“Keetaskenow”
Mikisew Cree First Nation Submission August 24, 2010
In the Matter of Energy Resources Conservation Board Application No. 1445535
And In the Matter of Alberta Environment Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act Application No. 001-228044
And In the Matter of Water Act File No. 001-00228047
And In the Matter of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Section 35(2) Authorization Application
PROWSE CHOWNE LLP JANES FREEDMAN KYLE LAW CORPORATION Donald P. Mallon, Q.C. Robert Janes Eva Chipiuk Karey Brooks Christina Scattolin
Suite 1300, 10020 101 A Avenue 816 - 1175 Douglas Street Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3G2 Victoria, British Columbia V8W 2E1 Phone: (780) 439-7171 Phone: (250) 405-3460 Fax: (780) 439-0475 Fax: (250) 381-8567 E-mail: [email protected] Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 3
II. DESCRIPTION OF INTERVENERS ...... 6
III. REASONS FOR OBJECTION ...... 7
IV. REQUESTED DISPOSITION AND REASONS ...... 9
V. FACTS TO BE SHOWN IN EVIDENCE ...... 13
A. Mikisew Member Evidence ...... 13 B. Mikisew Traditional Territory ...... 14 C. Extinguishment ...... 17 VI. EFFORTS MADE BY THE PARTIES TO RESOLVE THE MATTER ...... 21
VII. NATURE AND SCOPE OF INTENDED PARTICIPATION ...... 22
VII. APPENDIX ...... 23
A. Treaty 8 Documents ...... 23 B. Mikisew Cree First Nation Will Says ...... 29 C. Curriculum Vitaes ...... 30 D. Expert Reports and Presentations ...... 31 E. Traditional Use Documents ...... 34 F. Intergovernmental Correspondence ...... 41 G. Project Related Correspondence ...... 46
2 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
“Keetaskenow” Definition(Cree): “Everything - air, land, animals, plants, fish, birds, insects, water – works together to sustain life”
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Mikisew First Nation (“Mikisew”) are intervening in the joint Government of Canada Energy Resources and Conservation Board review panel (the “Joint Review Panel”) of the application by TOTAL E&P Canada Ltd. (“TOTAL”) for approval of the Joslyn North Mine Project, Energy Resources Conservation Board (“ERCB”) Application No. 1445535 (the “Project”).
2. In February of 2006, Deer Creek Energy Limited (“DCEL”) filed an application with the Energy Utilities Board under:
1) Section 10 of the Oil Sands Conservation Act, R.S.A. 2000, O-7 (“OSCA”), and ss. 3, 24 and 26 of the Oil Sands Conservation Regulation, Alta. Reg. 76/1988 (“OSCR”) for approval for the mining, lease development, on-site waste management and reclamation activities to be carried out on the Joslyn Lease;
2) Sections 10 and 11 of OSCA and ss. 3 and 48 of the OSCR, for approval of an oil sands processing plant for the recovery of bitumen and treatment of bitumen froth; and
3) Section 11 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-16 (“HEEA”), for approval to construct and operate a co-generation plant.
3. DCEL also submitted the Project Environmental Impact Assessment (the “EIA”) to the Director of Alberta Environment for his review, pursuant to s. 50 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-12 (“EPEA”) and for a decision, in due course, by the Director that the Report is complete pursuant to s. 53 of EPEA.
3 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
4. DCEL also sought an approval from Alberta Environment (“AENV”), pursuant to s. 66 of EPEA and the Approvals and Registrations Procedure Regulation, for the activities as described in the Project Application, including the construction, operation and reclamation of the Project.
5. DCEL further applied to AENV, pursuant to ss. 37 and 42 of the Water Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W-3 (“WA”), for an amendment to WA Approval No. 198991-00- 00, as amended, allowing for the construction of a water intake at the Athabasca River and for other oil sands facilities as described in the Project Application. DCEL also applies to AENV for a license, pursuant to section 50 of the WA, to divert from the Athabasca River and site surface runoff an additional 29,090 m3/cd (10,617,000 m3/year) for a total annual volume of 11,000,000 m3.
6. The EIA also stated that federal approval will be filed in the future.
7. Sometime after DCEL submitted its application, TOTAL purchased DCEL‟s interests in the Project. Since the initial application was made in 2006 TOTAL made a number of changes to the Project design and consequently its application. Although these changes are not readily apparent in the EIA or the Joint Panel Review registry website, TOTAL‟s most recently filed documents, filed in February of 2010, states that TOTAL is seeking approvals for:
1) Energy Utilities Board (now ERCB) Application No. 1445535;
2) Alberta Environment Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) Application No. 001-228044;
3) Water Act File No. 001-00228047; and
4) Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Section 35(2) Authorization Application.
4 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
8. The Joslyn North Mine Project is located approximately 70 kilometres north of Fort McMurray within Township (“TWP”) 94, Range (“Rge”) 11 and 12, TWP 95, Rge 11, 12, and 13, and TWP 96, Rge 11, 12, 13and are Oil Sands Leases 7280060T24, 7404110452 and 7405070799. .
9. The expected production capacity from the two trains will be approximately 11,924 cubic metres per day of partially deasphalted bitumen. The Project, if approved, could begin construction in 2011-2012, with mining expected to occur from 2017 to 2037.
10. On August 8, 2008, the Joint Review Panel was established to review the Project. The Joint Panel Review agreement states that the scope of the factors to be considered by the Joint Review Panel includes, in part:
Cumulative Effects Assessment The Panel shall identify and assess the project‟s cumulative effects. Cumulative effects are those changes to the environment due to the project combined with the existence of other works or other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. … The Panel should focus its consideration of cumulative effects on key valued environmental components. Without limiting itself thereto, the following components may be considered: Water quality and quantity; Air quality; Current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons; Wildlife and wildlife habitat for key species;
Effects of changes to the environment To take into account the “environmental effects” defined by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the environmental assessment will consider the effects of any changes to the environment caused by the project on the following factors: Health and Socio-Economic Conditions Physical and Cultural Heritage Current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons Any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological or architectural significance [emphasis added]
5 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
II. DESCRIPTION OF INTERVENERS
11. The Mikisew are an Indian Band, registered in accordance with the Indian Act, R.S.C., c. I-6. It is comprised of approximately 2400 members, or 55% of the aboriginal people living within the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. Approximately half of the band members live in and around Fort Chipewyan and the surrounding traditional trapping, hunting and fishing lands, and most of the remaining half live in the vicinity of Fort McKay and Fort McMurray, Alberta.
12. The traditional lands of the Mikisew extend around Lake Athabasca over the entire Peace-Athabasca Delta, and south to and including Fort McMurray and the Clearwater River. The area described above includes the proposed project location.
13. In 1899 when Mikisew entered into Treaty 8 with the Crown it was promised certain harvesting rights which embodied a promise that by signing the treaty they were not giving up their way of life. While the use of land would change after the treaty, Mikisew and the other treaty signatories understood that their harvesting practices would be protected and not limited or interfered with to such an extent as to render them meaningless as constitutionally protected treaty rights. In essence, the treaty provided there would be a balanced sharing of the land – the Crown and Euro-Canadian society would be able to use the land to carry out certain practices and to develop resources while the beneficiaries of Treaty 8 would be guaranteed the continuation of their way of life, the protection of the Crown and certain material benefits (such as the annuity payment). A list of documents relating to Treaty 8 is attached at Appendix A.
14. The evidence set out in the various historic records that are filed at Appendix A describes the government‟s understanding of the events leading up to and motivating the negotiation of the treaty as well as reports concerning the negotiation of the treaty. This evidence shows that the Crown understood that the aboriginal signatories of Treaty 8 were concerned about threats to their way of life
6 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
posed by the influx of non-aboriginal people into their territory. The aboriginal signatories were clearly interested in entering into treaty not just to obtain the material benefits that came from treaty (such as the five dollar annuity) but most importantly to actually protect their hunting, trapping and fishing. This accorded well with the government‟s objectives at that time as they were keen to see the aboriginal people support themselves through their traditional activities and not become dependent upon welfare or other forms of assistance. These records also describe the process in the twentieth century by which the government of Alberta worked in the twentieth century to limit the Mikisew to Wood Buffalo National Park.
III. REASONS FOR OBJECTION
15. The Project constitutes an unjustifiable infringement of Mikisew‟s Treaty rights.
16. Aboriginal peoples, including the ancestors of the Mikisew, have inhabited the lands surrounding and downstream of the Project for over 8,000 years. Subsistence hunting, trapping, fishing and gathering still occur as part of their way of life. The Mikisew have lived and flourished on their traditional lands for millennia. However since the British and Canadian Crown authorized the exploitation and immigration on their lands, they have witnessed significant depletion and deterioration of fish, animals and plants they rely on for their health, sustenance and economy. The irreversible negative impacts to the rivers, wetlands, forests and meadows are a result of government authorized activities.
17. Since the fur trade many Mikisew people traveled continuously up and down the Athabasca River to and from Fort McMurray to Fort Chipewyan for various activities such as trading, shopping, work at Bitumount, hauling wood from sawmills, accessing the railway, summer hunting and fishing. The Athabasca River was and currently is an important “highway” for the Mikisew. Rivers such as the Muskeg were used as transportation routes by the aboriginal peoples of the region.
7 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
18. In addition to providing habitat for fish, plants, and animals for subsistence purposes, the traditional lands of the Mikisew supply resources for medicinal, spiritual, and cultural purposes. Each time a large section of traditional lands are removed it makes it more difficult to maintain their way of life including their culture language and spiritual practices. The loss of the Project lands and surrounding lands and water impacted by the Project means a loss of and access to cultural and spiritual places. The Mikisew rely on the land for various traditional medicinal herbs and plants. This loss is a significant blow to their traditional culture and way of life.
19. To the extent that the proposed Project affects the Project lands and the lands and waters adjacent to the proposed Project location, and to the extent that it affects the Athabasca and the Muskeg River, it affects the Mikisew, their health, and their social, economic and cultural well-being.
20. The Mikisew filed an initial Statement of Concern, dated May 29, 2006, Mikisew expressed concern about the Project relating to: the cumulative effects of the Project on the environment; effect of the Project on the cultural ecosystem and traditional land uses; and the socio-economic effects of the Project.
21. Mikisew submits that the cumulative effect of all of the development in and around its traditional land has rendered the rights promised to them in Treaty 8 meaningless. Rather than sharing the use of the land and allowing the Mikisew to maintain their way of life, Canada and Alberta have transformed the land into a largely urbanized or industrialized landscape. The lands along the Athabasca River south of Wood Buffalo National Park have been heavily developed in the manner described above and opportunities to hunt, harvest or otherwise use the land for traditional purposes are severely limited and, for the most part, not available to be used in a traditional manner.
8 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
22. This has been compounded by the fact that other aspects of Mikisew‟s traditional way of life have been compromised by the alteration in the water regime caused by the Bennett Dam and the extraction of water for oil sands and other purposes. This has limited the ability of the Mikisew to continue to enjoy their traditional fish harvest and also limited the economic opportunities created by the fishery.
IV. REQUESTED DISPOSITION AND REASONS
23. Mikisew asks that the approval for the Project sought by TOTAL be denied. Mikisew submits that the approval of the Project would constitute an unjustifiable infringement on Mikisew‟s treaty rights. Further, in light of the cumulative impacts of current and approved oil sands projects Mikisew submits it is not in the public interest that TOTAL‟s applications be approved.
24. The Mikisew will pose to the following constitutional questions to the Joint Review Panel:
Would the proposed approval constitute an unjustifiable infringement of the Treaty 8 Harvesting Rights of the Mikisew?
Would the proposed approval constitute an unlawful intrusion into Federal jurisdiction over Indians and Lands Reserved for the Indians (s. 91(24), Constitution Act, 1982)?
25. The Mikisew culture and their ability to exercise their rights are highly dependent on the state of the environment. As a result, not only are they deeply concerned about the ecological state of the region in which they live, but they are directly and adversely affected by the changing landscape of the region.
26. Mikisew submits that further large scale industrial development within the lands subject to the Project would constitute an unjustifiable infringement of the treaty rights of the Mikisew. The Project would take even more land and make it
9 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
unavailable or unsuitable for traditional purposes and also delay even further prospect of any recovery of the land in the foreseeable future and that this infringement is unconstitutional for two reasons:
First, by infringing the treaty rights of the Mikisew (rather than merely taking-up lands and limiting the rights without infringing), irrespective of the question of justification, the approval would trench on the exclusive aspect of federal jurisdiction over Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 and so is of no force and effect by virtue of s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982; and
Second, as an unjustifiable infringement of a treaty right, the approval is of no force and effect as a breach of s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.
27. Due to the unjustified infringement of the Mikisew treaty rights, the Mikisew submit that the Joint Review Panel refuse to grant approval of the Project in accordance with Section 10(3)(b) of the OSCA.
28. Further, the TOTAL application, when considered in light of the cumulative impacts of current and approved projects, does not pass the public interest test.
29. Section 3 of the Energy Resources Conservation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-10 reads:
Consideration of public interest 3 Where by any other enactment the Board is charged with the conduct of a hearing, inquiry or other investigation in respect of a proposed energy resource project, it shall, in addition to any other matters it may or must consider in conducting the hearing, inquiry or investigation, give consideration to whether the project is in the public interest, having regard to the social and economic effects of the project and the effects of the project on the environment.
30. The purpose of the OSCA as listed in part as follows:
Purposes of the Act 3 The purposes of this Act are…….
10 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
(b) to ensure orderly, efficient and economical development in the public interest of the oil sands resources of Alberta, … (e) to assist the Government in controlling pollution in the development and production of the oil sands resources of Alberta, … (g) to ensure the observance, in the public interest, of safe and efficient practices in the exploration for and the recovery, storing, processing and transporting of oil sands, discard, crude bitumen, derivatives of crude bitumen and oil sands products. [emphasis added]
31. The purposes of the HEEA are set out in Section 2 in part as follows:
Purposes of the Act 2 The purposes of this Act are (a) to provide for the economic, orderly and efficient development and operation, in the public interest, of hydro energy and the generation and transmission of electric energy in Alberta, (b) to secure the observance of safe and efficient practices in the public interest in the development of hydro energy and in the generation, transmission and distribution of electric energy in Alberta, (c) to assist the Government in controlling pollution and ensuring environment conservation in the development of hydro energy and in the generation, transmission and distribution of electric energy in Alberta [emphasis added]
32. The Terms of Reference of the Joint Review Panel as stated above include consideration of “current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons”
33. For all these reasons and separate and apart from the obligation of the Joint Review Panel to consider the constitutional rights of First Nations potentially impacted by the Project, the Joint Review Panel must also within its own guiding principles consider those rights and impacts. Mikisew respectfully submits that the Joint Review Panel is mandated to consider aboriginal and treaty rights within the public interest test, irrespective of any constitutional questions posed to it.
34. The public interest test involves several factors that have been taken in the past to include resource conservation, economics, public safety, environmental protection and social interests.
11 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
35. Aboriginal and treaty rights cross the plane of most of these factors and Mikisew submits the weight to be placed on its rights, as a separate consideration within the public test, is of the highest order.
36. In R. v. Conway, 2010 SCC 22, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) confirmed that expert tribunals should play a primary role in determining constitutional issues that fall within their specialized jurisdiction.
37. In discussing the duty to consult and accommodate the SCC also said in Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73, that: “...the Province took the Lands subject to this duty.” The SCC went on to state in that case that the fulfillment of the Crown‟s fiduciary duty requires it to “…act with reference to the Aboriginal group’s best interest in exercising discretionary control over the specific Aboriginal interest at stake.”
38. The SCC also found that the duty to accommodate requires a balance that must be sought between Aboriginal concerns and competing societal concerns (Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), 2004 SCC 74T.) Resource conservation and economics, elements of the public interest test are examples of such societal concerns. The fact that the ERCB is legislatively mandated to consider those and environmental and cultural concerns and the Joint Review Panel is mandated by its terms of reference to consider Aboriginal concerns means that without anything more the Joint Review Panel must take note of, consider and make the determinations sought by Mikisew.
39. Further, as an agency of the Crown, the Joint Review Panel must act honorably (Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 388) and in fulfilling their duties consider the rights of Mikisew. In Carrier Sekani Tribal Council v. British Columbia (Utilities Commision) 2009 BCCA 67 the B.C. Court of Appeal stated “ The honour of the Crown requires not only that the Crown actor consult, but also that the regulatory tribunal decide any consultation dispute which arises within the scheme of its
12 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
regulation. It is useful to remember the relationship between government and administrative tribunals generally.” Mikisew respectfully submits that any obligation of a tribunal with respect to a consultation issue would equally apply to an infringement issue.
40. Mikisew treaty rights are being unjustifiably infringed, therefore the Project cannot be in the public interest and TOTAL must be denied its approvals in accordance with Section 10(3)(b) of the OSCA.
V. FACTS TO BE SHOWN IN EVIDENCE
41. The Mikisew will present witnesses consisting of Mikisew members and leaders, traditional use specialists and environmental scientists to demonstrate why this Project should be denied. The will say statements Mikisew members and leaders are located at Appendix B.
42. The Mikisew experts (see Appendix C for qualifications) have prepared reports that are appended to this submission as Appendices D and E. The Mikisew agree with all of their findings and recommendations and adopt those same findings and recommendations as their own.
A. Mikisew Member Evidence
43. The Mikisew members and leaders will give evidence of the interests of the Mikisew and the direct impacts of the project. Chief Marcel and a number of Mikisew members will testify as to the current state of Mikisew territory and the importance and significance of the treaty rights.
44. Mikisew harvesting rights continued to have great cultural and social significance. Hunting still provides a significant source of food both for hunters and other members of the community who rely upon the hunters. Hunting also continues to have spiritual significance to Mikisew members.
13 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
45. Mikisew members continue to hunt and see hunting as an important part of maintaining the connection between their community and their lands and an important part of passing down their distinct culture to future generations.
46. As Mikisew people have moved away from Fort Chipewyan to southern parts of their territory to take advantage of economic opportunities, they have continued to try to exercise their rights in these southern areas (Fort McMurray, Fort Mackay, Birch Hills and lands along the Athabasca River and its tributaries). While a great deal of harvesting in the twentieth century focused on Wood Buffalo National Park, it was not confined to the park and there was hunting and other activities in areas to the south, particularly along the Athabasca River and its tributaries.
B. Mikisew Traditional Territory
47. Mikisew will present evidence that the Project is situated in Mikisew‟s Traditional Territory and is in an area subject to Treaty 8 rights. Specifically, Professor McCormack will provide an ethnographic description of the people who now make up the Mikisew and describe their Traditional Territory.
48. Mikisew‟s Traditional Territory reflects the territories of the Cree and Chipewyan people who participated in Treaty 8 and came together to form Mikisew as the Indian Act bands were formed after the signing of the treaty in 1899. These territories covered an extensive area focused around several major axes which represented major land and water transportation routes, one of the most important of which was the Athabasca River.
49. As described in Professor McCormacks‟ report, this territory reflected a number of cultural factors, including the maintenance animal populations; the ability to adapt to fluctuations in animal populations; the maintenance of extensive and overlapping kinship networks. This territory extended south to the Fort McMurray and Fort Mackay regions and certainly includes the lands on which the Project is situated.
14 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
50. Professor McCormack‟s evidence also describes how the Cree and Chipewyan harvesting practices and way of life evolved following contact with Europeans through to the late twentieth century. This evidence shows that while the Mikisew were keen and willing to take advantage of European technologies and take advantage of the opportunities that the introduction of the European market economy created, they carefully maintained their way of life.
51. Hunting, trapping and other forms of harvesting remained important both as a means of providing a products to trade into the western economy (i.e. furs) but also as a means of subsistence and cultural survival. The maintenance of the traditional culture and harvesting rights allowed the Mikisew to maintain a significant degree of autonomy despite the introduction of the market economy.
52. Professor McCormack also discusses how from approximately 1929 through the late twentieth century there were a series of government policies implemented (particularly by the government of Alberta) that had the effect of re-focusing a great deal of Mikisew harvesting to the northern part of their territory around Wood Buffalo National Park. Despite this, however, harvesting continued elsewhere and the Mikisew maintained their way of life and connection with their larger territory.
53. Professor McCormack will also testify as to the background of Treaty 8 and the significance of the harvesting rights in those negotiations. This evidence will show that one of the major motivating factors for the aboriginal signatories (including the people who are now the Mikisew) in negotiating the treaty was to obtain protection for their way of life – particularly their hunting and trapping – in light of the influx of non-aboriginal people (including trappers who threatened to extirpate furbearers from certain areas).
15 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
54. At page 73, Professor McCormack concludes by stating:
The First Nations who entered into Treaty No. 8 agreed to share their land with newcomers. They could work around a few blocks of land removed from the totality of their traditional lands. Blanketing an entire landscape with industrial lands is a different matter entirely, a kind of industrial clearcutting. As industries have expanded their northern presence and began to build roads to access oil and gas and forestry resources, it opened the door to additional people moving onto even those lands that Indians had managed to preserve. At some point, they will run out of lands to which they can move. There is no evidence that these changes will or even can be compensated for by the provision of wage labor. Although government officials have assumed for many years that at some point in the future Aboriginal people will no longer support themselves by hunting, that does not mean that Aboriginal people hold the same belief about their future. [emphasis added]
55. The aboriginal signatories of Treaty 8 clearly understood that while the treaty would allow non-aboriginal people to come onto their lands, the treaty also promised them protection for their way of life and in no way represented a decision on their part to give up their way of life.
56. Dr. Doug Elias will provide evidence concerning what over-arching conclusions can be drawn from an examination of a collection of traditional use studies (“TUS”) conducted by or on behalf of the Mikisew over the years. This evidence will confirm that the Project is within Mikisew Traditional Territory.
57. While all of the TUS evidence will show historical and current, albeit reduced, use of the Project and Study areas, the report of the Calliou Group, which was specifically commissioned for this project through the evidence of Tracy Campbell will address that question specifically.
58. The Calliou Group report concluded at page 3 that:
additional development within MCFN traditional territory, such as the proposed Project, will further restrict MCFN member‟s ability to exercise their treaty rights. This will occur both directly by removing the Project area from the land available for traditional uses, and indirectly by contributing to the cumulative effects (including perceived health, economic, environmental and cultural) described by Study participants. [emphasis added]
16 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
59. This report and other evidence to be placed before the panel will also show key species of importance to the Mikisew. Mikisew members will caution the panel of the principle embodied by the word “Keetaskenow” – Everything is important for our survival. This embodies their holistic approach to life.
60. Sherri Labour will provide further analysis of Aboriginal perspectives and the significance of environmental effects on the Mikisew.
61. The Firelight Group will discuss the continued importance of the Athabasca River to the Mikisew people and the ability to carry out their traditional rights. Specifically, at page 10 of the Firelight report, they found that:
…reductions in the quantity and quality of the Athabasca River‟s flow are having adverse effects on the ability of MCFN members to access territories, and to practice their aboriginal and Treaty rights, including hunting, trapping, fishing, and related activities. Adverse effects are particularly evident where the preferred manner, or location, of exercising rights involves access to territories by boat, or where the right relies upon confidence in the quality, or safety, of foods or other resources procured on traditional lands influenced by industrial use.
62. The totality of this evidence establishes that the Mikisew hold treaty rights in the area of the Project; that the Project is in their traditional territory and that the continued exercise of these rights is economically, culturally and spiritually significant.
C. Extinguishment
63. Mikisew‟s submission is that at its core the harvesting rights contained in Treaty 8 reflects the promise that the Mikisew way of life would not be taken away but instead would be protected. In analyzing the question of whether the Treaty 8 harvesting rights have been infringed or whether development threatens to take away any meaningful right to hunt, it is important to bear in mind that the right is intimately tied up with maintaining a way of life and not merely a sport hunt or even a subsistence hunt. Thus answering this question requires the Joint Review
17 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
Panel to address the question of whether t the Mikisew way of life has been threatened by the development which has occurred in and about the lands on which the Project is to be carried out.
64. In addition to the evidence described above, Professor McCormack will show that the traditional harvesting practices were carried out in a manner which required the existence of substantial tracts of open land. The harvesting efforts of the Mikisew were dispersed throughout the territory as family groups or bands (not Indian Act bands) spread out through the Traditional Territory to places where they would hunt, trap and fish. The aboriginal people would need land available for the purpose of re-locating as animal populations were exploited or fluctuated for natural causes. The ability to re-locate to areas used by other family members or relatives was tied to the availability of land and resources in the areas being used by those people. Further, the Mikisew were sensitive to non-aboriginal uses of the land would be respectful of those, thus making it difficult for them carry out their traditional way of life in areas that were fenced, cut or otherwise occupied by non-aboriginal land uses.
65. The evidence of the Mikisew members will clearly demonstrate that the development of the territory and a wide variety of non-aboriginal land uses has had a devastating impact on their ability to carry out their way of life. Members who have hunted for a long time, have observed that animal populations have significantly reduced or have moved. Animals avoid or stay away from oil sands developments and such areas are not suitable for hunting in any event. The areas are bright and noisy and furthermore the presence of large populations of workers and others makes it unsafe to hunt in these areas.
66. Further, game harvested in these areas tastes poorly. While these effects alone are very significant, all of this has been made worse by changes in the water regime in the area. The building of the Bennett Dam on the Peace River and the extraction of water from the Athabasca River has contributed significantly to (if
18 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
not caused) the drying out of the Peace-Athabasca Delta, one of the great inland deltas of the world and has devastated the traditional trapping areas of the Mikisew removing this as a practical supplement or alternative to hunting and compounding the loss of traditional activities. The fish populations have also been affected by pollution of the Athabasca River by development (including oil sands development) and the members of Mikisew are afraid to eat the fish. Mikisew members still try to maintain their way of life – sustenance harvesting is still carried on to the extent that it can be and members hope to pass their way of life on to future generations.
67. The historic records from the time of treaty negotiation, some of which are in evidence, show that the Crown understood and recognized that the Mikisew people tended to operate spread out over the land rather than concentrated in communities. This is consistent with the desire for the protection of an adequate land base to allow for such harvesting.
68. Management Solutions in Environmental Science (“MSES”) analyzed satellite photographs of the region together with government records of surface development. He has analyzed how much of the land has been cleared; how much of the land is within the zone of influence of development; and the degree to which land has been fragmented or broken-up by development. This analysis includes an analysis of habitat for different species and how it has been affected by development and fragmentation. His evidence shows that across the board there has been very significant loss of habitat for large ungulates, furbearing animals and birds harvested by the Mikisew. Specifically, at Page 1 of the MSES it states:
Our main findings are that the Project‟s impacts, in accumulation with past, present, and future projects will remove any undisturbed land from the RSA by about 2021. Within ten years after that, the habitats for moose, beaver and waterfowl will be removed and, as a result, their populations in the RSA will likely not be viable.
19 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
To date, reclamation practices have not re-established vegetation and wildlife diversity similar to pre-disturbance conditions, and are unlikely to do so in the future. Finally, the environmental planning process does not provide the scientifically rigorous information necessary to understand and prepare the First Nations for the erosion of traditional resources. [emphasis added]
69. MSES concludes that if current development patterns continue then there would be categories of habitat that would be lost from the area entirely together with the loss of associated animal populations. The level of fragmentation of the land is already extremely severe. All of this is associated with an observed reduction in the populations of animals harvested by the Mikisew.
70. Dr. David Schindler will describe the effects of oil sands development on water quality in the Athabasca River and in Lake Athabasca. Specifically Dr. Schindler will present evidence that shows that the oils sands industry substantially increases loadings of toxic materials into the Athabasca River and its tributaries and that the current monitoring programs fail to detect these patterns.
71. A soon to be released new juried paper identifying further toxic releases into the Athabasca River is expected to be published shortly. Dr. Schindler‟s new paper is listed in Appendix D and Mikisiew will provide same as soon as this document will be made available. Finally, Dr. Schindler will also present photographs of fish removed from the Athabasca River in the spring of 2010 with severe deformities. This evidence will substantiate the significant adverse effects recounted by the Mikisew members.
72. Dr. Doug Elias‟ analysis of existing TUS data will show that there is a direct conflict between areas reported to be of continuing interest for harvesting along the Athabasca River and its tributaries and the areas used for oil sands development, including the area of the Project.
20 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
73. Sherri Labour describes the concerns raised by the Mikisew at page 7 of her report as follows: Informants reiterated that MCFN members are experiencing significant impacts to their traditional lifeways and practices. Existing cumulative effects were described as preventing the meaningful use of traditional areas, and of conducting traditional practices. In the past, people could simply „dip a cup in the water‟ if they needed a drink. Now they must calculate how much water they need for the amount of time they wish to spend in the bush, or plan extra travel to visit a creek that is known to be „clean‟ (all informants). Elders wonder how their grandchildren “will survive” (MC25*). Parents wanting to take their adult children out on the land cannot, in some cases, access the areas where these same children „grew up‟ (MC28). [emphasis added]
74. Mikisew submits that the totality of this evidence shows that there has been an inexorable process of conversion of most of the land south of Wood Buffalo National Park and along the Athabasca River and its tributaries into an industrial landscape. That is, there has been a conversion of the land from a landscape with a balance of wilderness and habitat suitable for traditional harvesting practices, to a landscape dominated by industrial features associated with oil sands development, oil sands exploration, oil and gas development; forestry; road networks and urban and suburban development. While this conversion may allow for some hunting, it does not allow for the continuation of a way of life that requires tracts of undeveloped, unfragmented land that is managed for traditional harvesting.
75. As a result of the above the Project, in the context of existing and approved development, constitutes an infringement of the Treaty 8 rights.
VI. EFFORTS MADE BY THE PARTIES TO RESOLVE THE MATTER
76. The evidence filed consists of a record of correspondence between the Miksew (or related agencies) and the Crown with respect to the Project but also with respect to certain larger land use planning processes which Alberta has fitfully attempted to advance (Appendices F and G).
21 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
77. Melody Lepine, the director of the Mikisew GIRC, also provides a description of Mikisew‟s concerns with the consultation process and the inadequacies of the processes that have been carried out to date.
VII. NATURE AND SCOPE OF INTENDED PARTICIPATION
78. The Mikisew intend to fully participate in the hearing and will be presenting evidence through a joint panel of leaders and experts. The Mikisew ask for the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses put forth by the Applicant and other interveners.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
MIKISEW FIRST NATION, by their legal Counsel,
PROWSE CHOWNE LLP JANES FREEDMAN KYLE LAW CORPORATION
Donald P. Mallon, Q.C. Robert Janes Eva Chipiuk Karey Brooks Christina Scattolin
22 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
VII. APPENDIX
A. Treaty 8 Documents
TAB DATE APPENDIX A - TREATY 8 DOCUMENTS (DD/MM/YYYY)
1. 1880 Alexander Morris, The Treaties of Canada with the Indians of Manitoba and the North-West Territories Including the Negotiations on which they were Based and other Information Relating Thereto
2. 05/11/1883 L. Vankoughnet, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, to John A. Macdonald, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs
3. 25/04/1884 Letter from Office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, North-West Territories, File Number 12650
4. 26/01/1891 Order in Council P.C. 52
5. 29/05/1894 Hayter Reed to Charles Constantine
6. 21/12/1896 L. W. Herchmer, Commissioner, NWMP, to Inspector A. M. Jarvis, NWMP
7. 24/04/1897 A. M. Jarvis, Inspector in charge of Northern Patrol, NWMP
8. 30/11/1897 James Walker to Clifford Sifton, Minister of the Interior
9. 02/12/1897 L. W. Herchmer, Commissioner, North West Mounted Policy, to Comptroller, NWMP
10. 18/12/1897 J. D. McLean, Secretary, Department of Indian Affairs, to A. E. Forget, Indian Commissioner
11. 12/01/1898 A. E. Forget, Indian Commissioner, North West Territories, to Secretary, Department of Indian Affairs
12. 04/04/1898 W. H. Routledge, Inspector, NWMP, Commanding Northern Patrol, to the Commissioner, NWMP
13. 16/04/1898 A. E Forget, Indian Commissioner, to J. A. J. McKenna, Department of Indian Affairs
14. 25/04/1898 A. E. Forget, Indian Commissioner, North West Territories, to Secretary, Department of Indian Affairs
23 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX A - TREATY 8 DOCUMENTS (DD/MM/YYYY)
15. 18/06/1898 Clifford Sifton, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, to the Governor General in Council
16. 27/06/1898 John J. McGee, Clerk of the Privy Council, to Superintendent General of Indian Affairs Order in Council P.C. 1703
17. 06/07/1898 J. A. J. McKenna to A. E. Forget, Indian Commissioner
18. 30/11/1898 Clifford Sifton, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, to Governor General in Council
19. 03/12/1898 J. A. Macrae, Commissioner, to J. A. J. McKenna
20. 05/12/1898 J. A. J. McKenna to David Laird, Indian Commissioner
21. 06/12/1898 Clerk of the Privy Council to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs
22. 07/01/1899 David Laird, Indian Commissioner, “Memorandum respecting proposed Indian Treaty No. 8 and Halfbreed claims”
23. 14/01/1899 J. D. Moodie, Inspector, NWMP, to the Commissioner, NWMP
24. 17/02/1899 Clifford Sifton, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, to the Governor General in Council
25. 02/03/1899 Order in Council P.C. 330
26. 17/04/1899 J. A. J. McKenna, Treaty Commissioner, to Clifford Sifton, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs
27. 12/05/1899 Clifford Sifton, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, to David Laird, J. A. J. McKenna, and J. H. Ross, Treaty Commissioners
28. 14/07/1899 Debates of the House of Commons
29. 22/09/1899 D. Laird, J.H. Ross and J.A.J. McKenna to C. Sifton, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, Report of Commissions for Treaty No. 8
30. 30/09/1899 James Walker and J. Arthur Cote, Half-breed Commissioners, to Clifford Sifton, Minister of the Interior
24 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX A - TREATY 8 DOCUMENTS (DD/MM/YYYY)
31. 31/12/1899 Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs for the Year Ended June 30, 1899
32. 01/01/1900 L. W. Herchmer, Commissioner, NWMP, to the President of the Privy Council
33. 05/02/1900 David Laird, Indian Commissioner, to Secretary, Department of Indian Affairs
34. 01/04/1900 Chief and Councillors, Lesser Slave Lake Band, to Superintendent General of Indian Affairs
35. 10/11/1900 J. A. Macrae, Inspector of Indian Agencies and Reserves, to Secretary, Department of Indian Affairs
36. 11/12/1900 J.A. MacRae to Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, Report of Commissions for Treaty No. 8
37. 19/01/1901 J. A. Macrae, Commissioner, to Clifford Sifton, Minister of the Interior
38. 05/10/1903 H. A. Conroy, Inspector, Treaty No. 8, to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs
39. 29/04/1904 D. Laird, Indian Commissioner, to Secretary, Department of Indian Affairs
40. 05/02/1907 H. A. Conroy, Inspector, Treaty No. 8, to Frank Pedley, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs
41. 1908 Charles Mair, Through the Mackenzie Basin: A Narrative of the Athabasca and Peace River Treaty Expedition of 1899
42. 19/02/1909 H. A. Conroy, Inspector, Treaty No. 8, to Frank Pedley, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs
43. 11/01/1910 D. Laird, Indian Commissioner, to Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs
44. 10/10/1910 R. Field, In charge Chipewyan Detachment, to the Officer Commanding, RNWMP, Athabaska Landing
45. 14/11/1910 H. A. Conroy, Inspector, Treaty No. 8, to Frank Pedley, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs
25 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX A - TREATY 8 DOCUMENTS (DD/MM/YYYY)
46. 02/08/1911 Frank Pedley, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, to Frank Oliver, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs
47. 01/09/1913 Appendix Q - Sergeant A. H. L. Mellor, Fort Chipewyan to Fort McMurray, Attending Treaty Payments
48. 31/03/1915 Report of Henry A. Conroy, Inspector for Treaty No. 8
49. 1923 Emile Grouard, Souvenir de mes Soixante Ans d‟Apostolat dans l‟Athabasca Mackenzie
50. 18/12/1929 Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs to Charles Stewart, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs
51. 18/02/1938 G.H. McGill to K.R. Daly, Senior Solicitor, Legal Division, Department of Mines and Resources
52. 25/02/1938 W. W. Cory, Solicitor, Legal Branch, Department of Mines and Resources, to H. W. McGill
53. 09/0 3/1940 C. Pant. Schmidt, Inspector of Indian Agencies, Alberta Inspectorate, to Secretary, Indian Affairs Branch, Department of Mines and Resources
54. 12/08/1943 C. W. Jackson, Chief Executive Assistant, to R. A. Hoey, Acting Director, Indian Affairs Branch
55. 06/10/1945 Gabriel Breynat, Cinquante Ans au Pays des Neiges
56. 1946 J. Alden Mason, Notes of the Indians of the Great Slave Lake Area
57. 10/12/1959 Report of the Royal Commission Appointed to Investigate the unfulfilled provisions of Treaties 8 and 11 as they apply to the Indians of the Mackenzie District
58. 1968 Jack Sissons, Judge of the Far North: The Memoirs of Jack Sissons
59. 1971 Morris Zaslow, The Opening of the Canadian North, 1870-1914
60. 1972 Peter Cumming and Neil Mickenberg, Native Rights in Canada
61. 1974 Keith Crowe, A History of the Original Peoples of Northern Canada
26 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX A - TREATY 8 DOCUMENTS (DD/MM/YYYY)
62. 1975 Rene Fumoleau, As Long As This Land Shall Last: A History of Treaty 8 and Treaty 11, 1870-1939
63. 1975 Indian Claims Commission, Indian Claims in Canada: An Introductory Essay and Selected List of Library Holdings
64. 14/04/1976 Martin O‟Malley, The Past and Future Land: An Account of the Berger Inquiry into the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
65. 1977 Richard Daniel, Indian Rights and Hinterland Resources: The Case of Northern Alberta
66. 1977 Richard T. Price, Indian Land Claims in Alberta: Politics and Policy- Making (1968-77)
67. 1979 Richard Daniel, The Spirit and Terms of Treaty Eight
68. 1979 Ronald Maguire and George Brown, Indian Treaties in Historical Perspective
69. 1979 J. E. Foster, Indian-White Relations in the Prairie West during the Fur Trade Period - A Compact?
70. 1980 Richard Daniel, Treaties of the Northwest, 1871-1930
71. 1981 Hugh Brody, Maps and Dreams: Indians and the British Columbia Frontier
72. 1981 D. J. Hall, Clifford Sifton, Volume 1; The Young Napolean, 1861-1900
73. 1981 Joe Sawchuk, Patricia Sawchuk, and Theresa Ferguson, Metis Land Rights in Alberta: A Political History
74. 1981 Dennis Madill, British Colombia Indian Treaties in Historical Perspective
75. 1983 D. J. Hall, Clifford Sifton and Canadian Indian Administration, 1896- 1905
76. 1984 William R. Morrison, Under the Flag: Canadian Sovereignty and the Native People in Northern Canada
27 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX A - TREATY 8 DOCUMENTS (DD/MM/YYYY)
77. 1985 William R. Morrison, A Survey of the History and Claims of the Native Peoples of Northern Canada
28 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
B. Mikisew Cree First Nation Will Says
TAB APPENDIX B - DESCRIPTION
1. Overview of Lay Witness Evidence
2. Will Say Statements of the Mikisew Cree First Nation
29 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
C. Curriculum Vitaes
TAB APPENDIX C - CURRICULUM VITAES
Land Disturbance Panel
1. Petr Komers
2. Zoran Stanojevic
3. Sherri Gutsell
Cultural Panel
4. Sherri Labour
5. Patricia McCormack
Water Panel
6. David Schindler
7. Craig Candler
8. Steven DeRoy
9. Rachel Olson
Traditional Use Panel
10. Doug Elias
11. Barry Hunter
12. Sara Cook
13. Terry Tobias
14. Jim Tanner
15. Tracy Campbell
16. Germaine Conacher
30 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
D. Expert Reports and Presentations
LAND DISTURBANCE REPORTS AND PRESENTATION
TAB AUTHOR(S) APPENDIX D EXPERT REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Management Report – Effects on Traditional Resources of the Solutions in Mikisew Cree First Nation: The Joslyn Creek Project Environmental Specific and Cumulative Effects in the Oil Sands Science Region (August, 2010) 2. Management Report - Review of Total‟s Joslyn North Mine Solutions in Project Additional Information (July, 2010) Environmental Science 3. Management Presentation - Effects on Traditional Resources of Solutions in the Mikisew Cree First Nation: Joslyn Cree Project Environmental Specific and Cumulative Effects in the Oil Sands Science Region (September, 2010)
CULTURAL REPORTS
TAB AUTHOR(S) APPENDIX D EXPERT REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 4. Sherri Labour Report – Mikisew Cree First Nation Traditional Environmental Knowledge – Summary Report for the Total Joslyn North Project Regulatory Hearing (August 20, 2010) 5. FMA Heritage Report – Mikisew Cree First Nation Traditional Resources Ecological Knowledge Report – Synenco Energy Inc. Consultants Inc. Northern Lights Oil Sands Development (May, 2007) (Note: Missing Figures 1-3) 6. Patricia Report – Research Report for Mikisew Cree First McCormack Nation dated (August 20, 2010)
31 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
WATER REPORTS, PRESENTATIONS AND MAPS
TAB AUTHOR(S) APPENDIX D EXPERT REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 7. David Schindler Report – Oil sands development contributes toxic concentrations of elements to the Athabasca River and its tributaries (September 14, 2010)
8. David Schindler Report – Oil sands development contributes polycyclic aromatic compounds to the Athabasca River and its tributaries (December 29, 2009)
9. David Schindler Presentation – Deformed Fish Removed from the Athabasca River (Spring, 2010)
10. Firelight Group Report - As Long As The Rivers Flow: Athabasca Research River Use, Knowledge and Change (August 16, 2010)
11. Firelight Group Large size maps – Firelight Group Report - As Long Research As The Rivers Flow: Athabasca River Use, Knowledge and Change (August 16, 2010)
12. Firelight Group Report - Review of the Athabasca River Phase II Research Framework Committee (P2FC) Report, January 2010 - Aboriginal knowledge, use, interests and rights (July 30, 2010)
13. Firelight Group Maps – TOTAL 20 kilometer Footprint Research
TRADITIONAL USE REPORTS
TAB AUTHOR(S) APPENDIX D EXPERT REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 14. Doug Elias Report – Description, Analysis and Synthesis of Six Traditional Use Studies (August 22, 2010)
15. Calliou Group Mikisew Cree First Nation - Traditional Land Use Study – Total Joslyn North Mine Project with Appendix 1: Interview Summaries and Individual Maps Mikisew Cree First Nation Traditional Land Use Study: Total Joslyn North Mine Project (July, 2010)
32 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB AUTHOR(S) APPENDIX D EXPERT REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 16. Terry Tobais Data-Collection Methodology Report, Mikisew Cree First Nation 2009-2010 Use-and-Occupancy Map Survey (August, 2010)
33 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
E. Traditional Use Documents PACTEAM CANADA INC.
Report
TAB DATE APPENDIX E TRADITIONAL USE DOCUMENTS 1. September 2007 Report on the Southern Territory Use and Occupancy Mapping Project prepared by PACTeam Canada Inc.
Maps TAB DATE APPENDIX E TRADITIONAL USE DOCUMENTS 2. Undated Map – TLU and Use & Occupancy Data
Interview Transcripts
TAB DATE APPENDIX E (MM/DD/YY) TRADITIONAL USE DOCUMENTS 3. 06/11/06 Alec Courtoreille
4. 06/11/06 George Wanderingspirit
5. 03/04/07 Madeline Gladue
6. 08/12/05 Jocelyn Marten
7. 09/12/06 Lawrence Vermillion
8. 09/12/06 Jack Marten
9. 09/12/06 Alec Whiteknife
10. 10/12/06 Albina Marten
11. 09/12/06 George Martin
12. 09/12/06 Joe Kaskamin and John Tuccaro
13. 21/04/07 Reggie McKay
34 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX E (MM/DD/YY) TRADITIONAL USE DOCUMENTS 14. 12/12/06 Reggie McKay
15. 09/12/06 Ernie Courtoreille
16. 13/12/06 George Waquan and Marie-Rose Waquan
17. 09/12/06 Larry Ratfat and Elizabeth Lacorde
18. 20/04/07 Elizabeth Larcode
19. 03/04/07 Darrell Salamo Tuccaro
20. 03/04/07 Steve Courtoreille
21. 12/04/07 Charlie Simpson
22. 21/04/07 Margaret Shortman
23. 28/04/07 Joe Boucher
24. 28/04/07 Daniel Whitehead
25. 28/04/07 Katy Dene
26. 12/04/07 Norman Simpson
27. 23/04/07 Alec Martin
28. 23/04/07 Harvey Marten
29. 23/04/07 Sydney McKay
30. 24/04/07 Ralph Simpson
31. 24/04/07 Hilda Lepine
32. 25/04/07 James Grandejambe
33. 25/04/07 Maria Vemillion
34. 30/05/07 Basil Tourangeau
35 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
CALLIOU GROUP
Report
TAB DATE APPENDIX E TRADITIONAL USE DOCUMENTS 35. July 2010 Mikisew Cree First Nation - Traditional Land Use Study – Total Joslyn North Mine Project with Appendix 1: Interview Summaries and Individual Maps Mikisew Cree First Nation Traditional Land Use Study: Total Joslyn North Mine Project
Maps
TAB DATE APPENDIX E TRADITIONAL USE DOCUMENTS 36. Undated Map – Data and TLU Maps
Interview Transcripts
TAB DATE APPENDIX E (MM/DD/YY) TRADITIONAL USE DOCUMENTS 37. 12/01/09 Dennis Larcorde and Map
38. 12/01/09 Darrel Tuccaro and Map
39. 02/12/08 Maurice Marten and Map
40. 14/01/09 Maurice Marten and Map
41. 30/01/09 Willie Courtoreille and Map
42. 12/01/09 George Lepine and Map
43. 03/12/08 George Whiteknife and Map
44. 28/01/09 Leonard Piche and Map
45. 13/01/09 Rosie Vermillion and Map
46. 27/01/09 Bruce Dene and Map
47. 12/01/09 Dale Lepine and Map
36 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX E (MM/DD/YY) TRADITIONAL USE DOCUMENTS 48. 13/01/09 Adam Wigmore and Shaun Wigmore and Map
49. 13/01/09 Robert Dolboc and Map
50. 03/12/08 Mary Rose Waquan and Map
51. 03/12/08 Larry Ratfat and Map
52. 27/01/09 Katie Dene and Map
53. 03/12/08 Jocelyn Marten and Map
54. 03/12/08 Harvey Antoine and Map
TOBIAS
Report
TAB DATE APPENDIX E TRADITIONAL USE DOCUMENTS 55. August 2010 Data-Collection Methodology Report, Mikisew Cree First Nation 2009-2010 Use-and-Occupancy Map Survey
Maps
TAB DATE APPENDIX E TRADITIONAL USE DOCUMENTS 56. Undated Maps of MCFN Use and Occupancy Data
Collection of Various Datasets
TAB DATE APPENDIX E (MM/DD/YY) TRADITIONAL USE DOCUMENTS 57. 18/06/03 National Scale Frameworks re: Populated Places
58. Undated National Scale Frameworks re: Land Boundaries
37 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX E (MM/DD/YY) TRADITIONAL USE DOCUMENTS 59. 16/12/02 National Scale Frameworks re: Rail Networks
60. 16/12/02 National Scale Frameworks re: Road Networks
61. 16/12/02 National Scale Frameworks re: Hydrology
62. Undated Table of Drainage Areas
63. Blank Intentionally Left Blank
64. 12/03/02 Geobase Level - Standard Geographical Classification Release Notes
65. 14/08/03 Description of Table of FDA Flows
66. 01/11/00 National Atlas VMAP0 Data for Canada (V2)– Release Notes
67. 18/06/03 Maps of Various Lakes
68. Undated Mikisew Cree First Nation 2009 – 2010 UOM Survey Index
TANNER
Report
TAB DATE APPENDIX E TRADITIONAL USE DOCUMENTS 69. 2006 Ayapaskowinowak (Northern Study)
Maps
TAB DATE APPENDIX E TRADITIONAL USE DOCUMENTS 70. Undated Maps of MCFN Total Traditional Land Use
38 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
Interview Transcripts
TAB DATE APPENDIX E (MM/DD/YY) TRADITIONAL USE DOCUMENTS 71. 29/04/08 Dale Lepine
72. 13/05/08 Dennis Lacorde
73. 14/06/08 Earney Courtoreille
74. 08/05/08 Elizabeth Lacorde
75. 07/07/08 Lena Friesen
76. 25/04/08 George Whiteknife
77. 20/04/08 Hilda Lepine
78. 01/05/08 Jocelyn Marten
79. Undated Joe Boucher
80. Undated Lorne Antoine
81. 23/05/08 Mary Antoine
82. 06/07/08 Mary Rose Waquan
83. Undated Alec Courtoreille
84. 22/06/08 Johnny Courtoreille
85. 10/09/08 Larry Ratfat
86. 06/05/08 Katy Dene
87. 08/05/08 Alice Marten
88. 06/07/08 Madeline Gladue
89. Undated Margo Vermillion
90. 10/09/08 Maurice Marten
91. 10/08/08 Norman Simpson
39 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX E (MM/DD/YY) TRADITIONAL USE DOCUMENTS 92. Undated Ralph Simpson
93. 25/06/08 Raymond Lepine
94. Undated Reggie McKay
95. 25/06/08 Raymond Lepine
96. 14/05/08 Scotty Lacorde
97. 12/06/08 Willie Courtoreille
98. Undated Leonard Piche
99. 12/05/08 Shawna Courtoreille Faichney
100. 04/07/08 Stanley Shortman
101. 03/07/08 Peter Van Names
102. Undated Willie Courtoreille
103. 22/06/08 Johnny Courtoreille
HUSKY / IMPERIAL
Report
TAB DATE APPENDIX E TRADITIONAL USE DOCUMENTS 104. June 2005 Mikisew Cree First Nation Traditional Land Use Impact Assessment re: Husky Sunrise Thermal Project
40 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
F. Intergovernmental Correspondence
TAB DATE APPENDIX F – INTERGOVERNMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE DD/MM/YY
1. 22/09/04 Correspondence from CEMA to Mikisew regarding IFN task group and upcoming workshop
2. 07/04/05 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV regarding notice of CEMA task group
3. 27/05/05 Correspondence from Mikisew to CEMA expressing concern over process for IFN
4. 14/07/05 Correspondence from Mikisew to EUB regarding IFN for Athabasca River, attaching CEMA email
5. 19/09/05 Correspondence from Mikisew to RAMP regarding hydrogeology monitoring
6. 16/10/05 Correspondence from Mikisew to CFO regarding lack of consultation in respect of No Net Loss Plan for Horizon and Jackpine mines
7. 16/11/05 Correspondence from RAMP to Mikisew regarding regionally organized groundwater monitoring program
8. 22/02/06 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV and DFO regarding IFN for Athabasca River
9. 02/03/06 Correspondence from Mikisew regarding formal response to proposed interim framework for IFN
10. 24/03/06 Mikisew response to interim IFN and Water Management System, submitted to AENV
11. 31/03/06 Correspondence from Minister for AENV in connection with Mikisew letter regarding IFN
12. 10/05/06 Correspondence from Athabasca Tribal Council requesting meeting regarding IFN framework
13. 16/05/06 Correspondence from Mikisew to ASRD regarding point of contact and noting that Mikisew participation in PWG is not substitute for consultation
41 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX F – INTERGOVERNMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE DD/MM/YY
14. 17/05/06 Alberta Press Release: Backgrounder on Oil Sands Consultation Group
15. 05/07/06 Correspondence from AENV to Mikisew
16. 19/07/06 Correspondence from Alberta to Mikisew regarding Consultation policy and point of contact
17. 19/07/06 Correspondence from ASRD regarding recommendations of oil sands consultation advisory group
18. 08/08/06 Correspondence from Alberta to Mikisew regarding proposed consultation guidelines and current projects
19. 18/09/06 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV and DFO regarding August, 2006 IFN stakeholder meeting
20. 10/11/06 Spreadsheet entitled "AENV background information for Nov. 10, 2006 High Level Meeting with Mikisew."
21. 10/11/06 Notes from 11/10/06 meeting between Mikisew and AENV
22. 15/11/06 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV regarding November 10 meeting and regarding consultation
23. 06/12/06 Correspondence from AENV to Mikisew acknowledging Mikisew's November 15 letter
24. 02/02/07 Correspondence from Mikisew officially withdrawing from CEMA
25. 15/03/07 Mikisew's response to DFO's invitation to peer review meeting of IFN assessment
26. 26/03/07 Correspondence from AENV noting completion of Water Management Framework
27. 05/04/07 Correspondence from AENV noting AENV has sent Mikisew correspondence to DFO
28. 10/04/07 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV and DFO rejecting March 1, 2007 IFN and water management framework
29. 06/01/07 Report "Response to Multi-Stakeholder Committee Phase II and to submissions of Alberta"
42 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX F – INTERGOVERNMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE DD/MM/YY
30. 01/01/08 Mikisew Response to Muskeg River Watershed Framework for Water Quality, December 2007, submitted to AENV
31. 26/03/08 Correspondence from Mikisew to Alberta regarding failure of Alberta to consult Mikisew on Land Sales
32. 11/09/08 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV and DFO regarding IFN P2 Consultation process and the Dan Olsen process
33. 19/06/08 Correspondence between Mikisew and AENV regarding scheduling meeting with Alberta SRD regarding consultation process
34. 28/11/08 Correspondence from AENV to Athabasca Tribal Council responding to consultation framework agreement submitted on August 28, 2008
35. 12/05/08 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV regarding IFN process, Ohlson process, and urging acceptance of Framework Agreement
36. 12/01/08 Alberta Land-Use Framework
37. 08/01/09 Forwarding correspondence from Mikisew to AENV regarding IFN Phase 2
38. 13/02/09 Correspondence from Alberta Aboriginal Relations to Mikisew regarding Mikisew letter to Hon. Rob Renner in respect of consultation process
39. 19/02/09 Correspondence from Mikisew to ASRD regarding consultation process on dispositions
40. 16/04/09 Joint Submissions of Mikisew and CPDFN on Land Use Framework
41. 29/04/09 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV urging consultation with Mikisew
42. 08/05/09 Correspondence from AENV responding to Athabasca Tribal Council consultation proposal
43. 25/05/09 Correspondence from Alberta Justice to R. Freedman regarding LARP
44. 27/05/09 Correspondence from R. Freedman to Alberta Justice regarding consultations with Mikisew on LARP
43 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX F – INTERGOVERNMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE DD/MM/YY
45. 28/05/09 Agenda for June 11th meeting with AENV and correspondence from Mikisew to AENV regarding AENV's position on IFN2 consultation proposal
46. 28/05/09 Correspondence from Alberta Justice to R. Freedman regarding LARP
47. 15/06/09 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV regarding lack of government consultation on UTS-Teck Cominco projects
48. 19/06/09 Correspondence from R. Vermillion to Oil Sands Secretariat regarding concerns with consultations and RAC
49. 13/07/09 Correspondence from K. Buss regarding June 26, 2009 PWG meeting and government-to-government consultation process
50. 30/07/09 Correspondence from Alberta Justice to K. Buss regarding use of PWG Guidelines
51. 31/07/09 Alberta press release announcing release of guidelines for LARP and Backgrounder on Terms of Reference for LARP and RAC
52. 19/08/09 Correspondence from Mikisew to ASRD transmitting Mikisew's work plan for LARP
53. 28/08/09 Correspondence from ACFN and Mikisew regarding ASRD's response to First Nation Consultation Plan in connection with LARP
54. 08/09/09 Correspondence between R. Freedman and Alberta regarding scheduling meeting in connection with LARP
55. 09/09/09 Correspondence from Mikisew to Alberta requesting status update on LARP consultation work plan
56. 17/09/09 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV following up on Mikisew's request for GIS data to assist in consultations
57. 17/11/09 Correspondence from Mikisew withdrawing from RAMP
58. 24/09/09 Consultation Protocol of the Mikisew Cree First Nation
59. 12/11/09 Correspondence from Alberta declining consultation in connection with transfer of crown lands
44 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX F – INTERGOVERNMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE DD/MM/YY
60. 01/02/10 Correspondence from ACFN and Mikisew to H. Kennedy re LARP
61. 10/03/10 Correspondence from ACFN and Mikisew to H. Kennedy, ADM re CRISP
62. 12/03/10 H. Kennedy's response to ACFN- Mikisew correspondence regarding CRISP
63. 30/03/10 Correspondence from R. Vermillion concerning disappointment with LARP
64. 25/05/10 Correspondence from ACFN and Mikisew regarding LARP information session and asking questions about LARP
65. 11/06/10 Correspondence from AENV to ACFN and Mikisew denying additional funding for draft management plan review
66. 13/07/10 P2FC Final Report
67. 27/07/10 Correspondence from D. Bartesko regarding funding agreement for LUF in connection with LARP
68. 19/08/10 Correspondence from Mikisew to Alberta and DFO regarding disappointment with Phase Two Framework Committee conclusions
69. 20/08/10 The Relationship Between The Lower Athabasca River And The Traditional Uses And Rights Of The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation And Mikisew Cree First Nation, a Summary Report
70. 23/08/10 Correspondence from ACFN and Mikisew to AENV and DFO regarding Technical Reviews of the Phase 2 Framework Committee Recommendations
45 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
G. Project Related Correspondence
TAB DATE APPENDIX G – PROJECT RELATED CORRESPONDENCE DD/MM/YY
1. 00/06/04 Deer Creek Public Disclosure Document for the Proposed Joslyn Project
2. 01/05/05 Draft Terms of Reference for Joslyn North Mine Project, May 2005
3. 15/07/05 Correspondence from Mikisew regarding proposed terms of reference
4. 26/07/05 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV attaching Mikisew comments on proposed terms of reference
5. 29/09/05 Final Terms of Reference for the Environmental Impact Assessment Report for Deer Creek
6. 03/10/05 Correspondence from AENV indicating final Terms of Reference were issued on Sept 29, 2005
7. 21/10/05 Notes from pre-filing meeting held at Deer Creek
8. 29/05/06 Mikisew Statement of Concern, transmitted to AENV
9. 30/05/06 Correspondence from TOTAL acknowledging receipt of statement of concern
10. 01/06/06 Integrated Environments Ltd. Report of Review of Deer Creek regulatory application docs for Mikisew, June 2006
11. 01/08/06 Correspondence and attached Integrated Environments' August 2006 Review of Joslyn project
12. 25/08/06 Correspondence confirming TOTAL's receipt of Mikisew submission
13. February, Report entitled "Tanner's Responses to the Responses" 2008
14. 01/03/08 Report entitled "Review of Responses to Mikisew" dated March 2008
46 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX G – PROJECT RELATED CORRESPONDENCE DD/MM/YY
15. 08/04/08 Correspondence from CEAA regarding establishment of Joint Review Panel
16. 11/04/08 Correspondence between CEAA and counsel for Mikisew regarding support for Joint Review Panel
17. 16/04/08 Correspondence between CEAA and R. Freedman regarding Terms of Reference for Joint Review Panel
18. 17/04/08 Correspondence from D. Mallon to ERCB regarding Joslyn North Mine Project Application
19. 28/04/08 Correspondence from CEAA regarding agreement to establish Joint Review Panel and related attachments
20. 13/05/08 Correspondence between CEAA and R. Freedman regarding the Joint Review Panel
21. 15/05/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA regarding Joint Review Panel Terms of Reference
22. 22/05/08 Correspondence regarding meeting between Mikisew and Total
23. 26/05/08 Correspondence regarding scheduling of meeting with CEAA
24. 26/05/08 Minutes from May 26, 2008 meeting between TOTAL and Mikisew
25. 29/05/08 Correspondence from CEAA to R. Freedman regarding establishing Joint Review Panel
26. 08/06/08 Correspondence regarding establishing Joint Review Panel
27. 19/06/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman regarding Joint Review Panel Terms of Reference
28. 07/07/08 Participant Funding Program Review Committee's Report of Allocation of Funds in the Panel Review of the Joslyn North Mine Project
29. 09/07/08 TOTAL's assessment of Mikisew's review of responses of Deer Creek
47 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX G – PROJECT RELATED CORRESPONDENCE DD/MM/YY
30. 14/07/08 Correspondence from D. Mallon to CEAA regarding "effects" and adverse impacts on constitutional rights
31. 16/07/08 Correspondence from CEAA to R. Freedman regarding its mandate to consult, etc.
32. 30/07/08 TOTAL correspondence regarding correspondence between R. Freedman and CEAA
33. 08/08/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA regarding issuance of final Terms of Reference and consultation
34. 09/08/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA posing questions raised during meeting with CEAA
35. 11/08/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA regarding participation in consultation and process-related issues
36. 12/08/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA regarding outstanding responding to issues raised prior to issuing of the Terms of Reference
37. 13/08/08 Correspondence from CEAA to R. Freedman regarding Terms of Reference including attachments
38. 14/08/08 Correspondence from CEAA to R. Freedman regarding scheduling and procedural issues
39. 14/08/08 Correspondence from CEAA to R. Freedman regarding contact information
40. 18/08/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to ERCB regarding Joint Review Panel
41. 19/08/08 ERCB correspondence regarding R. Freedman August 18, 2008 letter
42. 21/08/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA regarding timing of response to various letters submitted to Joint Review Panel
43. 27/08/08 Correspondence from TOTAL to ERCB regarding Mikisew's questions posed to Joint Review Panel
48 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX G – PROJECT RELATED CORRESPONDENCE DD/MM/YY
44. 28/08/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA regarding agenda for meeting on Sept 3, 2008
45. 28/08/08 Correspondence between Mikisew and TOTAL regarding Sept 8 meeting and project specific concerns
46. 29/08/08 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV and Environment Canada regarding consultation, proper planning, and related issues
47. 29/08/08 Correspondence from Mikisew to TOTAL regarding Mikisew concerns and attaching list of information deficiencies
48. 29/08/08 Correspondence from D. Mallon to ERCB responding Mikisew concerns and hearing issues
49. 03/09/08 Agenda for Mikisew meeting with CEAA and DFO, attaching list of questions prepared and posed by Mikisew during meeting and other meeting materials
50. 05/09/08 Correspondence from D. Mallon to ERCB regarding Sept 3 meeting with CEAA and DFO
51. 08/09/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA attaching Mikisew letter to AENV and EnviroCanada and Mikisew letter to TOTAL
52. 10/09/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman's office forwarding traditional land use map to AENV in connection with letter from Chief Marcel to Ministers Renner and Bard
53. 12/09/08 TOTAL's response to various Mikisew correspondence regarding sufficiency of information before the Joint Review Panel
54. 15/09/08 Correspondence from Mikisew regarding draft no net loss habitat loss plan
55. 16/09/08 Correspondence from D. Mallon responding to TOTAL correspondence
56. 18/09/08 Correspondence from TOTAL forwarding Table of Concordance to interested parties
49 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX G – PROJECT RELATED CORRESPONDENCE DD/MM/YY
57. 18/09/08 Correspondence from Joint Review Panel regarding review of information in public registry and requesting additional information; Additional information requests are attached
58. 23/09/08 Correspondence from AENV to Mikisew regarding aboriginal perspectives in regulatory review processes
59. 02/10/08 Correspondence from D. Mallon to counsel for TOTAL regarding consultation issues and Additional Information Requests
60. 09/10/08 Correspondence from Joint Review Panel regarding meeting with TOTAL regarding Additional Information Requests
61. 05/11/08 Correspondence from AENV regarding consultation on Joslyn North Mine
62. 06/11/08 Correspondence from CEAA regarding Mikisew questions in respect of consultation processes
63. 19/11/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA re consultation and CEAA letter of 11/6/08
64. 02/12/08 Correspondence from TOTAL regarding traditional knowledge study
65. 10/12/08 Correspondence from Mikisew to TOTAL regarding additional information requests and TUS
66. 10/12/08 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV following up on November 10, 2008 meeting with Alberta, attaching questions for AENV
67. 11/12/08 Correspondence between Mikisew and TOTAL regarding MCNF TOTAL Joslyn Mine Application TLU Update
68. 11/12/08 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV regarding consultation issues
69. 23/01/09 Correspondence from CEAA responding to D. Mallon letter [letter is misdated - the correct date is 1/23/09, not 1/23/08]
50 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX G – PROJECT RELATED CORRESPONDENCE DD/MM/YY
70. 27/01/09 Correspondence from AENV to Mikisew regarding Mikisew consultation concerns
71. 09/02/09 TOTAL providing progress report for Joint Review Panel
72. 23/02/09 Correspondence from Mikisew requesting meeting with AENV
73. 24/02/09 Correspondence from D. Mallon to CEAA and ERCB regarding TOTAL's amendment of its application
74. 01/03/09 MSES Review of Terrestrial Ecosystem Management Framework
75. 01/03/09 MSES Report: "Effects on Traditional Resources of the Mikisew: The Joslyn Creek Project Specific and Cumulative Effects in the Oil Sands region"
76. 04/03/09 Correspondence from TOTAL to Mikisew committing to update Mikisew on its plans re tailings and other matters develop
77. 04/03/09 Correspondence from AENV committing to meet with Mikisew on March 12 and circulating draft agenda
78. 09/03/09 Mikisew correspondence to AENV circulating document entitled "preliminary description of Mikisew Treaty Rights and Traditional Uses in and Around Joslyn North" for upcoming meeting
79. 11/03/09 Joslyn Regulatory Timeline - through EIA being completed in Jan, 2008
80. 12/03/09 Minutes from March 12, 2009 meeting of AENV and Mikisew regarding consultation in connection with Joslyn North Mine Project
81. 20/04/09 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA addressing need for discussion on consultation process, ministerial response, and other matters
82. 20/04/09 Correspondence from R. Freedman to Alberta SRD in connection with March 12, 2009 meeting and seeking to schedule future meeting on work plan, consultation plan, and responses to Mikisew questions
51 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX G – PROJECT RELATED CORRESPONDENCE DD/MM/YY
83. 20/04/09 Correspondence from R. Freedman to AENV requesting responses to questions tabled during March 12 meeting
84. 15/10/09 Correspondence from TOTAL providing progress report on AIRs, extraction/tailings management, environmental assessment, consultation and other matters
85. 22/02/10 Correspondence from TOTAL to Mikisew attaching responses to AIRs
86. 25/02/10 TOTAL responses to Additional Information Requests from JRP in connection with Joslyn North Mine Application
87. 15/04/10 Correspondence from CEAA attaching documents in connection with Joslyn North Mine Application, including CEAA responses to Mikisew's consultation questions, CEAA aboriginal consultation framework, and other documents
88. 17/05/10 Correspondence from Mikisew to Joint Review Panel commenting on adequacy of new information provided by TOTAL to the Joint Review Panel and attaching MSES Review of TOTAL's additional Information provided February 2010 and related correspondence
89. 01/06/10 Correspondence from R. Freedman regarding consultation
90. 01/06/10 Correspondence from Mikisew to TOTAL regarding concern over effects of Joslyn North Mine on Mikisew rights and attaching list of questions for TOTAL
91. 03/06/10 Correspondence from TOTAL to Joint Review Panel regarding adequacy of information
92. 08/06/10 Correspondence from R. Freedman detailing TOTAL's information deficiencies
93. 08/06/10 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA conveying questions and concerns regarding consultation process and other matters, attaching Appendix A describing potential information requirements to assess impacts on s.35 rights and baseline information needs and Appendix B regarding Traditional Resource Use Plan
52 MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535
TAB DATE APPENDIX G – PROJECT RELATED CORRESPONDENCE DD/MM/YY
94. 09/06/10 Correspondence from Mikisew to TOTAL, AENV and CEAA regarding consultation issues. Attached to letter is Appendix A listing Mikisew's information requests and Appendix B regarding TRUP
95. 21/06/10 Correspondence from CEAA forwarding letter from Joint Review Panel to TOTAL regarding additional information and attaching June 21, 2010 Requests for Additional Information
96. 25/06/10 Notice of Hearing
97. 07/07/10 Correspondence from D. Mallon to ERCB regarding hearing date
98. 13/07/10 Joint Review Panel letter acknowledging Mikisew request for delay and requesting submissions on request
99. 27/07/10 Correspondence from TOTAL enclosing answers to Joint Review Panel's June 24, 2010 information requests
100. 28/07/10 Correspondence from D. Mallon responding to TOTAL's opposition to postponing the hearing
101. 30/07/10 Correspondence between Mikisew and TOTAL regarding meeting and Mikisew's concern that TOTAL claims not to understand Mikisew concerns
102. 06/08/10 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA following up on June 8 letter regarding consultation, information deficiencies and other matters
103. 18/08/10 Correspondence from Mikisew to TOTAL regarding meeting and Mikisew concerns
104. 20/08/10 Correspondence from Mikisew to TOTAL regarding March 29, 2010, meeting and Mikisew Concerns
53