MCFN Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Frontier 15/11/2013

Section 3 Mikisew First Nation

3.1 Introduction The Lower system, which includes the Peace-Athabasca Delta, is absolutely critical for the ability of our [MCFN] members to practice their rights, and to sustain their unique [A]boriginal livelihoods, cultures, and identities as Cree and peoples. Our First Nations have depended upon the bountiful ecology of the Delta to sustain our families, cultures, and livelihood for generations. The Athabasca River itself is our main travel route into the heart of our Traditional Lands. Without adequate water quality or quantity in the river system, we cannot access our important cultural, spiritual, and subsistence areas and we cannot sustain the health and well-being of our families on the traditional foods that we have always obtained from the river system. (Adam and Marcel, 2010, p. 6) The ancestral lands of the MCFN are in northeast , in the area of the lower Peace River, lower Athabasca River, and the Peace-Athabasca Delta where it joins Lake Athabasca. Culturally and linguistically, the MCFN is part of the larger Western cultural group, which spans the subarctic from Hudson Bay west to the Rocky Mountains. Cree and English are the languages most commonly spoken by MCFN members, the majority of whom continue to live in northern Alberta. The cultural heartlands of MCFN knowledge and land use include what is now Wood Buffalo National Park and the Birch Mountains, and extend south along the Athabasca River. Fort has been MCFN’s economic and administrative centre for generations, and continues to be the administrative base. However, the MCFN population is widely dispersed. The majority of members live off reserve near Fort Chipewyan, or in Fort McKay, Fort McMurray or other more southern areas. Members tend to access traditional resources near where they live, though long distances may be travelled in order to access rare or hard-to-find resources, and many MCFN members return to Fort Chipewyan and surrounding territories on a regular basis, including during fall and spring bird hunts. While all MCFN lands are important, certain areas are especially important to particular MCFN family groups. Areas may also be of particular importance because of unique ecological qualities, or unique species or resources that may be rare or hard to find elsewhere. Today, despite increasing industrial developments that challenge—and in places may undermine—the Mikisew Cree way of life, the relationship between MCFN peoples and the lands and waters they have depended on for generations remains crucial. As one MCFN member explains: Whether they take all the water, they [hunters and trappers] will probably still go over there anyways to their cabins. That’s where they were born. You always go

www.thefirelightgroup.com 10 MCFN Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Frontier 15/11/2013

back home, no matter what. You are always going to go back home. (M27, 2013)14 3.2 Population and Demographics While officially Cree, the Mikisew Nation is culturally diverse. Family and marriage relationships with other communities are common, especially with Denesoline (Chipewyan) at Fort Chip. Canadian legal pressures have also resulted in movement of Denesoline peoples to the Mikisew band list. When WBNP was established in 1922 and later expanded in 1926, members of the Cree band residing in the area were allowed to maintain homes and use rights within the park boundaries. Members of the Chipewyan band, however, were excluded from use of homes and cabins in the Birch River settlement, and from lucrative trapping areas along the shores of Lake Claire. Patricia McCormack examined this transition and indicates that, “In 1944, a sizeable portion of the Chipewyan band, those members living in WBNP, was quietly removed from the Chipewyan Band list and added to the Cree band list. Legally, they became Cree Indians” (McCormack 1989: p. 125). According to AANDC (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development , formerly Indian and Northern Affairs Canada), the registered population of MCFN at the end of 2009 was 2,574, and in December 2012 was 2,841, suggesting an annual growth rate of approximately 3.5%15 during this time period (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 2012).16 At this rate, the Mikisew population can reasonably be expected to double approximately every 20 years to approximately 5,600 registered members by 2032, and approximately 12,000 registered members in 2052. As the MCFN population increases, so will the need for reliable areas for the future practice of Mikisew rights and livelihood.

3.3 MCFN Reserves and Traplines Figure 1 shows MCFN Indian Reserves and traplines (RFMAs)17 held by MCFN members in relation to the Frontier Project. RFMA #2892 overlaps with the Project footprint.

14 Interview quotes are referenced using participant ID number and date. Please see Appendix One for a comprehensive collection of interview quotes.

15 This is a rough estimate of MCFN growth rate, and more detailed demographic analysis would be useful.

16 The growth of MCFN members includes both natural growth and other forms of growth.

17 For the purpose of this report, MCFN traplines are those RFMAs that are held, in whole or in part, by an MCFN member.

www.thefirelightgroup.com 11 MCFN Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Frontier 15/11/2013

Figure 1. MCFN Indian Reserves and Traplines (RFMAs) Held by MCFN Members in Relation to the Frontier Project

MCFN reserves and traplines (RFMAs) shown in relation to the proposed Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project

MIKISEW CREE mtSTNATIUJ •1:1 ,000,000 10 20 30 40 Kilometres

Legend

0 Registered fur management areas J:} LSA ,. MCFN Reserves 0 Other Reserves Q Proposed project footprint [] Parks and protected areas

All boundaries ar& subject to ratification by MCFN Chief and Council. the ~f\'1 firelight < > group ~y~

Map PfMICededbytleProponent

This map ooes norc""ure thecomplexrt~ dt.ICfN'srelauooslllpiO meor lr~onaiLandsortiMiutenlollhll pradK:II ollrNI)o andabonglnal nghts flus map 15 a W~no documeflland rs N'lleruJed to be amended and Hl'fined rl

www.thefirelightgroup.com 12 MCFN Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Frontier 15/11/2013

Within Mikisew Cree tradition, rights to lands and resources were, and continue to be, accompanied by responsibilities and protocols of respect and reciprocity (mutual giving). Mikisew Cree customary law and land management recognizes the interdependence of animals, resources, and people. Over time, however, Canadian laws and restrictions regarding the practice of MCFN knowledge and use have been imposed in the Fort Chipewyan area, especially in the 1920s through the formation of WBNP, and in the 1940s through the Alberta government’s creation of traplines or Registered Fur Management Areas (RFMAs) following transfer of responsibility for natural resources from the Federal Crown. For most of the 20th century through to the present day, traplines and Indian Reserves have been the most common Canadian legal mechanisms for recognizing special rights within MCFN territory and so provide “safe” places for the practice of indigenous rights within the Crown’s private and commercially orientated land governance system. Indian Reserves and traplines do not constrain treaty rights, but they do provide unique legal status that may shape contemporary practice of land and resource use by MCFN members. Despite these changes, Mikisew members continue to actively use traditional lands on and off reserve, and inside and outside registered traplines. Mikisew approaches to governing lands and rights relating to the use of lands, including trapping, continue to be grounded in indigenous pre-treaty relationships between people and place.

3.4 Sakaw Pimacihiwin18 (Mikisew Knowledge and Use) MCFN’s past, present, and future use of lands and waters is guided by the concept of sakaw pimacihiwin, a Mikisew Cree term which literally means “bush way of life.” Mikisew elders use the term sakaw pimacihiwin as a translation of the English phrase “traditional knowledge,” suggesting that, from a Mikisew perspective, knowledge and way of life are not separate. Sakaw pimacihiwin is maintained and transmitted, with Mikisew knowledge and Mikisew land use forming linked and interdependent categories of practice. Reliable and unimpeded access to preferred areas and resources that are historically known, traditionally used, and personally familiar is integral to the transmission and current and future practice of sakaw pimacihiwin. As discussed further in section 4.3.2, sakaw pimacihiwin is considered a non-site specific valued component in this assessment, with all other valued components contributing to it. Place names are one indicator of sakaw pimacihiwin and the interconnectedness of knowledge and use within the MCFN cultural landscape. Peter Usher, Frank Tough, and Robert Galois (1992) explain the significance of place names in the context of socio-territorial organization of First Nations peoples: The connection between people and territory lay in the deep and detailed knowledge of the environment. Naming of natural and cultural features was

18 Matthew Whitehead, an MCFN member and co-researcher, first pointed out the importance of the term sakaw pimacihiwin, and assisted in confirming its meaning and the relationships implied.

www.thefirelightgroup.com 13 MCFN Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Frontier 15/11/2013

one aspect of this knowledge, a symbolic expression of movement through, and residence in, the territory. (p. 112) Figure 2 shows the location of recorded Mikisew place names in the area of the proposed Project. These place names provide an initial indication of Mikisew knowledge and use in the area. The place name located closest to the Project is associated with mistahi sipi (Big River), referring to the Athabasca River itself. A central component of sakaw pimacihiwin is the harvest of particular resources, including animals, plants, medicines, and other resources of key cultural and economic importance. For the Mikisew Cree, important large animals include moose, woodland caribou, wood bison, elk, deer, and bear. Smith notes that for most northern Cree groups, moose and woodland caribou were “most important for subsistence, the others having limited distribution” (Smith, 1982, p. 257). One MCFN participant related the importance of caribou in the past and their continued role in the practice of sakaw pimacihiwin: My grandfather and my dad used to say there's lots of caribous at Birch Mountain. See, we used to go hunt at Namur Lake and we would hunt the caribous, and then the people that trap in the park in those days like in the foothills up Birch Mountain, he said there's quite a few woodland caribou up there. And then when the caribous … migrate like in south and west area, and when they migrate back, those caribous went to them. So, it's not many left … but now they're starting to come back … more and more we get caribous now out there. (M04, 2012) While wood bison are only rarely available to MCFN members due to restrictions on MCFN hunting within WBNP, they remain important as a source of meat and hides, and are of unique ceremonial and cultural importance. Evidence suggests that they have always been an important resource for MCFN livelihood (Ferguson, 1993). One MCFN participant spoke about the use of bison and the importance of MCFN’s ability to continue this subsistence practice outside of the WBNP protected area: All of Wood Buffalo National Park was designed to protect the [bison] but where the proposed site … Teck, the most northerly one, there’s a herd of free roaming bison that have been there and the locals go up there and hunt them as well, in the winter months. That’s …their proposed site, the mine site, so that’s why I’m kind of curious, what do they do with those bison, those free roaming bison? (M72, 2012) Also historically and currently important to MCFN livelihood are fish and small game, including beaver, muskrat, porcupine, ducks, and other waterfowl (see Appendix 3 for additional information). One MCFN participant recalled fishing at Snowbird’s camp, and its importance to knowledge transmission and oral history: There were all kinds of fish – suckers and jack fish and white fish. … And then that was during like the fall and summer months when we were there. And then in the fall, like after freeze-up, we would have – we would come down, like the families would come down here – and look here for … ling cod or something. … It used to be with the old Snowbird and my grandfather, of course. And he used to have stories – telling stories. (M27, 2012)

www.thefirelightgroup.com 14 MCFN Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Frontier 15/11/2013

Figure 2. MCFN Place Names in the LSA and RSA

Reported MCFN site specific place name values within the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project RSA (n=7)

MIKISEW CREE FllUT NATION •1:1,000,000 10 20 30 40 Kilometres

Legend 03 Place name 0 RSA 0 LSA ~ MCFN Reserves (;l other Reserves Q Proposed project footprint LJ Parks and protected areas

To account for margin of error and protect confidentiality of locations. all reported use valve point locations are mndomized by 2~ metres and ar& shown with a f kiiOimltte buffer. Allreporled liM s and polygons are shown with a 1 kilometre buffer. Absence of site4 specific data does not indicattt absence of interest or use.

All boundaries ara subject to ratification by MCFN Chief and Council.

firelightthe <~ ""'> group "v~

Map prOO..Ced under the directiOn of Steven DeRoy olll'le Firelight Group on Febtuaty 15, 2013 Base map data OIQI'Iates lfom the Nanonal TopographiC: Sy~tem and N ~tural Resources Can..O., and footpnnt aseasprO'ildedbylhePropooenl

TI'Hs map does n ol capture the complexity ol t.4 CFN's relationShip to their ll'adltiOMI Iands et thee,;lentofll\epractceoftreatyandaboog.nal r91ts. Thr; map IS a IHngdoa.nnent and l'>llllef1dedlo be amended 8lld re~ned CHef lime Ttle data used to J)l{)(li(e ttus map Ofl{llnate frommy•IC)IeSOUtces Thl$m~I$PfO~ofthe M *ISewCreeffSI NaiKlnandmayonlybetepl'oclleedwllhwllllenperrmssm

www.thefirelightgroup.com 15 MCFN Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Frontier 15/11/2013

The importance of subsistence activities extends beyond individual MCFN land users, through networks of respect and cultural sharing, to large family groups and the wider MCFN community. The sharing of resources and wild foods is a fundamental component of MCFN cultural practice, evidenced by widespread sharing of wild foods and resources amongst MCFN members. One MCFN participant (M22, 2011) reported that he shares approximately 90% of the big game he hunts, including moose and bison, with his family and the larger MCFN community. Likewise, for ducks and geese, he estimated sharing approximately 60- 70% of his harvest. The same participant indicated that he hunts for specific species (e.g., bear) upon request of his grandmother and other family members. Available wild food consumption studies with MCFN members also demonstrate the ongoing importance of subsistence harvesting to the MCFN population. Based on interviews conducted with MCFN members, as well as other Aboriginal people in Fort Chipewyan and Fort Smith in the late 1980s, Wein, Sabry, and Evers (1991) found that, on average, a third of meat, fish, and birds eaten were from wild sources. While the study included both MCFN and non-MCFN individuals, it provides a useful picture of how important wild foods were, and continue to be, in the Fort Chipewyan community. The top 20% of households consumed wild foods twice a day on average—more than twice as often as the average for the entire sample. Large mammals (including moose, bison, bear and caribou) were consumed most frequently (an average or 128 times per year), followed by berries (63 times), fish (62 times), birds (32 times), and small game (27 times). 40% of respondents reported the presence of a hunter, trapper, or fisherman in the household. Wein, Sabry, and Evers (1991) note that: …almost all parts of the large mammals, including bone marrow, fat and organ meats such as tongue, heart, liver and kidney, were used…. Caribou tongue was considered to be a special delicacy…the autumn season was characterized by the greatest use of moose, berries, especially cranberries, waterfowl and upland birds. The winter season was characterized by the greatest use of large mammals, especially caribou and moose, and small mammals, especially hare, along with frequent use of berries and fish. In spring caribou dominated the large mammal use, while use of fish remained high. In summer, use of fish increased; however, except for berries, consumption of other categories was the least of any season. (p. 199) Their work confirms that by the late 1980s: There is concern…that the quantity and quality of country food are at risk because of upstream petroleum and forest industrial development…. (p. 197) On-going concerns regarding the quantity and quality of wild foods, and resulting effects on MCFN knowledge and use, are discussed in more detail in Section 5.2.4.

3.5 Treaty 8 and Mikisew History In 1789, when the North West Company established Fort Chipewyan, both Cree and Chipewyan peoples were already well established in the area. With the establishment of the Fort as a trading post, some , including

www.thefirelightgroup.com 16 MCFN Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Frontier 15/11/2013 ancestors of the MCFN, began to reside more permanently in the areas around the western edge of Lake Athabasca and along the Peace and Athabasca Rivers, relying on wood bison, moose, and various other fish and game. Networks of sharing and trade extended along the major river routes, and similar networks remain integral to the Mikisew way of life: …the network of kinship ties still functions and affects how people work together and share material possessions and bush foods … the major rivers—Peace, Slave, and Athabasca—comprised three significant axes that linked together the members of the local bands along these routes. (McCormack, 2010a, pp. 53-54) Through the 19th and most of the 20th centuries, the Mikisew Cree were deeply involved in a mixed economy, including subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering, as well as engagement in the fur trade and wage labour. By the late 19th century, most Mikisew Cree lived in several key village areas for at least part of the year. Village areas were located along the Athabasca (including at “the Forks” near present day Fort McMurray) and Peace Rivers, at Birch River, and elsewhere in what would become WBNP. In 1899, Chief Mikisew, also known as Justin Marten, chief of the Cree speaking peoples of Fort Chipewyan, with two headmen (A. Taccarroo and Thomas Gibbot), signed Treaty 8 alongside the Chipewyan population on the shores of Lake Athabasca.19 The MCFN considers the promises the Crown made when entering into Treaty 8 to be the foundation upon which all subsequent non-Aboriginal use in the region depends, including both Crown and industrial use. These expectations are predicated on both the written and oral promises made by the Crown’s negotiators at the time. When the Mikisew Cree first signed Treaty 8, the Crown’s negotiators observed that the Cree were apprehensive that their hunting and fishing privileges would be curtailed. The negotiators confirmed that Treaty 8 would neither restrict the Mikisew’s use of the land nor infringe on their way of life: Our chief difficulty was the apprehension that the hunting and fishing privileges were to be curtailed…. We had to solemnly assure them [the First Nations] that only such laws as to hunting and fishing as were in the interest of the Indians and were found necessary in order to protect the fish and fur- bearing animals would be made, and that they would be as free to hunt and fish after the treaty as they would be if they never entered into it. We assured them that the treaty would not lead to any forced interference with their mode of life…. As to education the Indians were assured that…the law, which was as strong as a treaty, provided for non-interference with the religion of the Indians in schools maintained or assisted by the Government. (Laird, Ross, and McKenna, 1966)

19 For a detailed history of Treaty 8 and its signing, see Fumoleau (2004). For a detailed history of Fort Chipewyan and its peoples, see McCormack (2010a).

www.thefirelightgroup.com 17 MCFN Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Frontier 15/11/2013

At the time of signing, the Crown was well aware of the extent of resources that lay beneath the area encompassed by Treaty 8 (Fumoleau, 2004). In 1888, Dr. Robert Bell, Director of the Geological Survey of Canada, confirmed that within the Athabasca and Mackenzie valleys existed “the most extensive petroleum field in America, if not in the world,” and concluded that “it is probable this great petroleum field will assume an enormous value in the near future and will rank among Canada’s chief assets” (quoted in Hein, 2000, pp. 2-3). Just over a decade later, Treaty 8 was signed. Almost 70 years later, in the late 1960s, the first large scale oil sands mining operation (what would become Suncor) opened north of Fort McMurray. In the late 1960s, construction of the W. A. C. Bennett Dam on the upper Peace River heavily impacted water levels in the Peace-Athabasca Delta, and led to a rapid decline in the population of muskrat and other aquatic furbearers, which were a foundation of the fur economy. Through the 1960s and 1970s, changes in the environment, lower fur prices, impacts from industrialization, and Canadian colonial and education policies influenced the transition to a permanent MCFN settlement at Fort Chipewyan. However, reliance on historical village areas, traplines, and the wider traditional territory continued. Today, there are still active Mikisew bush settlements (beyond Fort Chipewyan) at Quatre Fourches and Peace Point along the Peace River. On the Athabasca River, a permanent Mikisew bush settlement existed at Snowbird’s camp, or Embarras Portage (on the west side of the Athabasca River, across from the Old Fort Reserve 217; see Figure 1). This settlement was occupied year-round until at least the mid-1980s. Based on oral histories provided by MCFN members, declining environmental quality, including low water levels and pollution from oil sands operations upstream, combined with other factors, led to the transition of Snowbird’s camp from a permanent settlement area to its current role as a seasonal base for accessing the Athabasca River and nearby resources. It remains an important cultural and subsistence area for MCFN members. Since the late 1960s, MCFN members and families have continued to maintain livelihoods in relationship to the land, as well as participate in the contemporary wage economy. This way of life has continued despite the intensification of the oil sands economy and its attendant environmental effects over the past 20 years. Beyond economics, sacred responsibilities continue to define the way MCFN members relate to their resources. Today, as in the past, Mikisew Cree livelihoods rely upon the resources of the northern boreal forest—especially the productive and unique terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems of the Athabasca and Peace River watersheds, and what is now WBNP.

3.6 Treaty 8 and Future Livelihood Our Treaty 8 rights are not frozen in time, they are as dynamic as the First Nations they represent. (George Poitras, 2010)

www.thefirelightgroup.com 18 MCFN Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Frontier 15/11/2013

MCFN members and elders consider Treaty 8 to be the foundation of a relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples that should be based in reconciliation, sharing, and protection of MCFN cultural and economic livelihood. In 1986 the MCFN established a landmark treaty land entitlement agreement with the federal government. This agreement established a series of MCFN reserves on the Athabasca River, near Fort Chipewyan, and north along the Peace River. In 2005 the MCFN won a major case at the Supreme Court of Canada confirming duties owed by the Crown in relation to duty to consult on Treaty 8 lands.20 The MCFN Consultation Protocol (Mikisew Cree First Nation, 2009) articulates the Treaty rights of MCFN as: The Mikisew Cree is determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations our ancestral territories and our distinct ethnic identity in accordance with our own cultural patterns and social institutions. The Mikisew Cree considers Treaty 8 to be a sacred agreement and views the oral and written promises of the Treaty Commissioners to be sacred promises. MCFN has endured periods where responsibilities of the Crown have failed to live up to their Treaty promises and constitutional obligations. MCFN honours the promises under Treaty 8 and expects the Crown to do the same. The Mikisew Cree wishes to protect and preserve its cultural, spiritual and economic relationship to its traditional lands and the resources on those lands. MCFN’s connection to the land is holistic and is an integral part of its culture and identity. It is critical that the MCFN are able to meaningfully carry out their rights now and in the future including, but not limited to:

• Quality and quantity of wildlife species required; • Quality and quantity of aquatic species required; • Quality and quantity of plants or other things gathered; and • Quantity and quality, as the context requires, of air, water and ecosystems required to support the exercise of MCFN’s rights. In addition, MCFN’s submission to the Alberta government on the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP) provides a clear MCFN perspective regarding the future of Treaty 8 rights, including livelihood rights (Mikisew Cree First Nation, 2010).21 Figure 3 shows the Project almost entirely within protection areas defined by MCFN. Consistent with the spirit and intent of Treaty 8, MCFN’s vision prioritizes lands, waters, and resources essential to the current and future practice of MCFN Aboriginal and treaty rights and way of life. Based on ecological and cultural criteria, MCFN emphasizes the importance of water and waterways as focal points for MCFN knowledge and use, including the Athabasca River, and areas north of the Firebag River.

20 Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69.

21 This vision was based on community input and available MCFN use information, but was articulated without adequate resources to fully involve MCFN members, or to identify the needs and conditions required to sustain MCFN rights and culture.

www.thefirelightgroup.com 19 MCFN Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Frontier 15/11/2013

Figure 3. MCFN Traditional Lands and Protection Areas in Relation to the Frontier Project

_, l'Y Traditional Lands and v ~ ::...... '' Cultural Protection ..._./ 'sAbiO ..{p~li:J ~221 Areas in relation to the -"-.. / Frontier Oil Sands r Mine Project 4

'-

MI~~~REE •1:1.000,000 10 20 30 40 Kilometres

Legend

C3 MCFN protection areas 0 RSA 0 LSA ~ MCFN Reserves ~ Other Reserves ~ Proposed project footprint [] Parks and protected areas

_Prop_~ed •/' _fronuer Oil - sands Mine Project

All bounderies are subject to ratification by MCFN Chiaf end Cour'ICil.

firelightthe <~ "'"'> group "v~

MIP Otod!Ked lollldeJ the dlrec'ltOn «Sit¥en DeRoy o1 the FweiQIII Gr01.19 on July !!~. 2012 S.se II'IIP dell Ollgln.tes fr om tile Nlllonll TopogJ.P.:: SysiM! .nod N.tllfal Re sourctos Canadll. and IOOipnnt III'I ISpi'OY!dldb¥tl'leProponent

Tlus miP Goes not caplllfelll• cornpii!XJIY' ol M CFN 's r"-!JOMtup to thw hdiloMIIInds 01 fMieJI.nl d the PJKIIC:e ol • ..,., and Mlof9flll r9JIS ThlsiNPISIIIWogdociHTifllllndtSIIIIeOOedtobelmtflded tr'KirtfiM

www.thefirelightgroup.com 20