain Cree, has been engaged in archaeological research for 35 years (see attached). NOVA has or should have had knowlege of this.

1978 Archaeological Project; IMPERIAL OIL, Judy Creek Clip used in a print and television article

1980 News Article; AMMSA/SWEETGRASS

The author of this report has 45 years of archaeological experience, with over 100 publications. These publications are listed on inewhistory.com/wa.html. (see also Addenum 10). A number of these research results were groundbreaking (Addenum 11). Others are specific to northwestern Alberta north of Lesser Slave Lake.

The author was a founding member of the Alberta Association of Consulting Archaeologists.

NOVA had or should have had knowlege of this.

Currently an Association of First Nations Archaeologists and Historians exists. The association has 41 Charter Members.

NOVA breached it's obligations to employ or give hiring priority to qualified aboriginals and qualified aboriginal firms.

5. NOVA and their contracted consultants have failed to employ qualified aboriginal historians as either staff or consultants.

See also

Addenum 02. AWNTB Final Argument (doc. 18476786 Attached) Addenum 06. AWNTB Information Request, 9.1 (doc. 17289923 Attached)

Heritage Consulting, an affiliate of the Mountain Cree, has been engaged in historical research research for 35 years. NOVA has or should have had knowlege of this.

The author of this report has 45 years of experience as a historical researcher, with numerous publications. NOVA had or should have had knowlege of this.

Heritage Consulting maintains the largest Aboriginal website on Internet, www.inewhistory. com. It is ranked in the top 10 percentile of Internet sites based on usage. It is the #1 aboriginal website on internet. The site contains a substantial historical section.

Heritage Consulting maintains the largest existing database on aboriginal history, the history of First Nations/Bands and aboriginal family histories and genealogies.

NOVA breached it's obligations to employ or give hiring priority to qualified aboriginals and qualified aboriginal firms.

(1) KINDER-MORGAN Trans-Mountain Pipeline, TERA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY ASSESSMENT, Winterburn - Wabamun, Alberta; First Nations Publishing; J. Fromhold, M.A.; 2013

(2) ATCO EASTERN ALBERTA TRANSMISSION LINE, Heritage Resource Inventory Assess- ment Report 11-049 Deficiencies; Report; J. Fromhold, M.A.; 2013

(3) 'HARDISTY POUND' ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES; Preliminary Assessment of summary statement 'Archaeologcial Sites FdOt-1, FdOt-9 and FdOt-10 at Hardisty Alberta'; 2014

(4) A SPECULATIVE LOWER CRETACEOUS SEQUENCE FROM THE LOON RIVER FORMATION, FORT VERMILION, ALBERTA; Research Report On File with the Geological Survey of Canada; J. Fromhold, M.A.; 1993; Hard Copy available. /\/\OUNTAIN CREE (ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendant Traditional Band) ______

E. Environmental

See also

Addenum 06. AWNTB Information Request, 6.1 (doc. 17289923 Attached) Addenum 06. AWNTB Information Request, 7.1 (doc. 17289923 Attached) Addenum 06. AWNTB Information Request, 8.1 (doc. 17289923 Attached)

Many First Nations, including AWNTB, have qualified and trained Environmental Officers. NOVA and their contracted consultants have failed to employ qualified aboriginal Environmental Officers as either staff or consultants.

NOVA breached it's obligations to employ or give hiring priority to qualified aboriginals and qualified aboriginal firms.

F. Historical Land Use

AWNTB has a proven documentable and documented Land Use history in lands being crossed by the 2017 and Wolverine projects. A draft copy is available for viewing.

Under the Supreme Court rulings in Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia this triggers certain obligations and requirements on the developer.

NOVA has failed to engage with AWNTB on any of thes mandated requirements and obligations.

This is a clear infringement of the AWNTB rights, as defined by the Supreme Court. /\/\OUNTAIN CREE (ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendant Traditional Band) ______

G. Jobs

See also

Addenum 06. AWNTB Information Request, 2.1 (doc. 17289923 Attached) Addenum 06. AWNTB Information Request, 9.1 (doc. 17289923 Attached) Addenum 06. AWNTB Information Request, 10.1 (doc. 17289923 Attached)

The Supreme Court of Canada in Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia has instructed that Developers include First Nations in the employment and contracting opportunities on a priority basis.

The NEB requires that the Proponent develop a priority aboriginal employment/contracting plan.

Both the Supreme Court and the Regulator require that First Nations be given priority in employment and contracting opportunities.

No such opportunity has been extended to AWNTB and there is no clear indication that such opportunity is available to the First Nations in general.

All indications are that aboriginals, either as individuals, First Nations, or firms are only able to access such positions on an equal competitive basis with other individuals and firms.

Furthermore, certain requirements, such as Registration and Vetting by an International body and/or Union actively works against aboriginals and aboriginal firms who may not have the resources for such registration.

This is an infringement of both the letter and the spirit of the law. /\/\OUNTAIN CREE (ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendant Traditional Band) ______

I. Failue to Engage

See also

Addenum 06. AWNTB Information Request, 1.1 (doc. 17289923 Attached) Addenum 06. AWNTB Information Request, 2.1 (doc. 17289923 Attached) Addenum 06. AWNTB Information Request, 3.1 (doc. 17289923 Attached) Addenum 06. AWNTB Information Request, 4.1 (doc. 17289923 Attached) Addenum 06. AWNTB Information Request, 6.1 (doc. 17289923 Attached) Addenum 06. AWNTB Information Request, 7.1 (doc. 17289923 Attached)

One of the aspects mandated by the Supreme Court and the National Energy Board was the requirement of the proponent to engage with the affected First Nation group on a number of issues, including

Aboriginal Business Support Community Development Cultural Development Social Development

As noted in B., above, there is no binding definition of "Engage" or "Engagement". As a result 'Engagement' has been defined by the proponent in it's minimal form, which entails nothing other than sending a form letter that is essentially sent to or made available to the public at large.

As noted by the AWNTB submission to the NEB hearings, this does not meet the intent of the Supreme Court rulings or even the mininal definition of Engagement

Definition:

Engage (4)

"to bind by a promise or contract; promise; commit; pledge"

"committed or involved; not aloof or indifferent"

Engagement (4)

"1. the act of engaging. 2. The fact of being engaged. 3. a promise; pledge. agreement"

The definition of Engage and Engagement indicates a mutual agreement where at least one party has a clear obligation to deal with the other.

However, in the context of the Supreme Court rulings (Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia) and the NRC/NEB, the context implies a two-way involvement between the Applicant and First Nations parties, including aspects such as fostering short and long-term Community Development, Cultural Development, Social Development, Economic Development and training.

It is clear that the Supreme Court intent, keeping in mind fiduciary obligations and the Royal Proclamation of 1763, is more rigorous and is intended to have a direct action resulting from mutual discussion and agreement.

That is to say, that the proponent enters into some form of agreement for direct support of these designated sectors of said affected First Nations group.

With regards to AWNTB, this has not been done, and NOVA has not undertaken any discus- sions with AWNTB or responded to AWNTB inquiries along this line.

AWNTB has a number of business, social, community and cultural initiatives that NOVA has knowlege of.

1. AWNTB has some capacity in business ventures, including potential support services for pipeline construction.

See also

Addenum 13. AWNTB Capacity

NOVA has never inquired into or shown any interest in these capablities.

2. AWNTB has the capability to contract and carry or archaeological research which could play a support role in pipeline construction.

See also

Addenum 14. AWNTB Archaeology

NOVA has never inquired into or shown any interest in these capablities.

3. AWNTB has the capability to contract and carry or historical research which could play a support role in pipeline construction.

See also

Addenum 10. Publications Addenum 11. Significant Publications

NOVA has never inquired into or shown any interest in these capablities.

4. AWNTB affiliate First Nations Publishing has the capability to print, publish, market and distribute reports and studies.

HRA and Land Use studies could be published as books, and suggested that an AWNTB book on AWNTB Land Use and History of the Mountain Cree in the affected ROA area could be published as a book, crediting the support of NOVA.

See also

Addenum 09. First Nations Publishing publications list NOVA has never inquired into or shown any interest in doing so.

5. An AWNTB affiliate maintains the largest aboriginal website on Internet. It is ranked independently as being in the top 10% of internet sites, making it the #1 aboriginal website on internet. As an act of Good Faith and for positive Public Relations NOVA could place advertisement or congratulatory banner on this site would have positive broad exposure both in the native community and internationally.

NOVA has never inquired into or shown any interest in doing so.

These are some limited examples of the failure by NOVA to even consider engaging with AWNTB on these matters, let alone in funding the mandated areas. /\/\OUNTAIN CREE (ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendant Traditional Band) ______

J. NEB Failure To Enforce

"Control oil and you control Nations." Henry Kissinger, U.S. National Security Advisor, 1970

Background

The Supreme Court of Canada in Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia recognized

the existence of aboriginal rights,

that these rights accrued to all persons of aboriginal descent

that these rights have not been legally terminated

that these rights can not be terminated without the agreement of the affected First Nations group

that such termination can only be done by agreement between the affected First Nations group and the Government of Canada.

They also recognized that certain lands were never surrendered, including

lands, properties and contents in the "Numbered Treaties" areas

lands occupied by First Nations bands that had never signed treaty

The Supreme Court affirmed that these First Nations groups were still the legitimate owners of these lands, properties and contents.

The Supreme Court affirmed that compensation for use of these lands, properties and contents remained as a Burden on the Government of Canada that must be compensated for and settled.

The Supreme Court of Canada placed the onus of such settlement on the Government of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada laid out a series of obligations that Canada was required by law to recognize and adhere to in the settlement of these outstanding Burdens.

The Supreme Court of Canada also laid out certain obligations that were required of the State of Canada pertaining to any and all future development on the First Nations lands. These obligations included reaching a mutual concensus with the affected First Nations group through

Consultation and Engagement (the Duty To Consult) with the affected First Nations group

Financial compensation for the use of the lands, properties and conents in the lands of the affected First Nations group.

The Supreme Court further defined some of the areas wherein the Government was responsible for seeing that financial support was to be directed.

The Supreme Court further stated that these conditions

are the sole responsibility of the Government of Canada

that no other level of government, agency or agent can modify, change, lessen or do away with any of the Supreme Court rulings

the Government of Canada obligations can not be delegated to any other agents

The Supreme Court further stated that any aboriginal rights claims and land or land use claims brought forward by a legitimate First Nations group is to be accepted as a fact in law, to be accepted as a matter for mutual negotiation by the Government of Canada. The Supreme Court further stated that this is

the sole responsibility of the Government of Canada

that no other level of government, agency or agent can modify, change, lessen or do away with any of the Supreme Court rulings

the Government of Canada obligations can not be delegated to any other agents but also laid out that should any other level of government, agency or agent wish to challenge these claims it can only be done through appeal to the Supreme Court.

NEB Role

The Government of Canada, to meet it's obligations under the Supreme Court rulings has taken a partial step to meet these requirements but only as they pertain to Federal Lands.

There has been no attempt to see that the Supreme Court Rulings are honored by the Provinces.

Responsibility to oversee compliance with the Supreme Court Rulings on federal lands was delegated to Natural Resources Canada, who in turn delegated it to the National Energy Board (NEB).

Under the Supreme Court ruling, the Government of Canada is required to see to it that these rulings are adhered to. This responsibility has been delegated to the NEB.

Through the Hearings Process the NEB has given the affected First Nations the opportunity to voice their position pertaining to proposed energy development projects in the same way that it allowed all other participants to voice a position.

During this process AT NO TIME did the NEB state that the Supreme Court rulings were a mandatory requirement.

Nor did the NEB state or define in a definitve way what the Supreme Court rulings and NEB mandated obligations were or entailed. Rather, the NEB allowed the development proponent (NOVA) legal teams to drive the hearings and legal definitions.

Given the resources at the call of these developers, such resources can not be met by even a wealthy First Nations group.

AT NO TIME did the NEB point out to either proponent of intervenors the Supreme Court rulings position.

AT NO TIME did the NEB over-ride a faulty interpretation by the proponent of the rights of First Nations.

AT NO TIME did the NEB enforce the Supreme Court rulings.

The NEB CONSISTENTLY ACCEPTED the proponent's position of the rights of the proponent even when clearly contrary to the Supreme Court rulings.

Summary

In failing to uphold, put forward, and enforce the Supreme Court rulings the NEB failed to enforce the Law, is in breach of the Law and it's mandate, and is clearly biased towards the proponents at the expense of the Law.

In it's unilateral imposition of it's desires and the anti-first nations rulings and policies the NEB is in clear violation of the Supreme Court rulings.

The NEB has not upheld it's legally bound mandate. Hence the rulings of the NEB do not have legal validity.

The NEB process is a flawed and failed process that has no legitimacy in the eyes of the law.

Failure by the NEB to enforce the Supreme Court rulings pertaining to First Nations involvement in the approval has made the NEB rulings invalid - as has been demonstrated in the Supreme Court striking down the approval for the development of the Northern Gateway project.

The same is true for the NOVA proposal. /\/\OUNTAIN CREE (ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendant Traditional Band) ______

K. Greater Good

"It is as though Mad Hatters and March Hares are in charge of recent energy policy everywhere in North America." Right Honorable Edward Ed Schreyer, Former Premier and Governor-General, 2004

The term Greater Good often appears in development projects. It is also often presented in the temrs of

"...the overall public interest..." "...significant public benefit..."

Both terms are used in the NEB report.

Other terms are also

"...present and future public convenience and necessity..." "...public interest..." "...economic need and necessity..." "...for the good of... "...in the best interests of..."

The National Energy Board states that the decisions reached in these hearings are based on the Greater Good (or similar terms) of the Project. Indeed, the NEB decision is based largely on the Greater Good.

Yet nowhere is the term Greater Good (or similar) defined.

The NEB sort of defines the term Public Interest (i.e., Greater Good) as on page 6 of the NEB Report on NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd GH-002-2015 as

"...the public interest is inclusive of all Canadians and refers to a balance of economic, environmental, and social intersts that changes as society's values and preferences evolve over time. The board estimates the overall public good a project may create and its potential negative aspects, weighs various impacts, and makes a recommendation and/or decision." (our emphasis)

In other words, it is a subjective process with no rigid framework or measurable system. Such subjectivity hardly has any place in decision-making of this sort.

A payoff benefit model can easily be applied to the net value of such projects, as any economist can tell you. Economists, however, deal only in cost-benefit factors, whereas Greater Good also deals in social/lifestyle/ecologicl and other non-capital issues. Nontheless, social statisticians can also provide such a Payoff model. The basic formula is simply

G = C+S+L+E

Not nearly as complicated as the formula for inducing social change.

By definition, Greater Good means the good of the majority. Intersts of the minority are not considered or not valued equally with the interests of the majority.

Therefore it follows that concerns of Aboriginals, Homeless, Disabled, Hutterite, Fishermen, Surfers, subsistence hunters, trappers, Dukhabors and other minority groups who do not share the mainstream value will have little or no impact on the decision.

In a society that places accumulation of money, wealth and capital as the ultimate achievement and good, the concept of Greater Good reflects that belief system.

The decision is pre-ordained.

If one applies the principles of Content Analysis and Context Analysis as used in Sociology and Anthropology to publications and pronouncements of Greater Good on a broad scale, we find that the term 'Greater Good' is a code term for a larger contextual meaning which can basically be summed up by saying that it means that

"We will do what we intended to do regardless of what anyone else thinks."

Invariably, invoking the Greater Good clause means that the best interests of minority groups, especially the disadvantaged and indiginous, are ignored.

First Nations particularly have suffered for the cause of the Greater Good.

See also

Addenum 02. AWNTB Final Argument (doc. 18476786 Attached) Addenum 07. Ecological Impact Addenum 15. Petroleum Industry Impacts

This began in the 1870's, with the Ethnic Cleansing and removal of First Nations people from the land onto reservations so that the land could be exploited and developed.

Unilateral and illegal removal of aboriginal, First Nations and Human rights was "in the best interests of" the Indians and the Greater Good of the nation.

Confinement of Indians on reservations and forced acculturation was "in the best interests of" the Indians.

The Peasant Farmer policy and the failed and mismanaged agricultural policy was "in the best intersets of" the Indians.

Confinement on reservations was for the Greater Good.

Incarceration of aboriginal children in institutes intended to destroy their cultural identity - where they encountered the highest mortality rates in Canada - was "in the best interests of" the Indians.

Attempted Cultural Genocide and destruction of aboriginal religion was for the Greater Good of the Indians.

Removal of hunting and rights and subsistence hunting, and exclusion from Parks and prohibitions from crossing the Continental Divide was for the Greater Good - with the result of the imposition of a welfare culture on these communities.

Removal of lands from open hunting (even with licenses) was for the Greater Good.

Invasion of traditional hunting lands for logging and petroleum development in northwestern Alberta - resulting in destruction of the hunting and trapping cultures there - in the 1960's was for the Greater Good - with the result of the imposition of a welfare culture on these communities. (see Addenum 07)

Forced removal from farmsteads (and shooting of livestock and burning out or residents) in 1967 for the creation of Lake Abraham was for the Greater Good - with the result of the imposition of a welfare culture on this community.

Destruction of Mountain Cree hunting lands between Lac La Biche and Fort McMurray was for the Greater Good.

Destruction of the ecology, hunting, trapping and fishing economy by strip-mining 1/2 of north- eastern Alberta is for the Greater Good - with the result of

- the imposition of a welfare culture on these communities, - the several hundred homeless in Fort McMurrey being almost all Native - an inordinate high rate of abarant Cancer in downstream aboriginal communities.

Invariably development projects invoked under the Greater Good clause have been culturally and economically destructive to the aboriginal peoples.

Analysis of Greater Good projects show that there are clear winners and losers in such projects. This is historically consistent.

The undisputed winners are

- Corporate Developers - Political parties - Political cronies - High-end employees on the project - Corruption - Organized Crime

Marginal beneficiaries

- Low end-labor - Foreign workers

Questionable beneficiaries are

- Local economies (overheating and inflationary) - Regional Economies (inflationary tendencies without rising salaries) - Provincial Economies (cost of subsidies, infrastructure development, support, environmental/ecological mitigation)

Losers - local landowners - indiginous groups - indentured labor/slaves - Environmental Protection - Democratic Process

Socio-Economic analysis of the process of Greater Good projects show consistent historic behaviors since the time of the building of the pyramids on.

1. Inception with great fanfare and promise

2. Prestige marketing.

3. Prolifigate Government spending.

4. Pre-emption of local inhabitans and rights.

5. Clampdown on Government transparency.

6. Circumvention of rules and law.

7. Increased paranoia and security.

8. Labor shortages which inevitably lead to importing cheap labor and, if possible, indentured labor or slavery.

9. Runaway local and regional inflation.

10. Economic disruption and failure of the regional economic system.

11. Stagnation and decline of other sectors of the economy.

12. Economic dependence on a sole source economy.

13. Decline of the resource.

14. Cyclical attempted re-invigoration of Greater Good projects by creation of mega-projects and increasing capital.

15. Ecological destruction.

16. Bankrupcy with economic and social collapse.

17. Surplus population.

18. Regional poverty

This exponentially increasing cost-intensive, skewed cost-effective and destructive nature ending in collapse of exponential production was already pointed out in the Club of Rome publications Limits to Growth (1967) and Mankind at the Turning Point (1971), in the case of industialism, resulting in collapse due to overwhelming pollution and environmental degra- dation.

Economics of projects based on Greater Good are shaky at best. In Canada we can note that

- the construction of Trans-Continental railways almost bankrupted the Government. - economic projections in 2005 indicated that after 2012 the Government would be subject ot increasingly large deficits due to Tar Sands development.

Numerous historic examples can be found elsewhere from around the globe and different states (see Toynbee: The Rise and Fall of Civilzations). For example, Spanish colonial conquest and rare metals mining bankrupted all of Europe.

One need only read National Geographics for almost monthly articles on the impact caused by rampant development projects.

In short

Projects justified on the basis of Greater Good have ALWAYS been detrimental to the First Nations economically and destructive of First Nations Rights.

This project is no different.

It has ignored and brushed aside AWNTB concerns and poses to damage AWNTB rights by failing to recognize and deal with these concerns and rights. /\/\OUNTAIN CREE (ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendant Traditional Band) ______

L. Values

In Parts H and K we have mentioned the issue of Trust and Good Faith and pointed out that the aboriginal community have strong and specific Values in these issues and that the Corporate dealings transgress these Values.

Looking at the issue of Values on a broader level we can see that there is a basic conflict of values in the way that Corporates view the world (and hence pipeline de- velopent) and the way the Aboriginal communty views the world.

We see, in fact, that there are four value systems that interact here, these being

1. Organizational

This is the value system generally in play by Multinational Corporates, large corporates, industry, governments, agencies and power brokers. That is, that sector that has occasionally been refered to as THE ESTABLISMENT, or THE ELITES. (1)

2. American (US)

The averaged values of the U.S. public at large, ignoring the regional "Tribes", as documented by ENVIRONICS. (2)

3. Canadian

The averaged values of the Canadian public at large, ignoring the regional "Tribes", as documented by ENVIRONICS. (2)

4. Aboriginal

The averaged values of the aboriginal community at large, based principally on the perceived values of said community in Alberta.

Without getting bogged down in a detailed discussion of the methodology involved in establishing these values (Value Maps) we will give only a generalized explanation here.

To define these values involved we have used a modified version of the standard ENVIRONICS polling system to identify the values inherent in each system. For our purposes it is not necessary to go into detail, but merely to assess the comparative relationship and how this affects the aboriginal community's expectations towards pipeline development.

It is understood that on an individual level the values mapped will vary from the average presented here. Variance is expected to of a standard Bell Curve nature. That is to say, certain individuals will exhibit behavioral values at either extreme end of each value and of the the values as a group, but that the majority of the individuals will conform to the average value given.

For our purposes there are only two of the above value systems that we need to deal with, those being the ORGANIZATIONAL and the ABORIGINAL. The American and Canadian value systems are presented as comparative standards.

The reason for this is that there are only two parties who have a significant impact on the pipeline hearings and approval process. These are

1. Organizational

This is simply because the project is proposed, developed and funded by a Multinational Corporate and approved by a Government. Both parties share similar if not identical values. Those values are largely Economic Return (variously defined as Cost-Benefit, Profit, Greed), Authority, Power and Control. They have the authority and power to over-ride the value of the general public on the basis of what they deem as the Greater Good (4) as defined by themselves.

2. Aboriginal

This is because the Aborignal community in a large part of Canada is recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as the ultimate owner of the lands and resources, and has ruled that these projects can not be carried out without consultation and engagement in Good Faith (5) with and approval of the First Nations communities affected. Attempts to circumvent this by the Corporates and the National Energy Board have been rejected by the Supreme Court.

A comparison of the American, Canadian and Aboriginal Values Map shows us that

COMPARATIVE VALUE MAP

The values of these three groups differ considerably and can be considered as basically incompatible. Amercian values tend towards being Authoritarian and Nihilistic. Canadian values tend towards being very Idealistic, Individualistic and Rejecting Authority.

ORGANIZATIONAL values tend to be even further towards the upper left.

At first glance ABORIGINAL values appear to lie almost midway between the Canadian and American values, being mainly in the upper left corner of the lower right (Idealism and Autonomy) quadrant, overlapping slightly into the other three quadrants. That is, they tend towards being Inclusive, somewhat Idealistic, some acceptance of Authority figures and only slightly willing to participate.

On a broad brush stroke this is correct. However, in looking at the Values Map (draft version) in detail, we find a much more hesitant people (6). The result is a major Conflict of Values between Organizational America and the Aboriginal community.

ABORIGINAL VALUES MAP (7)

A more detailed analysis of the Values Map and the conflict of values leads us into the field of Sociology, Social Anthropolgy and Behavioral Psychology.

A cursory look at the map clearly shows that there are very strong Core Values and there CORE VALUES is a very strong clustering of values, concentrating in the upper half of the map, an area dealing with idealism and self-identity. This is to say that the Aboriginal Community

- has a strong sense of self as distinct from others. A strong sense of Native Identity and a low sense of National Identity.

- has little trust in, and rejects, authority and authoritarian organizations. The overlap into the authoritatian quadrant tends to be principally in matters of Traditional aboriginal authority and family matters.

- has little trust in Government and less in Business.

- has a tendency towards pragmatism, adapting to and accepting the here- and-now realities of life and dominance by an alien peoples and institutions.

- has a pragmatic acceptance of the violence and inequity found in what is termed in Sociology as THE UNDERCLASS. Very little fear of violence, injury or death. - has very little interest in financial security and accumulation of wealth (not- withstanding that financial compensation is the lingua franca of settlements by aboriginal Organizations). They would just as soon prefer to see the land and environment be left alone and forego the financial returns.

- has a desire to be access the work force and the spending/subistence income thereof, but at their own terms (8).

- has a very low sense of security and status, based largely on historic and current reality. This tends towards the feeling that they have little influence and a feeling of fatalism.

- has a very strong tendency towards Traditional values and beliefs and towards a strong family (extended family) identity. This includes

- a strong tendency towards the Traditional Animist belief system, that all things have a spirit and life value.

- a strong tendency to spriritual values and belief system that accepts that all living things are 'borthers/sisters' and have a common origin and a spirit. This kinship is ingrained into the Cree language where the names of most animals end in the suffix -EW, as in INEW, "People".

- has very strong environmental and environmental stewardship values ("protecting/sharing the land").

- has an unrealized tendency towards wanting to be idealistic. Idealism values held tend towards Traditional belief systems and outlook.

- has an underlying feeling of exclusion. It is often said that Canada was built on two founding Nations, the French and the English. However, as Sociolo- gists and Anthropologists have pointe out repeatedly, Canada was built on three founding nations, with the willing - if somewhat forced - inclusion of the First Nations lands and resources. This was recognized in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and Manitoba Act of 1870. This is a basic tenet of the aboriginal belief system.

Summary:

Essentially we can say that Aboriginal Values and Organizational Values are at opposite ends of the spectrum and basically incompatible.

In terms of behavioral values they do not even speak the same language and their value systems are mutually unintelegible.

This has some serious implications.

In the short-term, there is no real communication going on in terms of meeting mutual value expectations between the corporates and the aboriginal community. Simply put, the Aboriginal Liaison people do not speak the language nor do they understand the aboriginal values, let alone the depth and background behind those values. The current Liaison arrangements are no more than the traditional colonial European detailed to deal with the Primitives.

In the long-term, unless the basic issues are addressed and dealt with there will be a continuing disaffection and friction between the corporates and government, and the aboriginal community, which can only increase over time. This is the classical Colonial situation that has led to Marxist dogma, the CONFLICT THEORY and Freedom Movements.

(1) This is an extensive field of study principally in Sociology and Social Psychology with a large body of publications which, for our purpose here, is not necessary to try to document.

(2) This is largely work done by ENVIRONICS over the past 40 years in National polls taken by the company for Governments, Political Parties and Corporates for Marketing and Policy Development purposes.

(3) This is the first exploratory compilation of these values, done by Heritage Consulting, based on methodology estabished by ENVIRONICS and using as preliminary base data based on insider perception of personnel that are from said community and grew up within that community.

(4) See Part K

(5) See Part H

(6) We have here modified the Values Map slightly from the ENVIRONICS map format. Whereas the Environics map values the x/y axis as 0/0, we map the x/y axis with the 5/5 values. Hence, while the Environics system places the weakest values in the center, hence highlighting the quadrant with the strongest values, we place the stongest values in the center to show where the strongest Value Cluster lies.

(7) At this time there has only been time to develop a Draft map. For our purposes we do not need to have a detailed explanation of each individual Value mapped.

(8) This has sometimes been characteized as the PRE-INDUSTRIAL WORK ETHIC. That is, the willingness to work hard if need be for a particular term project, but unwilling to commit to ongoing full-time work. /\/\OUNTAIN CREE (ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendant Traditional Band) ______

SUMMARY

AWNTB has been identified as one of the aboriginal parties to be included in the Consultation Process.

AWNTB has one of the longest documented history of any aboriginal party in the ROW area, extending back some 200 years. This is longer than most of the other aboriginal parties in the ROW area.

However, NOVA has chosen to exclude AWNTB from consultation. Nova has historically taken a hostile stand against the AWNTB, as pertains to the Wolverine Lateral Loop Project, and has implied that AWNTB is either not a legitimate band, has no rights in the area, or does not have any information available not already known the NOVA.

That is, NOVA is attempting to define who or what constitutes and aboriginal party, contrary to specific rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada.

NOVA has also refused to implement NEB instructions to engage with AWNTB.

Furthermore, NOVA also implies that all aboriginal parties have a common culture and history and hence information from one source, or assumed concepts of one group are equally applicable to all others.

In point of fact, each of the aboriginal parties in the ROW in question have different histories, cultures and cultural practices. These are not interchangeable. The different bands consist of Woods Cree, Plains Cree, Ojibway, Chippewa, Iroquois, Dene Tha, and Dene backgrounds, and various mixtures of said ethnic/cultural groups.

As each and any of the aboriginal parties in the ROW will affirm, none of these parties would presume to speak for or about the internal affairs or culture of any other party. These are matters of aboriginal ethics and morality and sovreignity. To presume, make assumptions about or expect other "bands" to be alike is an alien concept to the aboriginal belief system.

In point of fact, the AWNTB history and culture is considerably different from that of any of the other aboriginal parties involved in the NOVA 2017 project.

SUMMARY ( from AWNTB Final Argument, Addenum 02, doc. 18476786)

The document is a summary of information previouly filed with the National Energy Board.

This is the AWNTB Final Argument submitted to the National Energy Board. The AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants are a direct linear successor to the original Mountain Cree that has been in documented occupancy of these lands since the ice age.

The Mountain Cree are the oldest documented Band in western Canada and have been in their traditional lands longer than any other bands.

To date The Project in discussion

has trespassed on AWNTB lands without permission or attempts to seek permission

has not respected the Property Rights of the AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants

has not demonstrated that the Project has obtained permission and support of the AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants for the proposed construction and development

has not demonstrated that the Project will be of negative impact to the AWNTB/ Bobtail Descendants or other affected First Nations

has not demonstrated that the Project will be beneficial to the AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants or any other affected First Nations

has not demonstrated that the Project will pursue policies that benefit the AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants or other affected First Nations

has not demonstrated that the Project will not impringe on or damage AWNTB/ Bobtail Descendants aboriginal rights or the rights of other affected First Nations

has not demonstrated that the Project will benefit and strengthen AWNTB/ Bobtail Descendants rights or the rights of other affected First Nations

has not demonstrated that the Project will not negatively affect the use and enjoyment of the AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants or any other affected First Nation of their Traditional Lands

has not demonstrated that the Project intends to work in a co-operative manner with the AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants

has not entered into a Consultation process with AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants

has not entered into any discussion for rights to access AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants lands

has not entered into any discussion of compensation for use of AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants lands and property

has not entered into any discussion for compensation for damage, destruction and impact to AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants lands and contents

has not entered into any discussion for Cultural Development support

has not entered into any discussion for Community Development support

has not entered into any discussion for Economic Development support has not entered into any discussion for Economic and Employment priority inclusion by First Nations and their members

has not entered into any discussion for Education/Training support

has not entered into any discussion for Mitigation of impacts to lands, contents, interests and rights

In short, the Project has made NO attempt to enter into any of the mandated obligations to the AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants .

The AWNTB is in the same position as a property owner who finds that his/her property has been taken over by a person/persons/firm with 'unlimited' money and considerable power without his/her permission or knowlege and now intend to do whatever they wish with or without the owner's permission.

The lands have been trespassed on, vandalized, usurped and expropriated contrary to law.

This contrary to the Laws of the Land, in disregard of Supreme Court rulings, and contrary to the international statement of the Rights of the Indiginous, to which Canada is a signatory.

We note that the Supreme Court Delgamuukw rulings clearly indicated that the onus of entering into the consultation process fall on the Government of Canada and on the Devloper. That this is a requirement of the Duty To Consult rulings. Responsibility for Consultation falls to the developer. Responsibility for obtaining permission and agreement to operate on First Nation Lands falls on Canada and the Developer. Responsi- bility for just compensation falls on Canada and the Developer.

We note that the Supreme Court Delgamuukw rulings clearly indicate that the First Nations are not seen as beggars in their own land and for benefits from their own resources and property. Yet this is precisely what NOVA is attempting to do. By it's actions

NOVA claims to be able to demand or compel information from First Nations without equamity or compensation.

NOVA claims to have the authority to decide who constitutes a First Nation.

NOVA claims to have the authority about who can be a member of a First Nation.

NOVA claims to have the authority to accept or dismiss what First Nations have a Traditional Land Use claim in an area.

NOVA claims to have the authority to decide what constitues maters of importance, cultural importance, or impact on a First Nation.

NOVA claims to have the authority to over-ride the Supreme Court rulings.

NOVA purports to have greater authority than the National Energy Board.

NOVA claims to have the authority to decide whether a First Nation deserves to be compensated for transgression on their lands, use of these lands, damage to these lands and destruction and pillaging of resources located on these lands.

No doubt NOVA would also prefer subjecting First Nations to Slavery if they could.

By all definitions this is a Colonial move. It is a pure and unadulterated land/resource grab in the Colonial tradition.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that such unilateral moves are illegal, and that any developments on traditional First Nations Lands are mandated to follow stated requirements in Law prior to such transgressions.

Unilateral action and develpment is contrary to legal requirements and leaves the potential that the Project may be subject to legal action of Injunction.

In the light of these failures of the Project to meet or even attempt to meet these obligations it must be said that the Developer has failed to act in Good Faith.

Given that the Developer and Project have clearly failed to pursue these legal and mandated requirements in Good Faith it reflects poorly on the operating policies of the Developer.

Since the Developer has intentionally failed to pursue these legal and mandated requirements in Good Faith it would be hard to have confidence that the Developer does not apply the same policy and attitude to all other Project requirements, be they Engineering or Safety requirements and standards.

In the light of the failure of The Project to meet these obligations and enter into the required negotiations with AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants in good faith, AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants is unable to state that AWNTB and The Project have reached a mutual understanding under which the AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants can support The Project.

Hence AWNTB CAN NOT support said Project until such time as the legally mandated requirements are met.

FURTHERMORE

The NEB has not enforced either the Supreme Court Duty To Consult requirements or the NEB mandated requirements. This is a disregard of the legal requirements pertinent to the Consultation process.

As has been demonstrated for the Northern Gateway project, the Supreme Court has rescinded the NEB/NRC approval on the very basis that the Duty To Consult rulings were not applied and MUST be properly implemented before the project can proceed.

FURTHERMORE

The NEB decision is based on a GREATER GOOD concept that is not defined and is purely subjective.

In doing so, they brushed aside the legal requirements of the Duty To Consult rulings imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada. /\/\OUNTAIN CREE (ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendant Traditional Band) ______

MITIGATION AND ACCOMODATION (Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!)

Mitigation/Accomodation requires that NOVA engage and consult with AWNTB in Good Faith to meet the requirements laid out by the Supreme Court of Canada and as mandated by the National Energy Board.

This requires Mutual Reasonable Accomodation.

Some specifics would include:

Cost Recovery: Costs of Engagement NOVA be fined for not meeting legal requirements, and for not dealing in Good Faith. Archaeological Assessment by senior qualified Aboriginal archaeologists Report on Mountain Cree Land Use on RoW Employment of Aboriginal Archaeologists and Consultants (Subcontractors) Employment of Aboriginal Historians as Consultants Employment of Aboriginal Environmental Officers on field projects Employment of Aboriginal Archaeologists and Environmental Officers as Monitors On-Project aboriginal hiring priority On-Project aboriginal contracting priority (Safety registration issues - costs to be covered by Developer) Economic Development, Community Development, Education Funding Receipt of Shares in the Company/Project Fund AWNTB Carbon Offset Proposal Joint ROW Land Management

In addressing the systemic problem of Incompatability of Values between the Corporate world and the Aboriginal world, there needs to be a serious re-evaluation of how the Corporates deal with the Aboriginal Communities.

This includes doing away with the current Liaison system and replacing it with people who come from the aboriginal background and society and understand aboriginal culture, values, the background of the values, the depth of these values, and the social/behavioral influences of these values and the social impact of value systems and value conflicts.

The key to aboriginal acceptance is inclusion. Corporates would do well to remember the mistakes of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline if they wish to avoid these same mistakes. /\/\OUNTAIN CREE (ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendant Traditional Band) ______

RIGHTS LEGISLATION

B.C. Environmental Appeal Board, Fort Nelson Frist Nation vs. Nexen, 2015

Supreme Court of Canada, Dene Tha vs. Alberta, 1994

Supreme Court of Canada, Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia, 1998

Supreme Court of Canada, Haida Gwai vs. British Columbia 2004

Supreme Court of Canada, Montana Band vs. Canada, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada, Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, 2007 BCSC 1700 (CanLII)

Supreme Court of Canada, Fontaine vs. Canada, 2013

Supreme Court of Canada, Williamson vs. British Columbia, 2015 (Tsilhqot'in Ruling)

Supreme Court of Canada, Daniels et al. vs. Canada, 2016

Supreme Court of Canada, Descheneaux vs. Canada, 2016

Supreme Court of Canada, First Nations vs. Enbridge/Northern Gateway, 2017 /\/\OUNTAIN CREE (ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendant Traditional Band) ______

ADDENUM

CONTENTS

01 Position Paper

02 AWNTB Final Argument (doc. 18476786 )

03 1412NEBNGt

04 1508NebIR

05 AWNTB Response to NOVA Information Request (doc. 1757006)

06 AWNTB Information Request (doc. 17289923 Attached)

07 Ecological Impact References

08 Kinder Morgan report cover page

09 Publications List

10 Publications

11 Significant Publications Trail Studies Land Use Studies

12 Engagement Letters from NOVA to AWNTB

13 AWNTB Capacity AWNTB Bussinesses and Affiliates

14 AWNTB Archaeology 1978 Archaeological Project for Imperial Oil. Subject of print and television article. 1980 Archaeological Project, Newspaper write-up.

15 Petroleum Industry Impacts

16 AWNTB Presence /\/\OUNTAIN CREE ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendants Traditional Band Administrative Office 718 * Blackfalds, Alberta * CANADA TOM OJO * 1-403-885-2991 www.inewhistory.com c/o [email protected] ______

MOUNTAIN CREE Position Paper

January

2016

prepared by

J. Fromhold, Ph.D. (pend.), C.E.O. Mountain Cree Band /\/\OUNTAIN CREE ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendants Traditional Band

Statement of Limitation

Information collected for this Deposition is the sole property of the Mountain Cree (Asini Wachi Nehiyawak) Traditional Band. The information contained within this document is proprietary and confidential. Citation, use, reproduction or dissemination of the information contained herein is permissible only with the written consent of the ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK (Mountain Cree) TRADITIONAL BAND. /\/\OUNTAIN CREE ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendants Traditional Band

CONTENTS

Statement of Limitation Abbreviations Preamble Mountain Cree Position Statement Mountain Cree Status Mountain Cree Background Petroleum Industry Impacts (1) Socio-Economic Aboriginal Rights Heritage Resouces Consultation Cultural Projects History Project Economic Development Investment Community Development Training Needs Addenum

(1) See the study MOUNTAIN CREE DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

ABBREVIATIONS

AWNTB Mountain Cree Band (Asini Wachi Nehiyawak Traditional Band) NEB National Energy Board PROJECT Current Petroleum Development Project ROW Right of Way /\/\OUNTAIN CREE ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendants Traditional Band

PREAMBLE

The following are Development Objectives have been identified by the Mountain Cree as potenital projects and have been investigated and assessed by Heritage Consulting for cost and feasability.

They are presented for consideration in fulfillment of Federal requirments for the Pipeline Development to enter into economic negotiation with First Nations affected by such development and development impacts in their Traditional territories as compensation for such impacts and/or Land Use.

By Law the Pipeline developer must undertake to negotiate a settlement with said First Nation for Economic Development, Training and Education support, Cultural Events and undertakings, employment opportunities, and partnership participation. The legal obligations of the Developer are the

Duty to Consult Duty to Engage Duty to mitigate damages Duty to compensate

The Mountain Cree are a Nation recognized by the Government of Canada as falling within the guidelines set out by the Supreme Court for First Nations that are to be included in this consultation, engagement and compensation process.

The end product of such negotiated settlement is to reach a mutual agreement with the developer for use and access to the Project Right Of Way by the developer and agents operating on behalf of the Developer.

Mountain Cree have never signed an agreement with Canada or any other agency to permit access and transgression into Mountain Cree Lands.

The proposed Pipeline Project ('the Project') lies entirely or largely within within Mountain Cree/Bobtail Descendants traditional territory.

The Mountain Cree are willing to participate in such negotiations in Good Faith.

The Mountain Cree will negotiate on behalf of some 600 Band members.

The Mountain Cree, is also recgonized as representing the interests of other descendants of the Bobtail Band who have never entered into Treaty or taken Metis Status. This is an estimated and some 30,000 persons. /\/\OUNTAIN CREE ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendants Traditional Band

POSITION STATEMENT

The ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK (Mountain Cree) Traditional Band (AWNTB) accepts and adheres to the Supreme Court of Canada rulings pertaining to the rights and obligations of non-Treaty bands ("Bands In Fact") as laid out in the Supreme Court Rulings and to the Consultation Process mandated by the Supreme Court as well as the Consultation, engagement and Community Capacity funding mandated the National Energy Board.

These mandated obligations include the

Duty to Consult Duty to mitigate damages Duty to compensate Duty to fund Community Development Duty to fund Capacity/Economic Development

The AWNTB in ideologically is supportive of Pipeline development. AWNTB entered into the Consultation process as supporters of the Project; however, policies and actions by the Proponent and the failure to act in Good Faith has forced the AWNTB to oppose the project as it currently stands.

AWNTB expects that Development Proponents deal in the above issues in Good Faith.

STATUS

The Mountain Cree (ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK) Traditional Band is a Non-Treaty Band and meets the legal definition of a 'band' laid down under the Supreme Court DELGAMUUKW ruling (Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia, 1998). Such bands are known in Canadian legal parlance as BANDS IN FACT (Montana vs. Canada, 2006). DELGAMUUKW has ruled that such Non-Treaty Bands have the same rights, or more, as Treaty (Indian Act) Bands). The Supreme Court FONTAINE ruling (Fontaine vs. Canada 2013) has ruled that Non-Treaty Indians and Metis have the same rights as Treaty Indians.

In the DELGAMUUKW rulings the Supreme Court ruled that First Nations Bands (Indian Bands), including Indian Act ('Treaty Indian') bands and Non-Treaty Bands ('Bands In Fact') have been wrongfully deprived of their property, contents and rights, and still retain proptie- tary rights to their traditional lands and contents.

It is further recognized that Non-Treaty Bands never signed an agreement with Canada or any other agency to permit access and transgression into their traditional lands.

DELGAMUUKW ruled that the State of Canada is obligated to reach a negotiated settlement withe these 'Bands' for past alienation of property and rights.

DELGAMUUKW has further ruled that in new Development projects in these Indian Lands must be done in agreement with and consultation with the affected First Nations 'bands'.

This is known as DUTY TO CONSULT.

DELGAMUUKW ruled that such agreements must include

Consultation with the affected First Nations 'bands'

Compensation for use of First Nations 'bands' lands and property

Compensation for damage, destruction and impact to these First Nations 'bands' lands and contents

That such compensation include:

Cultural Development support

Community Development support

Economic Development support

Economic and employment priority inclusion by First Nations and their members

Education/Training support

Mitigation of impacts to lands, contents, interests and rights

The State of Canada has accepted the Supreme Court rulings and the obligation to settle for past expropriations and alienation of property and rights.

The State of Canada as implemented a process whereby current and future Development projects wherein the Developers MUST apply the Supreme Court DUTY TO CONSULT with the First Nations groups in whose lands the development occurs, and reach a negotiated settlement with said First Nations and 'bands' prior to development.

AWNTB is included in the official listing of First Nations that are legally required to be engaged in the DUTY TO CONSULT process.

BACKGROUND

AWNTB is also known as the Mountain Cree Band. The term Mountain Cree and Mountain People is also a generic name in use by the Upstream People of the larger Cree and NEHIYAW-PWAT Nation.

Historically the Mountain People form the major division of the Upstream People, made up of a cosmopolitan group of 'Bands' of which the Mountain Cree were the largest 'Band' and containing the Head Chieftain of the Mountain People and Upstream People.

The current C.E.O. of the AWNTB was appointed by AWNTB family heads in 1994 on the death of Chief Lawrence Mountain. Chief Mountain was preceded by his borther Michael Mountain, his father Adam Mountain and his grandfather ASINI WACHI PIME, aka. Mountain Man.

Chieftainship of the Band can be traced back in a direct lineage to ATSPU, Head Chief of the Mountain Cree in 1670, then located in southwestern Alberta.

Blackfoot, Cree and Kutenai traditions place the Cree in this area as long ago as the early deglaciation period some 10,000 years ago.

The Mountain Cree are the oldest documented Band in western Canada and have been in their traditional lands longer than any other bands.

Under ASINI WACHI PIME the AWNTB were a branch of the Bobtail Mountain Cree Band.

In 1877 Bobtail signed Treaty of behalf of all the Mountain People bands. About half the Mountain Cree entered Treaty, over 1,000 did not. Of those who entered Treaty, some 50% were not entered into the Indian Affairs records or subsequently dropped from the record without explanation.

Those Bobtail members who did not take Treaty or were dropped from Indian Affairs records and their descendants retained their Non-Treaty Status. The Supreme Court MONTANA ruling (Montana vs. Canada, 2006) recognized that these Bobtail Descendants could effectively constitute a 'Bobtail Band' successor.

AWNTB is such a Bobtail Band successor.

As a Bobtail Band Successor, AWNTB has a right and obligation to represent the interest of the Bobtail Descendants who are not included in any exisiting Band. Today there are an estimated 30,000 non-treaty Bobtail Descendants.

AWNTB is recognized by the Government as a representative for the Bobtail Descenants.

SUMMARY

AWNTB is recognized by the Government of Canada as a legal First Nations 'band' or 'nation' having a Non-Treaty Nation status.

AWNTB is a recognized by the Government of Canada as also representing the rights and interests of the Non-Treaty Bobtail Descendants.

AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants are recognized by the Government of Canada as being included in the DUTY TO CONSULT requirements of the Supreme Court of Canada.

To date the Project in discussion

has not entered into a Consultation process with AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants

has not entered into any discussion for rights to access AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants lands

has not entered into any discussion of compensation for use of AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants lands and property

has not entered into any discussion for compensation for damage, destruction and impact to AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants lands and contents

has not entered into any discussion for Cultural Development support

has not entered into any discussion for Community Development support

has not entered into any discussion for Economic Development support

has not entered into any discussion for Economic and employment priority inclusion by First Nations and their members

has not entered into any discussion for Education/Training support

has not entered into any discussion for Mitigation of impacts to lands, contents, interests and rights

In short, the Project has made NO attempt to enter into any of the mandated obligations to the AWNTB/Bobtail Descendants .

The lands have been trespassed on, vandalized, usurped and expropriated contrary to law. This is contrary to the Laws of the Land in disregard of Supreme Court rulings, and contrary to the international statement of the Rights of the Indiginous, to which Canada is a signatory.

By all definitions this is a Colonial move. It is a pure and unadulterated land/resource grab in the Colonial tradition.

Unilateral action and development is contrary to legal requirements and leaves the potential that the Project may be subject to legal action of Injunction.

Hence AWNTB CAN NOT support said Project until such time as the legally mandated requirements are met. /\/\OUNTAIN CREE ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendants Traditional Band

CONSULTATION

Consultation is defined as

Consult (v.t.):

1. To seek information or advice from; as "Consult a dictionary", "consult a teacher to learn why his grades were poor" 2. to take into consideration; have regard for, as "consults the interests and feelings of...." 3. to plan, devise; contrive

Consult (v.i.):

1. to exchange ideas; talk things over; confer: as "He consulted with his lawyer before signing the contract." 2. to talk something over with someone in order to make a decision. 3. to talk over something of imporatance with another or others who are in a position to give wise advice. Syn.: Confer: 1. To exchange ideas, opinions,or information with another, usually as an equal.

Consultation: (n.)

1. the act of consulting; seekinginformation or advice. Syn.: deliberation 2. a meeting to exchange ideas and talk things over. Syn.: conference Confer

Consultative (adj.)

1. of or haing to do with consultation; advisory, deliberation.

Consulting: (adj.)

1. that consults or asks advice. 2. employed in giving professional advice.

Consulting is a mutually reciprocating relationship wherein one party (the Applicant) enters into a relationship with another (First Nations) to obtain information, advice and direction.

Under the DELGAMUUKW Rulings of the Supreme Court this specifically states that the Developer must engage with the First Nation to obtain their input and opinion pertaining to the Development. The obligation is placed on the Developer to approach the First Nation to initiate negotiations for a mutual agreement.

The AWNTB position is that the Developer must approach the affected First Nation and facilitate the process to determine the

1. AWNTB interests and concerns 2. that there is no damage to AWNTB sites or places of interest 3. that there is no damage to AWNTB social, political or economic interests

To this end, AWNTB has a Consultation Process.

The Developer has not met these conditions.

Settlement of this requirement is yet outstanding and to be negotiated. REFERENCES

ASSESSMENT OF THE NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD PIPELINE HEARINGS PROCESS PERTAINING TO THE ABORIGINAL DUTY TO CONSULT AND ENGAGEMENT RULINGS AS A FLAWED PROCESS; Heritage Consulting; 2015

MOUNTAIN CREE DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES; January, 2016

MOUNTAIN CREE FINAL ARGUMENT; Trans Mountain Expansion Project; Hearing Order OH-001-2014; January, 2016

PROCESS FOR CONSULTATION (v.13.01) With The ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK (Mountain Cree) TRADITIONAL BAND /\/\OUNTAIN CREE ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendants Traditional Band Administrative Office 718 * Blackfalds, Alberta * CANADA TOM OJO * 1-403-885-2991 www.inewhistory.com c/o [email protected] ______

MOUNTAIN CREE FINAL ARGUMENT NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. 2017 System Expansion Project 0F-Fac-Gas-N081-2014-20 02 Hearing Order

February 15

2016

prepared by

Asini Wachi Nehiyawak Consultation

/\/\OUNTAIN CREE ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendants Traditional Band

Statement of Limitation

Information collected for this Study and this Deposition is the sole property of the Mountain Cree (Asini Wachi Nehiyawak) Traditional Band. The information contained within this document is proprietaty and confidential. Citation, use, reproduction or disemination of the information contained herein is permissible only with the written consent of the ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK (Mountain Cree) TRADITIONAL BAND.

/\/\OUNTAIN CREE ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendants Traditional Band

CONTENTS

Statement of Limitation Abbreviations Preamble Mountain Cree Position Statement Mountain Cree Status Mountain Cree Background Petroleum Industry Impacts Socio-Economic Local Imacts Aboriginal Rights Heritage Resouces Consultation Engagement Response to NOVA Final Argument Mis-Statements Summary

ABBREVIATIONS

AWNTB Mountain Cree Band (Asini Wachi Nehiyawak Traditional Band) DEVELOPER Kinder Morgan NEB National Energy Board PROJECT Trans Mountain Expansion ROW Right of Way

/\/\OUNTAIN CREE ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendants Traditional Band

PREAMBLE

The following is an assessment by the Mountain Cree (AWNTB) of the NOVA 2017 Pipeline Expansion Project.

It is presented for consideration as our Final Position and Argument pertaining to this Pipeline Development.

By Law the Pipeline Developer must undertake to negotiate a settlement with affected First Nation for Economic Development, Training and Education support, Cultural Events and undertakings, employment opportunities, and partnership participation. The legal obligations of the Developer are the

Duty to Consult Duty to Engage Duty to mitigate damages Duty to compensate

Mountain Cree have never signed an agreement with Canada or any other agency to permit access and transgression into Mountain Cree Lands.

The proposed Pipeline Project ('the Project') lies entirely or largely within within Mountain Cree/Bobtail Descendants traditional territory.

The Mountain Cree have been and are willing to participate in such negotiations in Good Faith.

The Mountain Cree will negotiate on behalf of some 600 Band members.

The Mountain Cree, is also recgonized as representing the interests of other descendants of the Bobtail Band who have never entered into Treaty or taken Metis Status. This is an estimated and some 30,000 persons. An old hunting camp /\/\OUNTAIN CREE ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK/Bobtail Descendants Traditional Band

POSITION STATEMENT

The ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK (Mountain Cree) Traditional Band (AWNTB) accepts and adheres to the Supreme Court of Canada rulings pertaining to the rights and obligations of non-Treaty bands ('Bands In Fact') as laid out in the Supreme Court Rulings and to the Consultation Process mandated by the Supreme Court as well as the Consultation, engagement and Community Capacity funding mandated the National Energy Board.

These mandated obligations include the

Duty to Consult Duty to mitigate damages Duty to compensate Duty to fund Community Development Duty to fund Capacity/Economic Development

The AWNTB is committed to positive, fruitful and mutually beneficial participation in the Consultation process as laid out in the DELGAMUUKW rulings (Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia, 1998) insofar as it does not infringe on the rights of the AWNTB, as laid out in DELGAMUUKW, and is committed ot the principle of biparty discussion, negotiation and concesus in matters affecting the development within traditional AWNTB lands. We prefer to see this as a Partnership arrangement that is mutually beneficial.

STATUS

The Mountain Cree (ASINI WACHI NEHIYAWAK) Traditional Band is a Non-Treaty Band and meets the legal definition of a 'band' laid down under the Supreme Court DELGAMUUKW ruling (Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia, 1998). Such bands are known in Canadian legal parlance as BANDS IN FACT (Montana vs. Canada, 2006). DELGAMUUKW has ruled that such Non-Treaty Bands have the same rights, or more, as Treaty (aka. "Indian Act") Bands. The Supreme Court FONTAINE ruling (Fontaine vs. Canada 2013) has ruled that Non-Treaty Indians and Metis have the same rights as Treaty Indians.

It is further recognized that Non-Treaty Bands never signed an agreement with Canada or any other agency to permit access and transgression into their traditional lands.

DELGAMUUKW ruled that the State of Canada is obligated to reach a negotiated settlement withe these 'Bands' for past alienation of property and rights.

DELGAMUUKW has further ruled that new Development projects in these Indian Lands must be done in agreement with, consultation with and approval of the affected First Nations 'bands'.

This is known as DUTY TO CONSULT.

DELGAMUUKW ruled that such agreements must include

Consultation with the affected First Nations 'bands'

Compensation for use of First Nations 'bands' lands and property

Compensation for damage, destruction and impact to these First Nations 'bands' lands and contents

That such compensation include:

Cultural Development support

Community Development support

Economic Development support

Economic and employment priority inclusion by First Nations and their members

Education/Training support

Mitigation of impacts to lands, contents, interests and rights

The State of Canada has accepted the Supreme Court rulings and the obligation to settle for past expropriations and alienation of property and rights.

The State of Canada has implemented a process whereby in current and future Development projects the Developers MUST apply the Supreme Court DUTY TO CONSULT rulings with the First Nations groups in whose lands the development occurs, and reach a negotiated settlement with said First Nations and 'bands' prior to development.

The Mountain Cree (AWNTB) are a Nation recognized by the Government of Canada as falling within the DUTY TO CONSULT guidelines set out by the Supreme Court for First Nations that are to be included in this consultation, engagement and compensation process. AWNTB is included in the official listing of First Nations that are legally required to be engaged in the DUTY TO CONSULT process.

BACKGROUND

AWNTB is also known as the Mountain Cree Band. The term Mountain Cree and Mountain People is also a generic name in use by the Upstream People of the larger Cree and NEHIYAW-PWAT Nation.

Historically the Mountain People formed the major division of the Upstream People, made up of a cosmopolitan group of 'Bands' of which the Mountain Cree were the largest 'Band' and containing the Head Chieftain of the Mountain People and Upstream People.

Chieftainship of the Band can be traced back in a direct lineage to ATSPU, Head Chief of the Mountain Cree in 1650, then located in southwestern Alberta.

Blackfoot, Cree and Kutenai traditions place the Cree in this area as long ago as the early postglaciation period some 13,000 years ago.

The Mountain Cree are the oldest documented Band in western Canada and have been in their traditional lands longer than any other bands.

Under ASINI WACHI PIME the AWNTB were a branch of the Bobtail Mountain Cree Band.

In 1877 Bobtail signed Treaty of behalf of all the Mountain People bands. About half the Mountain Cree entered Treaty; over 1,000 did not. Of those who entered Treaty, some 50% were not entered into the Indian Affairs records or subsequently dropped from the record without explanation.

AWNTB research has identified these Bobtail members who had not signed Treaty or were dropped from the Indian Affairs records.

AWNTB is such a Bobtail Band successor.

As a Bobtail Band Successor, AWNTB has a right and obligation to represent the interest of the Bobtail Descendants who are not included in any exisiting Band.

While various Treaty Bands may contain some Bobtail descendants and represent those descendants, no other Treaty or Non-Treaty band or agency represents the descendants of the Non-Treaty Bobtail members who never signed or disappeared from the Indian Affairs records. Today there are an estimated 30,000 non-treaty Bobtail Descendants.

AWNTB research is pursuing the identification of these descendants.

AWNTB is recognized by the Government as a representative for the Bobtail Descenants.

SOVREIGNITY

The Supreme Court of Canada in (Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia, 1998) ruled that First Nations groups, be they "Treaty" or "Non-Treaty" have never surrendered their Sovreignity or Aboriginal Rights and remain internally Sovreign. It has further ruled that there are reciprocal obligations between these First Nations groups and the State of Canada.

Recognition

The State of Canada is obligated to accept a claim by a First Nation group that it is such an entity. The State of Canada has the right to request a demonstration that said group is indeed an organized political unit. The Supreme Court of Canada has laid out the test for such recognition.

In return, said First Nation group has an obligation to provide demonstratable evidence that it exists as an organized group if it wishes to be recognized by the State of Canada.

The Supreme Court points out that this is a matter exclusively between said First Nation and the State of Canada. No lesser agent or agency other than the State of Canada or it's designated representative (the National Energy Board) has the authority to request such information of the First Nation, and then only if said Nation is making a request for recognition or futhering a Claim on the State of Canada.

Traditional Land

The Supreme Court of Canada recognizes that a First Nations group, such as above, has historically had a land base and territory that it used. The State of Canada is obligated to accept a claim by a First Nation group that it is had such Traditional Lands. The State of Canada has the right to request that such Traditional Lands be defined and that the First Nations claimant provide evidence in support of such claims.

In return, said First Nation group has an obligation to provide demonstratable evidence that it has historically used the lands claimed as Traditional Lands.

Membership

The Supreme Court of Canada recognizes that a First Nations Group, such as above, is an internally Sovreign State in all internal matters. This includes membership and membership codes. As an internally Sovreign State, these are internal matters outside the purview of the State of Canada or any lesser agency. In the case where a First Nations group enters into or has entered into a Treaty or agreement with Canada wherein the State of Canada incurs obligations to the individual members of said Nation, or obligations based on the total number of members of that Nation, the State of Canada has the right to request an accounting of said members.

In return, in the case of such claim by said First Nation group, said First Nation has an obligation to provide such an accounting if it wishes to pursue such claim.

The Supreme Court points out that this is a matter exclusively between said First Nation and the State of Canada. No lesser agent or agency other than the State of Canada or it's designated representative has the authority to request such information of the First Nation, and then only if said Nation is making a Claim on the State of Canada based on the number of members in said First Nation.

Furthermore, for Privacy reasons, such membership is Confidential information.

SUMMARY

AWNTB is a recognized by the Government of Canada as a legal First Nations 'band' or 'nation' having a Non-Treaty Nation status.