Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 1 of 34 Hearing Order OH-4-0211 Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. (“Enbridge”) Enbridge Northern Gateway Project (“Project”) NEB File OF-Fac-Oil-N301-2010-01 01

Enoch Nation #440 (“Enoch”), (“Ermineskin”), (“Louis Bull”), (“Montana”), (“Samson”), Whitefish (Goodfish) Lake First Nation (“Whitefish”) (individually, a “Nation”, and collectively, the “Nations”) Information Request No. 1

1.1 Aboriginal Consultation

Reference: i) Application Volume 5A, Table B-1

ii) Application Volume 5A, 2.5

Preamble: Reference i) explains what Aboriginal groups were contacted during the 2002 feasibility studies.

Reference ii) explains Enbridge's Aboriginal Engagement Zone for the Project.

Request: a) Please confirm that Enbridge did not directly consult with Samson during the 2002 feasibility studies.

b) When does Enbridge consider it to be appropriate to provide funding to an Aboriginal group to facilitate its meaningful participation in Project consultation? Please fully explain the criteria Enbridge uses to make this determination.

c) Please explain in detail the circumstances where Enbridge would treat two Aboriginal groups differently in terms of its engagement activities and provision of capacity funding for meaningful engagement, despite those groups being in similar circumstances relative to the Project and its likely impacts.

d) Please provide examples of where Enbridge has engaged Aboriginal groups differently in terms of agreements, capacity funding, and Aboriginal traditional knowledge ("ATK") study funding, despite those groups being in similar circumstances relative to the Project and its likely impacts. Please fully explain the rationale behind these differences in treatment. e) Will Enbridge still build the Project if the Crown has not fulfilled its duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate each of the Nations concerning the Project?

f) Please advise which federal department Enbridge has provided information to related to Enbridge's Aboriginal engagement process concerning the

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 2 of 34 Nations. In particular, please outline what potential Project impacts to the Nations' rights and interests Enbridge has communicated to federal departments, and please provide copies of all such communications.

Response: a) Confirmed. The Samson Cree First Nation’s current community is located near Hobema, , more than 100 km from the pipeline corridor.

b) Northern Gateway offered and provided funding to Aboriginal groups along the proposed Project RoW to facilitate their meaningful participation in Project consultation through protocol agreements. Many Aboriginal groups, during discussions with Northern Gateway in 2005, expressed an interest in establishing a formal relationship with Northern Gateway, resulting in the development of protocol agreements. Protocol agreements define the working relationship between the participating Aboriginal groups and Northern Gateway and provide capacity funding to enable the Aboriginal groups to participate in discussions on the potential effects and benefits of the Project relative to their unique interests. For more information regarding protocol agreements and to view a copy of a protocol agreement used by Northern Gateway refer to the Application (Volume 5A).

In cases where an Aboriginal group was offered funding under a protocol agreement and chose not to accept the funding, Northern Gateway respected the determination of the Aboriginal group to decline the offer, whether the decline was made explicitly or implicitly through non-response to the funding offer.

c) At the outset, parties whom Northern Gateway perceived to have similar circumstances were engaged in similar ways. Northern Gateway’s subsequent level of engagement activity with an Aboriginal group depended on the evidence provided by the Aboriginal group that traditional uses exist that may be impacted by the Project and upon the level of interest of the Aboriginal group in the Project – particularly for groups on the periphery of the 160 km engagement corridor. For example although the Whitefish Lake First Nation and the Samson Cree Nations are similarly distant from the Project corridor, the Whitefish Lake First Nation provided early evidence of traditional uses which could potentially be impacted upon by the Project and were prepared to substantively engage with Project representatives, in a timely manner. Consequently, the degree of engagement with the Whitefish Lake First Nation has been more extensive culminating in an offer of equity participation to this group.

d) In respect of ATK funding offered to Aboriginal groups, Northern Gateway employed the procedures outlined in its ATK Program to jointly arrive at an agreed upon amount of ATK funding with the Aboriginal groups to complete its ATK study. The Funding amount was proportional to the scope of ATK work identified and mutually agreed upon.

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 3 of 34

e) The Federal Government has established a Framework for Crown Consultation on the Northern Gateway Project. This framework, including the JRP process, provides the opportunity for consultation regarding the Project prior to the various approvals that will be required in order to construct the Project. Northern Gateway believes that this Framework, which includes the JRP process currently underway, will satisfy the Crown’s obligations to with respect to the Project.

f) All of this information has been, and continues to be, provided on the record in the JRP proceeding. This includes the Project Application (Volumes 5A and 5B) as supplemented and updated. Information continues to be sought by Federal government departments and other interveners and all information requested will be on the record of the JRP proceeding.

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 4 of 34

1.2 Traditional Land Use Impacts and Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge

Reference: i) Application Volume 5A, pp. 2-13 to 2-14 ii) Application Volume 5A, p. 5-12 to 5-13 iii) Application Volume 5A, p. 5-2 to 5-3 iv) Application Volume 5A, p. 5-27 to 5-33 v) Application Volume 6C, p. 6-30 vi) Application Volume 5A, Appendix M

Preamble: At reference i) Enbridge concludes that, based on the work done to develop the environmental and socio-economic assessment for the Project, including ongoing ATK work, the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse effects on the environment. Enbridge also concludes that it is confident the Project will not have a significant adverse effect on those who depend on the land and water for sustenance, including Aboriginal groups who may exercise Aboriginal or Treaty rights.

Reference ii) explains that Enoch's traditional territory will potentially be crossed by the Project.

Reference iii) explains that Whitefish's traditional territory will be crossed by the Project, and that an ATK study has not been completed for Whitefish.

Reference iv) explains that an ATK study has not been completed for Samson, Ermineskin, Louis Bull or Montana.

Reference v) explains that a number of historic trails have been identified, and that the Project may obscure these trails. Reference vi) provides a summary of concerns and responses.

Request: a) Please identify the traditional territory for each Nation.

b) Please explain what specific mitigation measures Enbridge plans to implement to mitigate or prevent impacts to each of the Nation's Aboriginal and Treaty rights, including scheduling of activities to avoid sensitive periods from an environmental perspective, avoiding periods when traditional harvesting activities are taking place in the Project area, or other mitigation measures such as compensation and employing Aboriginal monitors. The Nations are interested in what specific plans Enbridge is preparing or has identified concerning each of the Nation's specific current traditional land use ("TLU") activities on an individual basis rather than a general Project effects mitigation strategy.

c) Please list and describe all historic trails identified by Enbridge in each of the Nations' traditional territories, and please explain the mitigation

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 5 of 34 Enbridge is proposing to avoid impacting these historic trails.

d) Reference vii) provides a discussion of impacts on TLU sites within the 160-km wide Aboriginal engagement corridor. Please explain whether Enbridge agrees that impacts to wildlife and the environment in general due to the Project can result in impacts to Aboriginal and Treaty rights within and outside of the proposed right-of-way or Aboriginal engagement corridor.

e) Please indicate whether Enbridge believes that each of the Nations exercise TLU activities or possess ATK in the Project area? If not, please provide the basis for this position.

f) Please explain whether Enbridge has sought feedback and facilitated the provision of such feedback from each of the Nations concerning the specific mitigation measures Enbridge is proposing to avoid or lessen impacts to each Nation's Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

g) Please explain how feedback received from each of the Nations regarding the mitigation measures proposed by Enbridge to mitigate impacts on each Nation's Aboriginal and Treaty rights has been incorporated into the Project design and planning.

h) In principle, does Enbridge agree that Project effects can act cumulatively with other past, present and future effects, and that such cumulative effects can impact Aboriginal and Treat rights?

i) Based on specific TLU and ATK information concerning each of the Nations, please provide a cumulative effects analysis of Project effects in conjunction with other past, present and future projects on each Nation's Aboriginal and Treaty rights in each Nation's traditional territory.

j) If an ATK study has not been conducted for each of the Nations in the Project area, please explain how Enbridge intends to identify effective mitigation specific to each Nation's rights and interests?

k) As a general proposition, does Enbridge believe it has the responsibility to investigate and facilitate the gathering of ATK and TLU information for the Project?

l) What criteria does Enbridge use to determine (i) whether an ATK study is needed for the Project and, if one is determined to be needed, (ii) how does Enbridge determine what level of funding it will contribute to such studies?

m) Please describe which hunters and fishers from each Nation that Enbridge has had discussions with concerning hunting activities within the Project

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 6 of 34 area, and also describe any inquiries Enbridge made with the Government of Alberta regarding the number of net fishing licenses issued to members of each Nation on bodies of water within or near the Project area.

n) Please describe which gatherers from each Nation that Enbridge has had discussions with concerning traditional gathering activities within the Project area.

o) Please describe which trappers from each Nation that Enbridge has had discussions with concerning traditional trapping activities within the Project area, and also describe any inquiries Enbridge made with the Government of Alberta regarding registered traplines held by members of each Nation.

p) Please explain in detail with supporting references how each Nation's TLU activities, ATK and the cultural significance of traditional harvesting resources were taken into consideration when developing Application Volume 5A, Appendix M.

q) Please explain in detail with supporting references how each Nation's TLU activities, ATK and the cultural significance of traditional harvesting resources to each of the Nations were taken into consideration when identifying appropriate mitigation measures with respect to Project impacts on each Nation's TLU activities including hunting, trapping, fishing and gathering rights and interests.

r) Please explain in detail with supporting references how each Nation's TLU activities, ATK and the cultural significance of traditional harvesting resources to each of the Nations were taken into consideration when arriving at the significance determinations in the Project environmental and socioeconomic assessment. Additionally, please explain in detail with supporting references the extent to which, if at all, an Aboriginal perspective was considered when making significance determinations in the Project environmental and socio-economic assessment.

s) For each of the Nations, please list and describe each sensitive area contained within each Nation's traditional territory from an environmental perspective (e.g., critical habitat, calving areas, rare plants, important spiritual and cultural sites such as Lac St. Anne etc.), and fully explain the specific mitigation measures Enbridge is proposing to ensure no impacts to these sensitive areas.

Response: a) Whitefish Lake (Whitefish Lake First Nation #128)

The traditional territory of the Whitefish Lake (Whitefish Lake First Nation #128) is described in the Application Update (Volume 5A, Section 5.1.2) under the part titled Geographic Setting.

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 7 of 34

Enoch Cree Nation

The traditional territory of the is described in the Application Update (Volume 5A, Section 5.2.1) under the part titled Geographic Setting.

Samson (Samson Cree Nation), Ermineskin Tribe (Ermineskin Cree Nation), Louis Bull (Louis Bull Tribe) and Montana First Nation

The Samson (Samson Cree Nation), Ermineskin Tribe (Ermineskin Cree Nation), Louis Bull (Louis Bull Tribe) and Montana First Nation have not provided a description of their traditional territory and Northern Gateway respects the decision to withhold such information.

b) The Application (Volume 7A, Section 8.7), describes how the Project will protect these features. Additional protection measures are detailed in the Application (Volume 7A, Appendix A):

• Archaeology Discovery Contingency Plan (Appendix A, Section A.2.5.1) • Palaeontology Discovery Contingency Plan (Appendix A, Section A.2.5.2) • Heritage Resources Protection and Management Plan (Appendix A, Section A.3.31).

The 1 km wide pipeline corridor described in the ESA is intended only to aid in the planning of the pipeline and the completion of the environmental assessment. The centerline shown within the 1 km corridor is for illustrative purposes only. The final locations of the two pipelines could occur anywhere within the 1 km corridor.

Following approval of the Project, the exact location of the two pipelines will be finalized within the 1 km wide corridor during detailed engineering. The determination of the final route will incorporate:

• detailed engineering • construction, and operational considerations • further site-specific constraint mapping • results of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge studies • further biophysical investigations (e.g., identification of site-specific habitat features such as wildlife trees, wetlands, rare plants) • archaeological surveys • input from participating Aboriginal groups and communities, landowners, the public, other interested parties and government agencies

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 8 of 34

The intent of these various surveys and undertakings will be to obtain finer- scale information to aid in the final routing for the two pipelines.

Once the final pipeline route is determined, the location of the probable centreline will be surveyed and marked. Centreline surveys will then be conducted by teams typically consisting of an engineer, a botanist, a wildlife ecologist and an archaeologist. A fisheries biologist will be included to assist in finalizing water crossing locations. Representatives of Aboriginal groups for the traditional territories that overlap that part of the pipeline will also be included in the team.

Each biophysical specialist, the archaeologist and the Aboriginal representative will be responsible for identifying important design constraints, possible alternatives to avoid or minimize effects on sensitive features and requirements for specialized construction methods during pipeline installation. Where a feature cannot be avoided, mitigation measures will be identified including details on seasonal restrictions for certain activities, habitat compensation, reclamation methods, etc. If there are conflicts among engineering, biophysical, archeological, fisheries or Aboriginal groups, the team will work to select the route best suited for pipeline safety while also avoiding or minimizing effects on as many sensitive features as possible.

Detailed environmental alignment sheets will then be developed. A separate set of alignment sheets will be developed for preparation of the pipeline RoW (i.e., clearing, grubbing) and another set for the trenching and construction of the pipeline. Within each set, the alignment sheets will identify the specific location (i.e., kilometer post start and finish) of environmental-sensitive or cultural-sensitive features characteristics and detail the mitigation measures to be employed during construction in order to minimize Project effects. Details on access management during clearing and construction, and removal of access not needed for permanent operations, will also be included. The construction alignment sheets will be completed and provided to the NEB for review and comment at least 60 days prior to the start of clearing. The construction alignment sheets will also be completed and provided to the NEB at least 60 days prior to the start of construction.

Once detailed engineering and final route selection have been completed, additional detail will be provided in an updated Construction Environmental Protection and Management Plan (“EPMP”). The Construction EPMP will describe the approach and commitment by construction and Project personnel so that the Project is carried out in a manner that protects the environment during construction. It will outline the general and specific methods that will be applied for the Project and will be used as a guidance

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 9 of 34 document for construction and Project personnel. The updated Construction EPMP will document the requirements to be followed to ensure that the Project is constructed under applicable regulations, internal policies and procedures and will meet Project requirements. The Construction EPMP will be completed and provided to the NEB at least 60 days prior to the start of clearing.

Clearing of the pipeline RoW and preparation for pipeline construction will not begin until the alignment sheets for the RoW preparation have been completed and approved by the NEB. Clearing will proceed in spreads during the approved timing windows determined by government agencies such as Canadian Wildlife Service (to minimize effects on migratory birds) and Fisheries and Oceans .

Construction of the Project is scheduled for a 42-month period. Construction will not begin until the construction alignment sheets have been completed. An additional 6-month period may be needed to complete construction of the Kitimat Terminal. The total construction period for the Project is therefore in the range of 48 months (4 years).

c) Of the six First Nations identified in this Information Request, only the Enoch Cree Nation has completed an ATK study. The Enoch Cree Nation has completed an ATK study update and Northern Gateway is currently awaiting the Enoch Cree Nation ATK study final report. Northern Gateway is currently in discussions with Enoch Cree Nation relating to obtaining a copy of the ATK final report which will include the update and expects to receive it in the next month or so. Although the Enoch Cree Nation has not identified a specific historic trail in their ATK study summary of issues as filed in the Application (Volume 5B), the Enoch Cree Nation has identified various areas within the proposed RoW used for traditional purposes.

The Whitefish Lake (Whitefish Lake First Nation #128) is currently completing an ATK study. The Louis Bull (Louis Bull Tribe) and Montana First Nation, who have both accepted Northern Gateway’s offer to complete an ATK study, are in earlier stages in relation to completing an ATK study. The Louis Bull (Louis Bull Tribe) has recently submitted an ATK study work plan and budget and the Montana First Nation is in the process of preparing an ATK study work plan and budget.

Northern Gateway has recently contacted the Samson (Samson Cree Nation) and Ermineskin Tribe (Ermineskin Cree Nation) to renew an offer of funding to complete an ATK study. In the event any or all of the First Nations noted above identify historic trails in their traditional territories, Northern Gateway, as described in the Application Update (Volume 5B, Section 1.1) under the part titled ATK Program, will use the information gathered from such studies for incorporation into the design and planning of

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 10 of 34 the Project.

d) As discussed in Application (Volume 5A), based on extensive work to develop the environmental and socio-economic assessment (see Application (Volumes 6 and 8B)) for this Project, including ongoing ATK work, Northern Gateway has determined that the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse effects on wildlife and/or on the environment. Northern Gateway is therefore confident that the Project will not have significant adverse effects on those who depend on the land and water for sustenance, including Aboriginal groups who may exercise their Aboriginal or Treaty rights in the use of land for traditional purposes.

e) Northern Gateway, rather than making a subjective determination of any Aboriginal group’s traditional activities or ATK within the proposed RoW, relies on its ATK Program and the response of individual Aboriginal groups in this program to gain an understanding of and document: traditional activities; anticipated Project effects on traditional lands and activities; and possible mitigation strategies respecting an Aboriginal group. Northern Gateway would take the same approach with the Six Nations.

f) Northern Gateway has sought feedback from Aboriginal groups, including the Six Nations, regarding the Project including the potential impacts on the exercise of Aboriginal and/or treaty rights. Northern Gateway’s engagement with the Six Nations is described in the Application (Volume 5A) and the Application Update (Volume 5A).

g) Feedback from ATK studies will be incorporated into Project planning as and when it is received. For mitigation measures identified by the Enoch Cree Nation, see Northern Gateway’s response to JRP IR 5.9. Similar evaluations would be undertaken in respect of concerns or issues raised by the Whitefish Lake First Nation, Louis Bull Tribe, Montana First Nation and, should they wish to proceed with an ATK study, the Samson First Nation and Ermineskin Cree Nation. Where concerns are identified outside of the ATK process, these will also be taken into account where practical.

h) There is potential for the effects of individual projects to have a cumulative impact on the ability to exercise Aboriginal and/or treaty rights, over time. Whereas proponents of an individual project can only reasonably be expected to manage and mitigate the effects arising from the individual project they are proposing, regulators are increasingly aware of the potential for cumulative effects and the need to consider these, where pertinent and warranted.

i) As the proponent of the Project, Northern Gateway is committed to understanding, avoiding and – where avoidance is not possible – mitigating any direct and adverse effects that the proposed Project may create.

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 11 of 34 Understanding of potential effects is facilitated by the width of the corridor used in engagement and analysis (80 km, to either side of centerline) and the time invested to date in engagement activity (several years), while avoidance and mitigation is facilitated by the ability to re-orient the ultimate 25 m RoW within a 1 km wide corridor.

j) Project-specific ATK studies are useful and valuable components in understanding traditional Aboriginal uses in relation to a proposed project, but they are not the only source of pertinent information. Other sources include ATK studies from previous parallel or proximal projects, academic papers, government reports and more general biophysical assessment of a proposed route. Enbridge has accumulated operating experience throughout Western Canada over several decades. Mitigation programs can be developed in response to this broader suite of information.

k) Northern Gateway is committed to reducing the effects of the Project on the use of lands for traditional purposes where these have been identified. This is primarily accomplished through sound engineering and environmental design, as described throughout the Application. ATK studies will also be considered in Project planning and execution, with a particular emphasis on identification of site-specific resources or features that need to be considered in detailed routing and during construction. Also, please refer to Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.2c) above which outlines Northern Gateway’s ATK Program, ATK Program Objectives and Sharing and Use of ATK in the ESA.

l) Northern Gateway considers information provided by an Aboriginal group and the Aboriginal group’s level of interest in the Project to determine whether an ATK study should be undertaken and if so the appropriate scope for this study. ATK funding is determined based on the scope and size of the ATK study mutually agreed upon.

m) Northern Gateway has not had discussions with the Government of Alberta respecting net fishing licences issued to members of the Six Nations. The Enoch Cree Nation did not describe in their ATK study which hunters and fishers from their Nation they had discussions with, in relation to hunting and fishing activities within the Project area.

In respect of the Whitefish Lake (Whitefish Lake First Nation #128), Samson (Samson Cree Nation), Ermineskin Tribe (Ermineskin Cree Nation), Louis Bull (Louis Bull Tribe) and Montana First Nation, Northern Gateway has not had specific discussions with hunters and fishers from each Nation concerning hunting activities within the Project area. Northern Gateway expects that the Nations who complete an ATK study will have discussions with their members who are hunters and fishers and who may have hunting related concerns pertinent to the Project area.

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 12 of 34

n) Refer to Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.2m), which is also applicable to gatherers from each Nation.

o) As referenced in the Application Update (Volume 5A, Section 5.3.1) titled Traditional Lands and Culture, Northern Gateway will undertake a program for trapper identification and compensation prior to construction. This will be done in cooperation with participating Aboriginal groups.

At least one month before the start of clearing, trappers whose fur management areas will be intersected by the RoW will be notified of the construction schedule by a land representative. In those areas where a trapline intersects or is near the RoW, the trapper will be requested to flag traps clearly or remove traps for safety reasons.

Additionally, Northern Gateway has identified trappers by doing an electronic search of the crown disposition for the route. Northern Gateway used the information from this process to obtain contact information for purposes of a mail out of Project information to trappers during 2009 and 2010.

p) The Application (Volume 5A, Appendix M) summarizes interests and concerns expressed by Aboriginal groups along the proposed RoW and Northern Gateway’s response. For interests and concerns raised by individual groups please refer to Northern Gateway’s response to JRP IR 5.9. Please also refer to Northern Gateway’s response to Michel FN IR 1.1.5 for a further discussion of how potential effects on traditional use are considered in the ESA.

q) Refer to Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations 1.2p) above.

r) Refer to Northern Gateway’s responses to Michel FN IR 1.1.5 and Haisla Nation IR 1.70b).

s) Sensitive areas within each traditional territory would, to the extent they can be disclosed, be included in the ATK studies to be completed by each Aboriginal group. Northern Gateway is aware of the cultural importance of Lac Ste. Anne to Aboriginal groups throughout Alberta. Lac Ste. Anne is located approximately 20 km distant from the Project’s proposed pipeline route. All of the modeled oil spill plume cases from the February/March 2011 modeling study verified flow northwards from the route and thus no potential to impact Lac Ste. Anne.

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 13 of 34

1.3 Enoch ATK Study

Reference: i) Application Volume 5B, Appendix C

ii) Application Volume 5B, p. 5-9

Preamble: Reference i) summarizes part of Enoch's ATK study with respect to identified effects and specific mitigation proposed by Enoch.

Reference ii) explains that approximately 475 km (40%) of the Project right of way is in the regional effects assessment area established by Enoch for its ATK. This same reference also notes that the Big Hill area is of particular concern to Enoch. This reference further notes that Enoch is experiencing significant cumulative effects in their territory, with their proximity to Edmonton being part of the cumulative picture. Poor air quality, contaminated fish and animals, the Canadian National Railway spill at Wabamun Lake and the Swan Hills hazardous waste treatment plant are all part of the cumulative effects being experienced by the Enoch, and community well-being is declining.

Request: a) The Enoch ATK study relies on information collected from eight (8) Enoch members. Please explain in detail how a representative sample of eight (8) members out of Enoch's registered population of approximately 2,200 members is a sound methodological basis for an ATK study.

b) Please provide a revised Appendix C, Table C-6 with a further column or columns explaining the following:

a. Whether Enbridge accepts and will implement Enoch's proposed mitigation and, if not, what Enbridge proposes to address the effects anticipated by Enoch; and

b. Where Enoch has not proposed mitigation, what Enbridge proposes to address the effects anticipated by Enoch.

Response: a) This question should be directed to the Enoch Cree Nation, as it determined the methodology for the Enoch Cree Nation ATK study.

b) Refer to Northern Gateway’s response to JRP IR 5.9 and the Application Update (Volume 5).

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 14 of 34

1.4 Benefits

Reference: i) Project Update Volume 5A, 4.1

ii) Project Update Volume 5A, pp. 4-2 to 4-4

iii) Project Update Volume 5A, pp. 4-5 to 4-6

Preamble: Reference i) indicates that during the Project Update period Enbridge developed an Aboriginal Economic Benefits Package which was introduced to eligible Aboriginal groups. Enbridge also explains that an Aboriginal Economic Benefits Package may consist of (i) an equity participation offer, (ii) procurement, employment and training initiatives, (iii) a community investment fund, and (iv) access to corporate branded programs.

Reference ii) explains that, to accept an equity offering, each Aboriginal group must enter into an Aboriginal Ownership Agreement and the Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited Partnership Agreement.

Reference iii) explains that Enbridge has offered to enter into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") with Aboriginal groups which will define potential economic opportunities and benefits in the areas of procurement, employment and training in the context of the Aboriginal group in question. These MOUs and Enbridge's Economic Benefits Package as a whole will also incorporate Enbridge's Aboriginal Procurement Initiative, and Enbridge's Aboriginal Employment and Training Initiative. Enbridge also states it is committed to facilitating meaningful Aboriginal contracting and Employment opportunities. Enbridge further explains that a cornerstone of this commitment is an underlying commitment to facilitate training initiatives required to enable prospective Aboriginal employees to gain necessary skills.

Request: a) Please confirm which of the Nations received an Economic Benefits Package from Enbridge. If some of the Nations did not receive this package, provide a full explanation of why Enbridge did not provide that information.

b) Please provide copies of the agreements noted at references ii) and iii) of this information request.

c) Please confirm that the information provided with the Aboriginal Economic Benefits Package was general in nature and of itself created no binding obligations on Enbridge.

d) Please confirm that the information provided with the Aboriginal Economic Benefits Package did not explain in detail Enbridge's decision-making

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 15 of 34 criteria regarding training, employment and contracting opportunities?

e) Please explain how Enbridge identifies which Aboriginal individuals or groups will be provided the opportunity to participate in the Project by way of training, employment and contracting opportunities.

f) To what extent, if at all, are likely Project impacts a factor in considering whether and to what extent project benefits will be offered to Aboriginal groups?

g) Do the Nations have to demonstrate an impact from the Project on their rights before Enbridge will provide the Nations with opportunities to participate in the Project by way of training, employment and contract opportunities? Similarly, will the degree of potential Project impacts on any particular Aboriginal group influence what type of preference, if any, Enbridge provides a particular Aboriginal group with respect to training, employment and contracting opportunities?

h) Which training, employment and contracting opportunities has Enbridge identified for each of the Nations? Please provide a full supporting rationale for this response.

i) What specific measures will Enbridge take to facilitate and encourage participation by individual members of each of the Nations and businesses affiliated with or owned by the Nations in training, employment and contract opportunities for the Project?

j) Please advise whether the Project is likely to utilize unionized or non- unionized labour.

k) Please explain in detail how Enbridge is going to assist with addressing Aboriginal business capacity issues so that Aboriginal groups can take advantage of Project contracting opportunities.

l) With respect to benefits, please explain in detail the circumstances where Enbridge would treat certain Aboriginal groups differently in terms of training, employment and contracting opportunities despite being in similar circumstances relative to the Project and its likely impacts.

m) Please provide examples of where Enbridge has provided different training, employment and contracting opportunities concerning the Project to Aboriginal groups despite being in similar circumstances relative to the Project and its likely impacts. Please fully explain the rationale behind this difference in treatment.

n) Please identify by province, Aboriginal group, and distance from the

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 16 of 34 Project, all benefits offered or provided to Aboriginal groups claiming to be impacted by the Project. In providing this response, please fully explain the difference in benefits between and Alberta Aboriginal groups. If Enbridge will not provide all of the requested information, please provide the information without making specific Aboriginal groups.

o) Please confirm whether there will be sole source and/or preferred source contracts for Aboriginal groups and, if so, please explain in detail the criteria Enbridge will use for determining which Aboriginal groups will be selected for sole source and/or preferential contracts, and also explain when Enbridge anticipates concluding such contracts with Aboriginal groups.

p) Please explain which Aboriginal groups will be eligible for equity ownership in the Project, how Enbridge will assist an ineligible Aboriginal group to become eligible, and also explain when Enbridge intends to conclude binding agreements with Aboriginal groups for equity stake ownership in the Project.

q) Please provide Enbridge's forecast for costs related to capacity funding for consultation between Alberta and British Columbia.

r) Please provide the number of full time equivalent Enbridge staff or consultants allocated to each of Alberta and British Columbia for the Project related to Aboriginal consultation.

Response: a) The list of Alberta Aboriginal groups that have received an Aboriginal Economic Benefits Package as of March 31, 2011, is provided in the Application Update (Volume 5A, Section 4.1). Eligibility to receive the Aboriginal Economic Benefits Package is also described in the Application Update (Volume 5A, Section 4.1).

b) Two of the six First Nations have copies of the pertinent agreements and Northern Gateway considers these agreements to be confidential.

c) The Aboriginal Economic Benefits Packages were customized to reflect the specific characteristics and circumstances of the receiving party. The information provided with the package created no binding obligations on Northern Gateway but is nonetheless considered to be confidential.

d) Confirmed. However, the dialogue which has occurred in parallel with the presentation of the benefits package, and subsequent engagement, has included discussion of Northern Gateway’s decision making criteria regarding training, employment and contracting opportunities.

e) The primary focus is with groups who meet the eligibility criteria for the Aboriginal Economic Benefits Package. Northern Gateway will also look

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 17 of 34 for opportunities to extend, (for example, training, employment, and contracting opportunities) to those groups who do not meet these criteria but who have expressed an interest. For groups who meet the eligibility criteria, detailed dialogue is underway. For groups who do not meet the eligibility criteria but who have expressed an interest, engagement in relation to training, employment and contracting opportunities will occur later and closer to the start of construction.

f) The purpose of the Aboriginal Economic Benefits Package is to create economic opportunity for, and long term alignment of interests with, those communities who are in proximity to the proposed Project. Northern Gateway has not designed the benefits package as a compensatory mechanism.

g) No.

h) The determination of which training, employment and contacting opportunities offer the best fit with which First Nations, is the result of bilateral dialogue with Northern Gateway and those Nations, and is also the result of a comparison of the aspirations, capacity and business plans of the First Nations within a given region. Both Enoch Cree Nation and Whitefish Lake (Whitefish Lake First Nation #128) are eligible parties and Northern Gateway has commenced negotiations with them in respect to the elements of the formal benefits package. With respect to the remaining four groups, please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.4e) above.

i) In addition to Northern Gateway’s responses to Six Nations IR 1.4e) and 1.4h), Northern Gateway is developing specific request for proposal (“RFP”) language for use with prime contractors to ensure meaningful Aboriginal participation. Both Enoch Cree Nation and Whitefish (Whitefish Lake First Nation #128) attended the Northern Gateway Business Summit held in Vancouver, B.C. in March 2010 (see Application Update (Volume 5A, Section 5.1.2 and 5.2.1)). A Business Summit is scheduled for the beginning of November 2011 and will provide an opportunity for Aboriginal Groups to network and discuss opportunities including Joint Ventures with large potential Project contractors. The Business Summit will be held at the Enoch Cree Nation’s Marriot River Cree Resort.

j) Northern Gateway anticipates that the Project will engage both unionized and non-unionized labour.

k) Northern Gateway’s approach to training, introductions made through the business summits and early dialogue describing the opportunities that will be available on a regional basis, taken together, are intended to position the Nations so that Aboriginal groups can take advantage of potential Project contracting opportunities.

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 18 of 34

l) Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.4e).

m) Northern Gateway is in the early stages of opportunity identification and matching along the terrestrial corridor. In addition, Northern Gateway has identified a portfolio of marine economic benefits which will be discussed and made available as appropriate to the coastal First Nations who meet the eligibility criteria. At this early stage of Project planning, no training, employment and contracting opportunities have yet been allocated. For the allocation of future opportunities, please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.4e).

n) Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.4m) above.

o) Northern Gateway anticipates that Project procurement will include sole- source and/or preferred-source contracts for Aboriginal groups. In general, the ability to award the sole- or preferred-source contracts will be based on the group’s qualifications to provide the good or service and the ability to provide regionally competitive rates. Dialogue will continue with Aboriginal groups on potential contracting opportunities on an ongoing basis. Potential sole-source or preferred-source contracting opportunities would be entered into upon a favorable Project decision, based upon the above criteria.

p) Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.4e) above for information in relation to eligibility. Northern Gateway will not assist ineligible Aboriginal groups to become eligible. Currently, the date for early execution of the Equity Agreement is December 15, 2011, and the final date for execution of the Equity Agreement is May 31, 2012.

q) Northern Gateway presently forecasts that approximately one quarter of the total capacity funding provided will ultimately be directed to Alberta groups with the balance going to BC groups. The forecast total dollar amount is considered to be a confidential matter between Northern Gateway and its funding participants.

r) Approximately one dozen staff and contractors have been engaged to undertake Aboriginal consultation for the Project, allocated equally between Alberta and BC.

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 19 of 34

1.5 Interests and Concerns of Whitefish

Reference: i) Project Update Volume 5A, pp. 5-7 to 5-8

Preamble: Reference i) discusses the interests and concerns expressed by Whitefish, and then discusses at a general level Enbridge's commitments and mitigation measures. In response to concerns raised by Whitefish concerning traditional lands and culture and water sources including Smoke Lake, Enbridge states that "If the Project is approved additional engagement will be undertaken with…Whitefish…during detailed routing and engineering".

Request: a) Please confirm whether Enbridge agrees that consultation and accommodation is required prior to a decision being made to approve a Project.

b) If the Project is approved, during such post-approval consultations as indicated in reference i), to what extent will Enbridge adjust its project planning and design to address concerns identified by Whitefish, if at all?

c) Does Enbridge commit to ensuring that, post-approval, Enbridge will consult with Whitefish regarding its Project concerns?

d) If the answer to c) is "yes", does Enbridge also commit to ensuring that during such consultations it will address Whitefish's concerns? If the answer to c) is "no", please fully explain.

e) Enbridge has indicated to Whitefish that Enbridge is willing to provide sole source and/or preferred contracts to Whitefish for work on the Project. Please confirm when and how Enbridge communicated the offer of sole source and/or preferred contracts to Whitefish and describe what steps Enbridge has taken or intends to take to confirm those contractual arrangements.

f) Please provide a detailed response and plan for addressing potential impacts specific to Whitefish in the event of oil spills from the Project onto lands and into water bodies within Whitefish's traditional use areas.

g) Chief Jackson of Whitefish was the spokesperson for group of First Nations that issued a press release, attached as Appendix "A" to this Information Request No. 1. In that press release Chief Jackson expressed concern that Enbridge has taken the position that with Treaty hunting, fishing and trapping uses in the Project area are less likely to impacted by the Project than First Nations on the coast of British Columbia. Please provide a detailed response to the concerns set out in the attached press release.

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 20 of 34

Response: a) Northern Gateway agrees that consultation is required in relation to a decision regarding Project approval. Where appropriate, accommodation may be required to address potential effects of the Project. The nature, extent and timing of consultation and, where appropriate, accommodation depends on the circumstances of each case.

b) The Whitefish Lake (Whitefish Lake First Nation #128) has started work on an ATK study. If the Project is approved, additional engagement will be undertaken with the Whitefish Lake (Whitefish Lake First Nation #128) during detailed routing and engineering to provide an opportunity for review of the detailed route for the pipelines, and to determine whether route adjustments or other mitigation measures are required. For example, if medicinal herbs are identified during review of the detail route, the Whitefish Lake (Whitefish Lake First Nation #128) will be provided an opportunity to harvest medicinal and food source plants before the RoW is cleared.

c) Yes.

d) Northern Gateway will make reasonable attempts to address Whitefish Lake’s (Whitefish Lake First Nation #128) concerns.

e) Northern Gateway did not indicate to the Whitefish Lake (Whitefish Lake First Nation #128) that Northern Gateway was willing to provide sole- source and/or preferred contracts to the Whitefish Lake (Whitefish Lake First Nation #128) for work on the Project. However, Northern Gateway and the Whitefish Lake (Whitefish Lake First Nation #128) on numerous occasions discussed economic and procurement opportunities that may arise from the Project. Such discussions are described in the Application Update (Volume 5A, Section 5.1.2). For guidance with respect to future sole-source opportunities, please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.4o).

f) Please refer to Application (Volume 7B, Section 9) for example scenarios of hydrocarbon releases in a high gradient watercourse, low gradient watercourse, agricultural land, and wetland. Draft control points are detailed in Appendix C of the River Control Points Technical Data Report (Polaris 2010).

Control point locations, which are proposed, are to be the focus of future oil spill response (“OSR”) tactics sheets to be developed prior to commencement of operations of the Project. Following detailed design and planning, control points would be defined in the operational Pipeline Oil Spill Response Plan (“POSRP”), which would be finalized at least six months prior to the commencement of operations and approved by the

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 21 of 34 National Energy Board.

g) Northern Gateway does not take the position that First Nations in Alberta with Treaty hunting, fishing and trapping uses in the Project area are less likely to be impacted by the Project than First Nations on the coast of British Columbia. Northern Gateway has conducted an open house and a technical session with the Whitefish Lake (Whitefish Lake First Nation #128) to respond to specific concerns raised by the Whitefish Lake First Nation. Additional information is provided in the Application Update (Volume 5A, Section 5.1.2). Northern Gateway would be pleased to meet with Whitefish Lake (Whitefish Lake First Nation #128) to discuss the concerns set out in the press release, or any other concerns that the Whitefish Lake First Nation may have.

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 22 of 34

1.6 Interests and Concerns of Enoch

Reference: i) Project Update Volume 5A, pp. 5-28 to 5-30

Preamble: Reference i) states that Enbridge will share information with Enoch about emergency preparedness and first response before operations start.

Reference i) states that Enbridge will "consider" suggestions that Aboriginal groups may have about preferred methods of right of way reclamation.

With respect to logging usage, reference i) states that Enbridge will work with the affected Aboriginal group to find ways to reduce effects, such as enhancements to access or site-specific mitigation.

Reference i) states that requests for community sponsorships toward worthwhile community programs are considered on a case-by-case basis. Enbridge also states that it will consider support for, and participation in, community programs that are based in communities within the engagement area.

Reference i) states that Enbridge will offer a technical session with Enoch in 2011 to address specific areas of concern raised by Enoch in its ATK study.

In reference i) Enbridge states that it will also follow up with Enoch during detailed engineering to review and discuss proposed responses to identified interests and concerns, and to attempt to resolve any outstanding issues.

Request: a) Will Enbridge commit to sharing information with Enoch about emergency preparedness before construction starts?

b) If the answer to a) is "yes", will Enbridge also commit to consulting Enoch concerning Enbridge's emergency response plan for the Project, and will Enbridge also commit to addressing Enoch's concerns regarding emergency preparedness and first response before construction?

c) Will Enbridge commit to consultation with Enoch concerning right of way reclamation and, if so, will Enbridge also ensure that Enoch's concerns regarding right of way reclamation are addressed. If the answer to this information request is "no", please fully explain.

d) Please provide a detailed response and plan for addressing impacts to Enoch due to logging usage.

e) Please provide a detailed response and plan for addressing potential impacts specific to Enoch in the event of oil spills from the proposed pipeline onto

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 23 of 34 lands and into water bodies within Enoch's traditional use areas.

f) Please explain what Enbridge considers to be a "worthwhile community program".

g) Will Enbridge consider support for, and participation in, community programs that are based in communities outside of the 160-km engagement area?

h) How will the technical session mentioned above in reference i) address all concerns identified by Enoch in its ATK study? Please fully explain this response with examples and itemize Enbridge's related commitments in this regard.

i) When Enbridge states that it will "attempt" to resolve any of Enoch's outstanding issues, please explain what may prevent Enbridge from resolving Enoch's outstanding issues. In providing Enbridge's response, please explain the extent to which cost is a factor when considering whether to address an outstanding concern of Enoch's, and also explain whether Enbridge will still build the Project if it has not addressed all of Enoch's concerns.

j) Enbridge has indicated to Enoch that Enbridge is willing to provide sole source and/or preferred contracts to Enoch for work on the Project. Please confirm when and how Enbridge communicated the offer of sole source and/or preferred contracts to Enoch and describe what steps Enbridge has taken or intends to take to confirm those contractual arrangements.

Response: a) Yes.

b) Northern Gateway will make reasonable attempts to address Enoch Cree Nation’s concerns.

c) Yes, Northern Gateway will consider suggestions that Enoch Cree Nation may have about preferred methods of RoW reclamation. Northern Gateway will undertake future consultation with Enoch Cree Nation concerning RoW reclamation in advance of reclamation activity.

d) In response to Enoch Cree Nation’s concerning logging usage, Northern Gateway stated in the part titled Commitments and Mitigation Measures of the Application Update (Volume 5A, Section 5.2.1) under the part titled RoW – Logging Usage which reads as follows: “A Timber Salvage Plan has been prepared by Northern Gateway to assist in planning, scheduling and implementing the salvage of merchantable timber on the RoW. Details of this plan are provided in the Application (Volume 7A, Appendix A, Section A.3.25).

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 24 of 34

e) See Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.5f).

f) Northern Gateway determines eligibility on a case-by-case basis.

g) Yes.

h) The process for addressing concerns identified by Enoch Cree Nation in its ATK study is set out in the Application Update (Volume 5A, Section 5.2.1) under the title “Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Program.” Also see Northern Gateway’s responses to JRP IR 5.9 and Federal Government IR 118.

i) Northern Gateway is generally guided by principles of practicality and reasonable efforts. Cost is one factor considered in relation to these principles. Northern Gateway looks to Enoch Cree Nation to exhibit reciprocal practicality and reasonableness. In the absence of such reciprocal consideration, Northern Gateway may be prevented from resolving outstanding issues. Northern Gateway may still build the Project if it has not addressed all of Enoch Cree Nation’s concerns. Northern Gateway will make reasonable attempts to address Enoch Cree Nation’s concerns.

j) Northern Gateway has not communicated any offer of sole-source and/or preferred contracts to Enoch Cree Nation at this time. Northern Gateway anticipates that Project procurement will include sole-source and/or preferred-source contracts for Aboriginal groups. In general, the ability to award the sole or preferred-source contracts will be based on the group’s qualification to provide the good or service and the ability to provide regionally competitive rates.

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 25 of 34

1.7 Interests and Concerns of Samson

Reference: i) Project Update Volume 5A, p. 5-70

ii) Project Update Volume 5A, p. 5-71

Preamble: Reference i) states that in March 2011, Enbridge contacted Samson to withdraw the offer of funding to complete an ATK study due to the length of time that had lapsed since Enbridge had made the offer and the lack of response from Samson to the offer.

Reference ii) discusses the Lac St. Anne Area, an area of importance to Samson, and goes on to state that Samson has not expressed an interest in finalizing arrangements with Enbridge to complete an ATK study. Enbridge has not addressed Samson's concern regarding the Lac St. Anne Area.

Request: a) Please explain, in detail, with supporting references including impact predictions and proposed mitigation, how Enbridge is proposing to address Samson's concerns regarding Project impacts on the Lac St. Anne area.

b) Please confirm that during the period between when Enbridge first offered to fund an ATK study for Samson and March, 2011, Enbridge refused to confirm the amount of funding it would provide for the Samson ATK study.

c) Please confirm that Samson has expressed an interest in Enbridge funding an ATK study for Samson's traditional territory.

d) Please confirm by which correspondence or communication Samson rejected Enbridge's first offer to fund an ATK study for Samson.

e) Please confirm that if no ATK study is completed with respect to Samson, Enbridge will not have sufficient information to predict likely Project impacts specific to Samson's rights and interests, and Enbridge will similarly not be able to identify appropriate mitigation to address Project impacts to Samson's specific rights and interests. When providing a response to this information request, please be as specific as possible and be advised that the information request is asking for greater detail than general effects predictions and general statements concerning proposed mitigation.

f) Please confirm that Enbridge has made a second offer to fund an ATK study for Samson.

g) Please explain in detail why Enbridge's most recent offer to fund Samson for an ATK study is over $100,000 lower than Enbridge's first offer to fund an ATK study for Samson.

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 26 of 34

h) Please describe and explain the time delay between Enbridge's first and second offer of funding for an ATK study for Samson, and also please explain when Samson was presented with a contribution agreement to provide that funding to Samson.

i) Please explain how the current amount of funding offered to Samson compares to ATK funding provided by Enbridge to all other Aboriginal groups that are similar or greater distances away from the Project and/or in similar circumstances relative to the Project and its likely impacts.

j) Enbridge has indicated to Samson that Enbridge is willing to provide sole source and/or preferred contracts to Samson for work on the Project. Please confirm when and how Enbridge communicated the offer of sole source and/or preferred contracts to Samson and describe what steps Enbridge has taken or intends to take to confirm those contractual arrangements.

Response: a) See Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nation IR 1.2s).

b) Not confirmed. During Northern Gateway’s exploratory discussions with Samson (Samson Cree Nation) from January 2010 to June 2010 regarding the possibility of the Samson (Samson Cree Nation), Ermineskin Tribe (Ermineskin Cree Nation), Louis Bull (Louis Bull Tribe) and Montana First Nation conducting a collective ATK study, or alternatively, individual Nation ATK studies, Northern Gateway had not determined the amount of funding it would offer to the individual Nations. Once Northern Gateway determined that $25,000.00 would be offered to each of the four First Nations to conduct individual ATK studies, this amount was communicated to Samson (Samson Cree Nation)’s legal counsel, during a teleconference on June 24, 2010. Northern Gateway also subsequently proposed that the four First Nations could complete a collective ATK study and offered $100,000.00 for that purpose.

The meetings noted above are described in the Application Update (Volume 5A, Sections 5.3.3.1, 5.3.3.2, 5.3.3.3, and 5.3.3.4) under the part titled Engagement Activities during the Update Period.

c) Please refer to Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.7b) above that describes Samson (Samson Cree Nation)’s interest in participating in meetings with Northern Gateway where the parties discussed matters related to an ATK study. Although, Samson (Samson Cree Nation) participated in meetings, the Samson (Samson Cree Nation) did not accept or reject the offer of funding made by Northern Gateway to conduct an ATK study. This lack of response was deemed to signify disinterest. Given the interest expressed in the Six Nations Information Requests, Northern Gateway has recently extended another offer to the Samson (Samson Cree

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 27 of 34 Nation) to fund an ATK study.

d) Please refer to Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.7c) above. Northern Gateway received no communication from Samson either rejecting or accepting an offer. This lack of response was deemed to signify disinterest.

e) Not confirmed. Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.2j).

f) Please refer to Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.7b) above, which describes Northern Gateway’s offer of $25,000.00 to the Samson (Samson Cree Nation) to conduct an individual ATK study. Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.7b) also describes Northern Gateway’s offer of $100,000.00 to the Samson (Samson Cree Nation), Ermineskin Tribe (Ermineskin Cree Nation), Louis Bull (Louis Bull Tribe) and Montana First Nation to conduct a collective ATK study, as an alternative to conducting individual ATK studies.

g) Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.7f).

h) Northern Gateway made an offer to the Samson (Samson Cree Nation), Ermineskin Tribe (Ermineskin Cree Nation), Louis Bull (Louis Bull Tribe) and Montana First Nation to fund a collective ATK study on more than one occasion. Northern Gateway has also made offers to Samson (Samson Cree Nation) individually. Northern Gateway did not delay in making its offer of funding for an ATK study to the Samson (Samson Cree Nation). Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.7c) and 1.7d).

i) Northern Gateway employed the procedures outlined in its ATK Program to jointly arrive at an agreed upon amount of ATK funding that it offered to the four First Nations collectively and a subsequent offer to Samson (Samson Cree Nation) to complete its individual ATK study. The ATK Program is described in the Application (Volume 5B, Section 1.2) in the part titled ATK Program Overview.

j) Northern Gateway did not indicate to the Samson (Samson Cree Nation) that Northern Gateway was willing to provide sole source and/or preferred contracts to the Samson (Samson Cree Nation) for work on the Project.

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 28 of 34

1.8 Interests and Concerns of Ermineskin

Reference: i) Project Update Volume 5A, p. 5-72

Preamble: Reference i) states that Ermineskin has not expressed an interest in finalizing arrangements with Enbridge to complete an ATK study.

Reference i) also states that in March 2011, Enbridge contacted Ermineskin to withdraw the offer of funding to complete an ATK study due to the length of time that had lapsed since Enbridge had made the offer and the lack of response from Ermineskin to the offer.

Request: a) Please confirm that Ermineskin expressed an interest in Enbridge funding an ATK study for Ermineskin.

b) Please confirm by which correspondence or communication Ermineskin rejected Enbridge's first offer to fund an ATK study for Ermineskin.

c) Please confirm that if no ATK study is completed with respect to Ermineskin, Enbridge will not have sufficient information to predict likely Project impacts specific to Ermineskin's rights and interests, and Enbridge will similarly not be able to identify appropriate mitigation to address Ermineskin's specific rights and interests. When providing a response to this information request, please be as specific as possible and be advised that the information request is asking for greater detail than general effects predictions and general statements concerning proposed mitigation.

d) Please confirm that during the period between when Enbridge first offered to fund an ATK study for Ermineskin and March, 2011, Enbridge refused to confirm the amount of funding it would provide Ermineskin for the ATK study.

e) Please confirm that Enbridge has made a second offer to fund an ATK study for Ermineskin.

f) Please explain in detail why Enbridge's most recently offered funding to Ermineskin for an ATK study is over $100,000 lower than Ebridge's first offer to fund an ATK study for Ermineskin.

g) Please describe and explain the time delay between Enbridge's first and second offer of funding for an ATK study for Ermineskin, and also please explain when Ermineskin was presented with a contribution agreement to provide that funding to Ermineskin.

h) Please explain how the current amount of funding offered to Ermineskin

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 29 of 34 compares to ATK funding provided by Enbridge to all other Aboriginal groups that are similar or greater distances away from the Project and/or in similar circumstances relative to the Project and its likely impacts.

i) Please explain whether and to what extent Enbridge's decisions regarding ATK funding for Ermineskin accounted for the substantial presence of Ermineskin members residing at Small Boy Camp and who hunt, fish, or trap within the traditional use areas of Small Boy Camp.

j) Please describe all contacts Enbridge has had directly with Ermineskin members that reside at Small Boy Camp including any offers of capacity or ATK study funding or other benefits Enbridge has offered to the residents of Small Boy Camp.

k) Enbridge has indicated to Ermineskin that Enbridge is willing to provide sole source and/or preferred contracts to Ermineskin for work on the Project. Please confirm when and how Enbridge communicated the offer of sole source and/or preferred contracts to Ermineskin and describe what steps Enbridge has taken or intends to take to confirm those contractual arrangements.

Response: a) The Ermineskin Tribe (Ermineskin Cree Nation) expressed initial interest in an ATK study, but failed to confirm specific interest when requested to do so. Supporting information follows.

Northern Gateway met with the Ermineskin Tribe (Ermineskin Cree Nation) on a few occasions to discuss matters related to ATK studies, in particular, matters surrounding Ermineskin Tribe (Ermineskin Cree Nation) completing an ATK study. Northern Gateway viewed the Ermineskin Tribe (Ermineskin Cree Nation)’s participation in the meetings was an indication of their interest in completing an ATK study. Subsequently, Northern Gateway determined that the Ermineskin Tribe (Ermineskin Cree Nation) was not interested in completing an ATK study as the Ermineskin Tribe (Ermineskin Cree Nation) did not respond to Northern Gateway’s offer of ATK funding to complete an ATK study.

b) Please refer to Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.7c). Northern Gateway received no communication from the Ermineskin Tribe (Ermineskin Cree Nation) either rejecting or accepting an offer. This lack of response was deemed to signify disinterest.

c) Not confirmed. Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.2j).

d) Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.7b).

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 30 of 34 e) Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.7b).

f) Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.7b).

g) Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.7h).

h) Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.7i).

i) Northern Gateway understands that the Small Boy Camp is located on Crown lands near Edson, Alberta that was established in the 1960’s, however, it is not an Indian reserve. Northern Gateway further understands that the camp is comprised of people from First Nation, Metis and other backgrounds, including members of the Samson (Samson Cree Nation), Ermineskin Tribe (Ermineskin Cree Nation), Louis Bull (Louis Bull Tribe) and Montana First Nation. It is understood that these individuals utilize the camp for different purposes, including, traditional ceremonies and activities and as a base camp for hunting trips along the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains.

In respect of the Ermineskin Tribe (Ermineskin Cree Nation) interest in the Small Boy Camp area, an ATK study would assist Northern Gateway in understanding the Ermineskin Tribe (Ermineskin Cree Nation) traditional activities associated with the camp in relation to the proposed Project corridor so that Northern Gateway may consider such information in Project planning.

j) Northern Gateway discussed Project matters in relation to the Small Boy Camp in September 2009 at the request of Chief Roan, however, no offers of capacity or ATK study funding or other benefits were offered to camp residents.

k) Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.7j).

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 31 of 34

1.9 Interests and Concerns of Louis Bull

Reference: i) Project Update Volume 5A, p. 5-73

ii) Project Update Volume 5A, p. 5-75

Preamble: Reference i) notes that the Lac St. Anne area, located within the Project corridor, is of historical significance to Louis Bull.

In response to Louis Bull's concerns regarding the Lac St. Anne area, at reference ii) Enbridge directs the reader to the commitments and mitigation measures provided in Section 5.3.3.1 of the Project Update. When discussing the Lac St. Anne area at section 5.3.3.1 of the Project Update, Enbridge explains that Samson has not expressed an interest in finalizing arrangements with Enbridge to complete an ATK study. As a result, Enbridge has referred to evidence that does not address Louis Bull's concern regarding the Lac St. Anne area.

Reference ii) also provides that an ATK study has not been developed for Louis Bull.

Request: a) Please explain in detail how Enbridge is proposing to address Louis Bull's concerns regarding Project impacts on the Lac St. Anne area. When providing a response to this information request please also provide supporting references including impact predictions and proposed mitigation.

b) Please confirm that Louis Bull has expressed an interest in Enbridge funding an ATK study for Louis Bull's traditional territory.

c) Please confirm that if no ATK study is completed with respect to Louis Bull, Enbridge will not have sufficient information to predict likely Project impacts specific to Louis Bull's rights and interests, and Enbridge will similarly not be able to identify appropriate mitigation to address Louis Bull's specific rights and interests. When providing a response to this information request, please be as specific as possible and be advised that the information request is asking for greater detail than general effects predictions and general statements concerning proposed mitigation.

d) Please describe and explain the delay in making Enbridge's most recent offer of funding for an ATK study for Louis Bull, and also please explain when Louis Bull was presented with a contribution agreement to provide that funding to Ermineskin.

e) Please explain how the current amount of funding offered to Louis Bull compares to ATK funding provided by Enbridge to all other Aboriginal

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 32 of 34 groups that are similar or greater distances away from the Project and/or in similar circumstances relative to the Project and its likely impacts.

f) Please explain why the original offers to fund ATK studies for Samson and Ermineskin, First Nations that are adjacent to Louis Bull, were not also extended to Louis Bull.

g) Enbridge has indicated to Louis Bull that Enbridge is willing to provide sole source and/or preferred contracts to Louis Bull for work on the Project. Please confirm when and how Enbridge communicated the offer of sole source and/or preferred contracts to Louis Bull and describe what steps Enbridge has taken or intends to take to confirm those contractual arrangements.

Response: a) Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.2s).

b) Northern Gateway has offered the Louis Bull (Louis Bull Tribe) funding for an ATK study, which the Louis Bull (Louis Bull Tribe) has accepted and the Nation is currently in the process of preparing an ATK study work plan and budget.

c) Not confirmed. Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.2j).

d) Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.7h).

e) Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.7i).

f) The question and the reference to “original offers” is unclear. Northern Gateway notes that an offer has been extended to and accepted by Louis Bull in respect of an individual ATK study.

g) Please refer to Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nation IR 1.7j).

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 33 of 34

1.10 Interests and Concerns of Montana

Reference: i) Project Update Volume 5A, p. 5-77

Preamble: In response to Montana's concerns regarding the Lac St. Anne area, at reference i) Enbridge directs the reader to the commitments and mitigation measures provided in Section 5.3.3.1 of the Project Update. When discussing the Lac St. Anne area at section 5.3.3.1 of the Project Update, Enbridge explains that Samson has not expressed an interest in finalizing arrangements with Enbridge to complete an ATK study. As a result, Enbridge has referred to evidence that does not address Montana's concern regarding the Lac St. Anne area.

Reference i) also confirms that an ATK study has not been developed for Montana.

Request: a) Please explain, in detail, with supporting references including impact predictions and proposed mitigation, how Enbridge is proposing to address Montana's concerns regarding Project impacts on the Lac St. Anne area.

b) Please confirm that if no ATK study is completed with respect to Montana, Enbridge will not have sufficient information to predict likely Project impacts specific to Montana's rights and interests, and Enbridge will similarly not be able to identify appropriate mitigation to address Montana's specific rights and interests. When providing a response to this information request, please be as specific as possible and be advised that the information request is asking for greater detail than general effects predictions and general statements concerning proposed mitigation.

c) Please explain why original offers to fund ATK studies for Samson and Ermineskin, First Nations that are adjacent to Montana, were not also extended to Montana.

d) Please describe and explain the delay in making Enbridge's most recent offer of funding for an ATK study for Montana, and also please explain when Montana was presented with a contribution agreement to provide that funding to Montana.

e) Please explain in detail Enbridge's most recent funding proposal to Montana for an ATK study and how Enbridge determined that this amount would be sufficient to conduct an ATK study for Montana.

h) Please explain how the current amount of funding offered to Montana compares to ATK funding provided by Enbridge to all other Aboriginal groups that are similar or greater distances away from the Project and/or in similar circumstances relative to the Project and its likely impacts.

ENB LL 23687479

Northern Gateway Response to Six Nations IR No. 1 Page 34 of 34

f) Enbridge has indicated to Montana that Enbridge is willing to provide sole source and/or preferred contracts to Montana for work on the Project. Please confirm when and how Enbridge communicated the offer of sole source and/or preferred contracts to Montana and describe what steps Enbridge has taken or intends to take to confirm those contractual arrangements.

Response: a) Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.2s).

b) Not confirmed. Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.2j).

c) The question and the reference to “original offers” is unclear. Northern Gateway notes that an offer has been extended to and accepted by Montana First Nation in respect of an individual ATK study.

d) Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.7h).

e) Northern Gateway has offered the Montana First Nation funding for an ATK study, which the Montana First Nation has accepted and the Nation is currently in the process of preparing an ATK study work plan and budget.

h) Please see Northern Gateway’s response to Six Nations IR 1.7i).

f) Northern Gateway did not indicate to the Montana First Nation that Northern Gateway was willing to provide sole source and/or preferred contracts to the Montana First Nation for work on the Project.

ENB LL 23687479