Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

Submitted to the National Energy Board Pursuant to Hearing Order GH-1-2004

March 15, 2010

Volume 1 – Report

Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

REVISED TABLE OF CONTENTS

Volume 1

Glossary of Terms...... v

1. Introduction ...... 1

2. The Mackenzie Gas Project – Crown Consultation Unit (MGP-CCU) ...... 1

3. Crown Consultation and the MGP...... 4

3.1 How Did We Consult? ...... 4

3.1.1 The Joint Review Panel and National Energy Board Hearing Processes ...... 5 3.1.2 Information on Aboriginal Concerns Provided by the Proponent...... 5

3.2 Direct Consultations ...... 5

3.2.1 Who Did We Consult?...... 5 3.2.2 Process for Direct Consultation...... 6

3.3 Consultation Binder ...... 7

4. Funding ...... 7

4.1 Funding Related to the Environmental Assessment Process .....8

4.1.1 Interim Resource Management Assistance Program (IRMA)...... 8 4.1.2 Pipeline Division – MGP Community Capacity...... 8

4.2 Funding Related to Mitigation...... 8

4.2.1 Sambaa K’e Dene Band – Trout Lake (SKDB) ...... 8 4.2.2 Fort Providence...... 9 4.2.3 Other...... 9

5. Going Forward ...... 9

6. Summary of Activities to Date ...... 9

i March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

7. Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) ...... 10

7.1 Consultations with the Inuvialuit ...... 11 7.2 Summary of Concerns...... 11

8. Gwich’in Settlement Area (GSA) ...... 15

8.1 Consultations with the Gwich’in...... 16 8.2 Summary of Concerns...... 16

9. Sahtu Settlement Area (SSA)...... 20

9.1 Consultations with the Sahtu Dene and Métis ...... 21 9.2 Summary of Concerns...... 21

10. Dene Tha’ First Nation (DTFN) ...... 31

10.1 Summary of Concerns...... 31

11. Dehcho Region (DFN)...... 32

11.1 Overview ...... 32 11.2 Workshops and Information Sessions ...... 32 11.3 DFN Communities ...... 32

11.3.1 Pehdzeh Ki First Nation – Wrigley (PFKN)...... 33 11.3.2 Liidlii Kue First Nation – Fort Simpson (LKFN) ...... 38 11.3.3 Fort Simpson Métis Nation (FSMN)...... 40 11.3.4 Tthek'edeli First Nation – Jean Marie River (JMRFN)...... 42 11.3.5 Sambaa K’e Dene Band – Trout Lake (SKDB)...... 44 11.3.6 Acho Dene Koe First Nation– Fort Liard (ADK) ...... 46 11.3.7 Fort Liard Métis (FLM)...... 47 11.3.8 Na_ahdee First Nation – Nahanni Butte (NBDB)...... 48 11.3.9 Deh Gah Got’ie Dene Council – Fort Providence (DGGDC) ...... 49 11.3.10 Ka’a’gee Tu First Nation – Kakisa (KFTN)...... 50 11.3.11 K’atlodeechee First Nation – Hay River Reserve (KFN)...... 54 11.3.12 West Point First Nation – Hay River (WPFN) ...... 57

12. Other Aboriginal Groups ...... 58

12.1 Hay River Métis Council (HRMC) ...... 58

ii March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

Volume 2

Tab A - Sections 1, 2, and 5 of Consultation Binder Material

Tab B - Going Forward

Tab C - Tables 3.1 from the Consultation Binders:

≈ Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) ≈ Gwich’in Settlement Area (GSA) ≈ Sahtu Settlement Area (SSA) ≈ Pehdzeh Ki First Nation (PKFN)

Volume 3

Tab C - Tables 3.1 from the Consultation Binders, continued:

≈ Liidlii Kue First Nation (LKFN) ≈ Fort Simpson Métis Nation (FSMN) ≈ Jean Marie River First Nation (JMRFN) ≈ Sambaa K’e Dene Band (SKDB) ≈ Acho Dene Koe First Nation (ADK) ≈ Fort Liard Métis (FLM) ≈ Na_ahdee First Nation – Nahanni Butte (NBDB) ≈ Deh Gah Got’ie Dene Council – Fort Providence (DGGDC) ≈ Ka’a’gee Tu First Nation – Kakisa (KTFN) ≈ K’atlodeechee First Nation – Hay River Reserve (KFN) ≈ West Point First Nation (WPFN)

Volume 4

Tab D - Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR)

Tab E - Gwich’in Settlement Area (GSA)

Tab F - Sahtu Settlement Area (SSA)

Tab G - Dene Tha’ First Nation (DTFN)

Tab H - Pehdzeh Ki First Nation (PKFN)

Tab I - Liidlii Kue First Nation (LKFN)

iii March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

Volume 5

Tab J - Fort Simpson Métis Nation (FSMN)

Tab K - Jean Marie River First Nation (JMRFN)

Tab L - Sambaa K’e Dene Band (SKDB)

Tab M - Acho Dene Koe First Nation (ADK)

Tab N - Fort Liard Métis (FLM)

Tab O - Nahanni Butte Dene Band (NBDB)

Tab P - Deh Gah Got’ie Dene Council (DGGDC)

Tab Q - Ka’a’gee Tu First Nation (KTFN)

Tab R - K’atlodeechee First Nation (KFN)

Tab S - West Point First Nation (WPFN)

Tab T - Other Aboriginal Groups (OAG)

Tab U - Hay River Métis Council (HRMC)

iv March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

ABREVIATION NAME ABC - Aboriginal Business Canada ADK - Acho Dene Koe First Nation (Ft. Liard) AEUB - Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Akaitcho - Akaitcho Territory Government Canada - Government of Canada CEAA - Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency CEDO - Community Economic Development Organizations Program CLCA - Comprehensive Land Claims Agreement CCU - Crown Consultation Unit DAS - Dehgah Alliance Society DFN - Dehcho First Nation CEOP - Community Economic Opportunities Program DFN - Dehcho First Nation DFO - Fisheries and Oceans Canada DGGDC - Deh Gah Got’ie Dene Council (Ft. Providence Dene) DTFN - Dene Tha’ First Nation EC - Environment Canada EDA - East Dehcho Alliance EIS - Environmental Impact Statement ENR - Environment and Natural Resources (GNWT) FLM - Fort Liard Métis FSM - Fort Simpson Métis FPM - Fort Providence Métis GNWT - Government of the Northwest Territories GSA - Gwich’in Settlement Area GTC - Gwich’in Tribal Council HRMC - Hay River Métis Council HRSDC - Human Resources and Skills Development Canada IHTC - Inuvialuit Hunters and Trappers Committee IFA - Inuvialuit Final Agreement IGC - Inuvialuit Game Council IJS - Inuvialuit Joint Secretariat IMA - Interim Measures Agreement INAC - Indian and Northern Affairs Canada IRC - Inuvialuit Regional Corporation IRMA - Interim Resource Management Assistance ISR - Inuvialuit Settlement Region JCC - Joint Coordinating Committee JMRFN - Jean Marie River First Nation JRP - Joint Review Panel KFN - K’atlodeeche First Nation KTFN - Ka’a’gee Tu First Nation MGP - Mackenzie Gas Project MGP-CCU - Mackenzie Gas Project – Crown Consultation Unit MVRMA - Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act NBDB - Nahanni Butte Dene Band

v March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

NEB - National Energy Board NGTL - Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. NRCan - Natural Resources Canada NTCL - Northern Transportation Co. Ltd. NTMN - Northwest Territories Métis Nation PKFN - Pehdzeh Ki First Nation PRO - Pipeline Readiness Office RoW - Right of Way RPDP - Resource Pre-Development Program SKDB - Sambaa K’e Dene Band SRRB - Sahtu Renewable Resources Board SSA - Sahtu Settlement Area SSI - Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated TC - Transport Canada Tlicho - Tlicho First Nation Government WPFN - West Point First Nation

vi March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to provide updated evidence (Update) of the Government of Canada’s (Canada) activities from August 10, 2006 to December 31, 20091 in respect of consultations with Aboriginal groups whose Aboriginal and treaty rights protected by s. 35 of the Constitution Act 19822 may be adversely affected by Mackenzie Gas Project (MGP).

During this period, Canada’s consultation activities consisted of: studying the proposed pipeline Right of Way (RoW) and related construction areas to identify potentially affected groups; contacting potentially affected Aboriginal groups and informing them of Canada’s approach to consultation; meeting with potentially affected groups as necessary to hear concerns and recommendations, and to respond to those concerns and recommendations; and planning and preparing for additional possible consultations.

The Update contains a description of the consultations that were undertaken and provides information about the Aboriginal groups contacted, concerns expressed by those groups, and a look forward to consultations subsequent to the Joint Review Panel’s report through to the regulatory phase.

Canada recognizes its consultation obligations and acknowledges that Aboriginal consultation is an ongoing matter which follows a continuum of communication. This Update sets out a record of activities which demonstrates this continuum. Canada further acknowledges that Aboriginal consultation for the MGP is not complete, but will, instead, continue as the project progresses.

2. THE MACKENZIE GAS PROJECT – CROWN CONSULTATION UNIT (MGP-CCU)

Since the September 2006 report, Canada, through the Mackenzie Gas Project - Crown Consultation Unit (MGP-CCU) continued to co-ordinate consultation activities with Environment Canada (EC), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), and Transport Canada (TC). Each department has a distinct role in relation to the project and it is described below3. This information was also shared directly with Aboriginal communities (see Volume 2, Tab A).

1 The “Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project” submitted to the National Energy Board on September 8, 2006 covered the period up to August 9, 2006. 2 Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35 3 The description of the roles of the departments is similar to that in the “Report on Canada’s Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project” submitted to the National Energy Board on September 8, 2006.

Page 1 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

Environment Canada (EC)4:

• Responsible Authority under Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Responsible Minister under Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA); • Provides specialist advice on: ƒ toxic chemicals, emergency planning, preparation and response, air/water pollutants; ƒ hydrology, climate and climate change impact and adaptation; ƒ species at risk, migratory birds and protected areas; ƒ ocean disposal of dredged materials; and ƒ cumulative effects, monitoring and follow-up; • Will enforce some provisions of the Fisheries Act, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and Migratory Birds Convention Act; • Will receive project permit applications under the Migratory Birds Convention Act – Migratory Bird Sanctuary Regulations, and has permitting responsibilities under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act for disposal at sea; and • Will enforce and may issue permits under the Species at Risk Act.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO):

• Responsible Authority under Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Responsible Minister under Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA), and has responsibilities under the Fisheries Act and the Species at Risk Act; • Will receive applications for authorizations under the Fisheries Act; • Would provide enforcement under the Fisheries Act; • Determines impacts on fish, marine animals, fisheries and their habitats; • Considers and recommends ways to avoid or mitigate impacts; • Determines, in consultation with other departments and stakeholders, appropriate levels of compensation for impacts; and • Conducts scientific research to support the review of the project.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC):

The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development:

• Is a responsible Authority under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern

4 Regarding the role of Environment Canada, in addition to what is discussed in this section, in the fall 2006, Exhibit J-EC-00114 was submitted to the JRP. This 21 page document provides more detail about Environment Canada's mandate, role and responsibilities.

Page 2 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

Development is a Responsible Minister under Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA); • Minister is the responsible federal Minister for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Act, Northwest Territories Act; • Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Minister for Natural Resources are the responsible federal ministers for the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act; • Regulatory role: Territorial Lands Act, Northwest Territories Waters Act; • Provides funding to Aboriginal groups in support of community engagement in the review of the MGP; • Minister responsible for the implementation of land claims; and • Minister has a role with northern regulatory boards such as the NWT Water Board and Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, and his approval is required for certain licenses and permits.

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan):

• Minister is responsible for preparing and submitting the Order-in-Council to implement the decision of the National Energy Board with respect to the MGP and is a Federal Authority pursuant to s. 12(3) of CEAA, providing specialist and expert information to the JRP in the areas of: ƒ Surficial, bedrock, engineering and petroleum geology ƒ Fluvial, coastal and marine geomorphology and processes ƒ Permafrost conditions ƒ Geotechnical and pipeline engineering ƒ Slope stability ƒ Gas hydrates ƒ Earthquake and seismic hazards ƒ Materials technology ƒ Forestry ƒ Terrain sensitivity and response to climate change

Transport Canada (TC):

• Has regulatory role for the safety and security of the air, surface, and marine modes of transportation; and • Has approval authority under the Navigable Waters Protection Act and section 108 of the National Energy Board Act.

Mackenzie Gas Project Office – Crown Consultation Unit (MGP-CCU):

The MGP-CCU is a federally funded coordinating body. It receives policy and functional guidance from a Senior Review Sub-Committee that includes senior representatives of the departments involved with the MGP.

Page 3 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

The role of the MGP-CCU is outlined in its Terms of Reference5:

• To work with others to provide information regarding the MGP application and project review process; • To engage Aboriginal groups who believe that their section 35 rights may be affected by the MGP; • To organize and facilitate consultations between Aboriginal groups and appropriate federal departments; • To liaise with the proponent, the territorial/provincial government and federal departments; • To document consultation activities, concerns raised by Aboriginal groups, recommendations suggested by Aboriginal groups and relay those back to the federal decision makers.

3. CROWN CONSULTATION AND THE MGP

Canada’s consultations with Aboriginal groups continue to be governed by the laws of Canada, the honour of the Crown, and guidance provided by decisions of the court and include the following principles:

• Strengthening the relationship between Canada and Aboriginal groups; • Acting in a respectful, reasonable and responsive manner; • Raising awareness, sharing information and enabling Aboriginal groups to participate in expressing their concerns ; • Consulting early in the decision-making process; • Harmonizing federal consultation activities with others; and • Moving Aboriginal concerns forward in a coordinated manner within the Government of Canada so the concerns are addressed.

Building on the measures discussed in the September 2006 report, Canada has continued to actively consult with Aboriginal groups based on the above principles. The Government of Canada’s consultation activity since the 2006 report is discussed below.

3.1 How Did We Consult?

Canada undertook its consultation activity in a number of ways, including direct engagement with Aboriginal groups. These efforts are individually outlined below.

5 MGP-CCU Terms of Reference are found in Appendix “A” of the “Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project” submitted to the National Energy Board on September 8, 2006.

Page 4 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

3.1.1 The Joint Review Panel and National Energy Board Hearing Processes

Throughout the period of this Update, Canada monitored and had officials attend virtually all Joint Review Panel (JRP) and relevant National Energy Board (NEB) hearings in order to hear the concerns and recommendations of Aboriginal groups. Canada also monitored both written submissions and those that were raised by Aboriginal groups and individuals during the hearings themselves. In addition, officials reviewed the hearing summaries as these documents highlighted any Section 35 related concerns that were raised by Aboriginal groups. As part of its work, representatives of the federal government continued to prepare Daily Summaries of hearing information for internal distribution.

3.1.2 Information on Aboriginal Concerns Provided by the Proponent

Canada reviewed the Proponent’s Project Update that was submitted in May 2007 to better understand the parameters of the project and to review the concerns expressed to the Proponent by Aboriginal groups in its consultation activities.

Canada also regularly met with the Proponent (every six weeks, on average) to share information on matters pertaining to consultation. The frequency of these meetings declined over the latter stages of the Update period, however Canada continued to meet with the Proponent to share information on matters pertaining to consultation between 2006 and 2009.

3.2 Direct Consultations

A significant aspect of Canada's approach to consultations with affected Aboriginal groups involved direct, community-level consultation combined with meetings with Chiefs and Councils, or Presidents of those groups. These engagements were used to share project information and information regarding the roles of the federal departments and regulating bodies, as well as to record community concerns and recommendations. As well, information obtained from Aboriginal submissions to the JRP was validated and elaborated upon, and, in some cases, federal departments provided written responses to community concerns and recommendations.

Evidence of Canada's direct consultation with regions and communities, including tables, letters, and/or meeting notes, forms part of this Update and are found in Volumes 4 and 5. The section 3.1 materials from the Consultation Binders (which are discussed further below) are found in Volumes 2 and 3.

3.2.1 Who Did We Consult?

Canada has focused its consultation efforts on the following five regions/groups:

• Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR);

Page 5 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

• Gwich’in Settlement Area (GSA); • Sahtu Settlement Area (SSA); • Dehcho First Nation; and • Dene Tha’ First Nation.

As part of its interest in a robust consultation effort, Canada also contacted the following Aboriginal groups in rough proximity to the pipeline RoW:

• Hay River Métis Council; • Tlicho First Nation Government; • Akaitcho Territory Dene First Nations, which is comprised of the Yellowknives Dene First Nation (communities of Dettah and Ndilo), Lutsel K’e First Nation (community of Lutsel K’e), and Deninu Kue First Nation (community of Fort Resolution); • Northwest Territories Métis Nation; • Nacho Nyak Dun First Nation; and • Treaty Eight First Nations of Alberta.

For a small number of communities, the consultation record is limited. Some communities advised Canada that they did not wish to be consulted. Other communities failed to respond to repeated requests, and this non-response was interpreted as lack of interest in consultation. After several unsuccessful attempts, Canada determined that no further effort would be expended to engage these communities in consultation.

3.2.2 Process for Direct Consultation

The general procedure followed by Canada to engage Aboriginal communities in consultation was as follows:6

• Send an introductory letter; • Send a follow up letter, with a telephone call if no response; • Arrange initial meetings with the community; • Send out materials to the community to publicize the meeting; • Arrange for translators, if necessary; • Arrange meeting facility and refreshments; • Attend meetings, along with representatives of federal departments. At the meeting, MGP-CCU and federal representatives provided to the community a general description of the project, a review of maps relevant to the community, a description of the MGP-CCU, and the departmental representative provided information on how their department was involved in the review of the project and in the issuance of relevant permits; • Transcribe notes made at the meeting, and send to the community for

6 This procedure is the same as that reported in the “Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project submitted to the National Energy Board on September 9, 2006.

Page 6 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

review for accuracy; and • Send meeting notes to the appropriate department for information or action, as necessary.

At times, Canada issued letters to Aboriginal communities to advise them of upcoming opportunities to express their views, and to explain pending events in the regulatory process. Examples of this correspondence can be found in Volume 2, Tab B.

It is important to note that the above is a general description of the consultation process. As community needs and circumstances varied, the consultation process accommodated these differences. For example, in some cases, the entire community was involved in the introductory consultation process, and in other cases meetings with leadership, elders and/or specific groups (such as Renewable Resource Committees) were the focus. Where meetings were held exclusively with elected representatives of the communities, Canada recognized the ability of those leaders to express the concerns of the broader community.

3.3 Consultation Binder

“Consultation Binders” were developed and used to accumulate volumes of complex information being shared and captured. In addition, Consultation Binders were used to facilitate meetings, and to provide written federal responses to Aboriginal concerns. Meetings with participating communities focused on confirming Canada's understanding of concerns and recommendations by validating the information contained in Section 3.1 of the Consultation Binder, and to provide any additional information or clarification to the written responses provided by each federal department. Canada inquired directly with each community to ascertain if they were satisfied with consultations to date.

Each update on consultation activities includes the Section 3.1 segment7 of the Consultation Binder for each community or region, and follow up letters sent to each community (where applicable). Comprehensive examples of other information included in the Consultation Binder can be found in Volumes 2 and 3 of this Update.

4. FUNDING

As noted above, Canada’s consultation activity has been guided by the principles of raising awareness, sharing information and ensuring that Aboriginal groups are able to express their concerns and views with respect to the MGP. In practical terms, Canada understands that, in some circumstances, this can require the provision of financial support to Aboriginal groups to assist them in planning, preparing for, and expressing their concerns directly to the decision makers.

7 Section 3.1 of the Consultation Binder sets out the record of consultation with each community or region.

Page 7 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

INAC, on behalf of the federal government, has provided up to $1 million annually to Northerners, primarily Aboriginal groups, to engage in the environmental review process and to prepare for potential development opportunities resulting from the MGP, should it proceed. Intervener funding was also made available to Aboriginal interveners participating in both the NEB and JRP processes.

The specific MGP-related funding programs are outlined below.8

4.1 Funding Related to the Environmental Assessment Process

4.1.1 Interim Resource Management Assistance Program (IRMA)

These funds strengthen the ability of (mainly) Dehcho communities to participate in MGP related land and resource management activities and associated pressures. In 2009/10 these funds were used by Dehcho communities to review the JRP Report recommendations and prepare for the upcoming regulatory process.

4.1.2 Pipeline Division – MGP Community Capacity

Funding was made available to communities across the Mackenzie Valley and Beaufort Region (including ISR, GSA, SSA, Dehcho First Nations, and Dene Tha’ First Nations) in support of ongoing Aboriginal engagement and participation in the review of the MGP. In 2009-10, funding was provided to support the review of the JRP report, and prepare for the upcoming regulatory phase.

4.2 Funding Related to Mitigation

INAC (and GNWT and others) has provided funding to Aboriginal groups to develop community-based mitigations for consideration by Regulators in anticipated regulatory authorizations, and or/ inclusion in any future proponent management plans. Community based studies focused primarily on wildlife, water quality, and barge management.

4.2.1 Sambaa K‘e Dene Band – Trout Lake (SKDB)

In 2009/10, funding was provided to the Sambaa K‘e Dene Band – Trout Lake (SKDB) to "engage the community in a detailed review of wildlife management plans associated with pipeline construction, to review current planning practices in light of SKDB research relating to woodland caribou and in relation to SKDB traditional interests, and to prepare a report that more clearly articulates SKDB expectations with respect to MGP wildlife management planning, with a particular focus on woodland caribou". Funding deliverables include recommendations for

8 These programs are in addition to funds provided to the Aboriginal Pipeline Group.

Page 8 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

the mitigation of MGP impacts on woodland caribou populations over-wintering in the proposed MGP corridor area that is within the SKDB traditional land use area. This report will be submitted to INAC, the MGP-CCU, GNWT, and the NEB.

4.2.2 Fort Providence

In 2008/09, funding was provided to Fort Providence to develop community based information with respect to management of barge traffic and routing for inclusion in any proponent management plan and further, for consideration by appropriate Regulators in developing authorizations.

4.2.3 Other

INAC provided funding to Aboriginal communities to participate in water quality monitoring/testing; funds were also used to train community monitors in anticipation of developments such as the MGP (Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program envelope).

Finally, the MGP-CCU provided funding to communities as Consultation Support Funding to reimburse Aboriginal groups for expenses incurred in the course of meetings with Canada.

5. GOING FORWARD

Canada continues to plan and prepare for ongoing consultation as part of the Government Response to the JRP report and through to the regulatory phase should the project proceed to this stage.

Although it is outside of the reporting period covered by this Update, on January 8, 2010, Canada provided additional information to Aboriginal communities regarding post-Panel activities. A copy of this January 2010 correspondence is also included in Volume 2, Tab B.

6. SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES TO DATE

Details of Canada’s consultation activities can be found in Tables in Volumes 4 and 5. For the convenience of the NEB, the following narrative represents a summary of Canada’s consultation activities and the general concerns expressed by Aboriginal groups/communities and any recommendations made by them.

Page 9 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

7. INUVIALUIT SETTLEMENT REGION (ISR)

The Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) is located immediately to the north of the Gwich’in Settlement area and extends north into the Beaufort Sea. There are six communities in the ISR, two on or near the Mackenzie Delta (Inuvik, and Aklavik), three that are coastal (Holman, Paulatuk, and Sachs Harbour), one that is on or near the Mackenzie Delta and coastal (Tuktoyaktuk).

A detailed overview of the consultations, the concerns of the ISR, meeting notes and other relevant material are found in Volume 4, Tab D. Highlights of the Crown’s record of consultation with the ISR include the following.

On November 6 and 7, 2006, a Crown consultation meeting was held in Inuvik between the MGP-CCU and federal and territorial government departments and with ISR organizations. Several presentations were made by the various parties, and numerous regional concerns were discussed. Volume 2, Tab B contains the meeting notes.

On June 10, 2007, Environment Canada, the GNWT and the MGP-CCU participated in a meeting with the Inuvialuit Game Council (IGC) in Tuktoyaktuk, as a follow up to the November 6 and 7, 2006 Crown consultation meeting. EC made a presentation on air quality, migratory birds, and regulatory roles and responsibilities and a number of Inuvialuit concerns were discussed.

On August 22, 2007, a letter by the Federal Project Co-ordination Secretariat was issued which in part, notified the Inuvialuit of the JRP’s Topic 17 Hearing; the intent of which was to allow communities to provide recommendations to mitigate impacts. This letter is found in Volume 2, Tab B.

Based on prior meetings with the ISR and the ISR submissions to the JRP, an Inuvialuit MGP Consultation Binder was prepared and distributed within the ISR on October 12, 2007. Section 3.1 of the Binder highlighted Canada’s initial response to concerns raised in the ISR during previous consultations. Section 3.1 of the ISR Consultation Binder is found in Volume 2, Tab C - ISR.

On November 27, 2007, the MGP-CCU visited the IGC to gauge their interest in further meetings. This and subsequent efforts by the MGP-CCU in late 2007 and early 2008 resulted in various Inuvialuit organizations responding that they were presently too busy to engage in further consultation.

On January 25, 2008, the MGP-CCU sent a letter to the Inuvialuit Joint Secretariat (IJS) and IGC summarizing the Crown’s consultation effort to date in the Inuvialuit region. The letter also stated that, since the ISR had made no further requests to schedule follow-up meetings, Canada would consider that the Inuvialuit was

Page 10 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

satisfied with the consultation efforts to date. No reply to this letter was ever received.

Based on the above, and the activities reported in the Crown’s log of ISR consultation activity (see Volume 4, Tab D), Canada concludes that consultation with the Inuvialuit has been adequate to this stage of the MGP.

7.1 Consultations with the Inuvialuit

Following this section is a letter sent by the Government of Canada to the IGC and the IJS which seeks to confirm the Inuvialuit Settlement Region’s satisfaction with consultations to date.

7.2 Summary of Concerns

The concerns expressed by the Inuvialuit in meetings with Canada and in information presented to the JRP are summarized in the tables found in Volume 4, Tab D.

Page 11 of 58 March 15, 2010 Page 12 of 58 Page 13 of 58 Page 14 of 58 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

8. GWICH’IN SETTLEMENT AREA (GSA)

The Gwich’in Tribal Council (GTC) represents the interests of the Designated Gwich’in Organizations as well as the Renewable Resources Councils from each of the 4 communities within the Gwich’in Settlement Area (GSA). The GTC is an intervener before the NEB and JRP. Gwich’in communities include the communities of Inuvik, Aklavik, Arctic Red River (Tsiigehtchic) and Fort McPherson.

The following is a summary of the consultation activities with the Gwich’in. A detailed overview of the consultations held with the Gwich’in and their concerns are found in the Section 3.1 Tables which are reproduced in Volume 2, Tab C - GSA, meeting notes and other supporting material can be found in Volume 4, Tab E.

Between September 2006 and early January 2007, Canada attempted to schedule Crown consultation meetings with the GTC. Further, during this period, the MGP- CCU attempted to contact the Gwich’in Renewable Resource Board (GRRB) for the purpose of scheduling consultations.

On January 31, 2007, the MGP-CCU met informally with the Inuvik Native Band to explain the MGP-CCU’s mandate, the consultations between the MGP-CCU, federal departments and the Gwich’in, and to ascertain whether the Inuvik Native Band had any interest in meeting with government to discuss their MGP concerns.

Also on January 31, 2007, Canada co-hosted a public meeting with the Tetlit Gwich’in’s Renewable Resource Committee and elders in Fort McPherson. The purpose of this meeting was to share information from federal departments and hear community concerns regarding the MGP.

On March 1, 2007, the MGP-CCU forwarded a letter to the Tetlit Gwich’in which included draft meeting notes from the January 31 meeting.

On November 7, 2007, the MGP-CCU met with the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the Gwich’in Tribal Council in Inuvik to discuss general issues of concern for the GTC. It was an opportunity to inform the GTC of the MGP-CCU and federal departments’ consultation efforts, and to hear what the GTC thought about the consultation process to date. When asked if he had any suggestions for improving further consultation activities, the COO responded that the GTC did not see much of a need for any further consultation. He also noted that the Gwich’in believe that their rights are adequately protected within their Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement.

Based on the above, and the activities reported in the Crown’s log of GSA consultation activity (see Volume 4, Tab E), Canada concludes that consultation with the GSA has been adequate to this stage of the MGP.

Page 15 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

8.1 Consultations with the Gwich’in

Following this section is a letter from the Government of Canada to Fred Carmichael of the GTC seeking confirmation of the GSA’s satisfaction with consultations to date.

8.2 Summary of concerns

The concerns expressed by the Gwich’in in meetings with Canada and in information presented to the JRP are summarized in the tables attached found in Volume 4, Tab E.

Page 16 of 58 March 15, 2010 Page 17 of 58 Page 18 of 58 Page 19 of 58 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

9. SAHTU SETTLEMENT AREA (SSA)

There are 3 districts in the Sahtu Settlement Area: K’asho Got’ine District (Colville Lake and Fort Good Hope), Deline District (Deline), Tulita District (Norman Wells and Tulita). Communities within the Sahtu include: Tulita, Fort Good Hope, Norman Wells, Deline, and Colville Lake. The District Land Corporations in the SSA are supported by the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated (SSI) which is a joint Sahtu Dene and Métis regional Aboriginal organization. For consultation purposes, the SSI specified that consultations should take place in each Sahtu District with each Sahtu community.

The Sahtu Renewable Resources Board (SRRB) is the main instrument of wildlife management in the settlement area and sets policy, legislation and regulation. The SRRB is an intervener in the NEB proceedings and in the JRP, along with the Sahtu Secretariat Inc. The SRRB filed with the JRP a report relating to Key Harvesting Issues Pertaining to the Proposed Mackenzie Gas Project.

The following is a summary of Canada’s consultation activities held with the Sahtu Dene and Métis, their concerns, and any recommendations from the Sahtu Dene and Métis. A detailed overview of the consultation activities held with the Sahtu Dene and Métis and their concerns can be found in Volume 4, Tab F.

Between September 2006 and July 2007, the MGP-CCU made several attempts to schedule consultations with Sahtu Dene and Métis organizations. These attempts to meet, for various reasons, were not always successful, however, Sahtu area meetings were eventually held in the following locations:

• Norman Wells on May 26, 2008; • Colville Lakes on May 9, 2007 (in FGH) and June 4, 2008; • Deline on June 5, 2008; • Tulita on August 12, 2008; and • Fort Good Hope on April 23, 2007 and May 9, 2007.

Based on the above, and the activities reported in the Crown’s log of SSA consultation activity (see Volume 4, Tab F), Canada concludes that consultation with the SSA has been adequate to this stage of the MGP.

Based on prior meetings with the SSA and the SSA submissions to the JRP, a Sahtu MGP Consultation Binder was prepared and distributed within the SSA. Section 3.1 of the Binder highlighted Canada’s initial response to concerns raised in the SSA during, previous consultations. Section 3.1 of the SSA Consultation Binder is found in Volume 2, Tab C - SSA.

Page 20 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

9.1 Consultations with the Sahtu Dene and Métis

Following is a letter issued by the Government of Canada to communities located within the SSA seeking to confirm the SSA’s satisfaction with consultations to date.

9.2 Summary of Concerns

The concerns expressed by the Sahtu in meetings and in information presented to the JRP are summarized in the tables found in Volume 4, Tab F.

Page 21 of 58 March 15, 2010 Page 22 of 58 Page 23 of 58 Page 24 of 58 Page 25 of 58 Page 26 of 58 Page 27 of 58 Page 28 of 58 Government Gouvernement 1+1 of Canada du Canada Crown Consultation Groupe de consultation Unit de la Couronne

Suite 725 bureau 725 9700 Jasper Avenue 9700, avenue Jasper Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton (Alberta) T5J 4C3 T5J 4C3

Chief Frank Andrew President Wilfred Lennie Tulita Dene Band Tulita Renewable Resource Council P.O Box 118 P.O Box 27 Tulita NT XOE OKO Tulita NT XOE OKO

President Clarence Campbell President Rocky Norwegian Tulita Land Corp. Tulita Metis Land Corp P.O. Box 63 P.O Box 36 Tulita NT XOE OKO Tulilta NT XOE OKO

Re: August 12,2008 meeting of the Tulita Dene Band, the Tulita Renewable Resource Council (TRRC), the Tulita Land Corp, the Tulita Metis Land Corp.and the Government of Canada regarding Aboriginal Consultation on the Mackenzie Gas Project (MGP)

Please find attached our draft notes from our above referenced meeting. While it was unfortunate that the Land Corporations could not attend our meeting, we found the meeting to be productive and useful in reviewing the contents of the Sahtu Consultation Binder and the federal responses contained therein.

Kindly review the enclosed draft notes. We look to enter the notes to our records by December 31, 2008. With this date in mind, we look forward to receiving your comments, if any by December 31th 2008. Should we not receive any comments from you by then, the notes will be entered into our records as final.

At the conclusion of our meeting you indicated that you are satisfied with the consultations to date. That is to say, all concerns raised by Tulita have been noted, passed on to the appropriate government authority and have been addressed to the extent possible at this stage of the MGP with the understanding that some concerns will be addressed during the regulatory phase of the project. Should this be a misunderstanding on our part please contact me and we can discuss the possibility of a future meeting with you. Otherwise, we will await the Final Report of the Joint Review Panel and contact you at that time to discuss next steps.

Page 29 of 58 Notwithstanding the above, if you have any questions or if at any time you wish to be consulted on any of your concerns relating to a potential infringement of the MGP on your Aboriginal or Treaty rights please feel free to contact me by phone or email below.

John Benedik Senior Consultation Specialist, MGPO-CCU Crown Consultation Unit

725,9700 Jasper Avenue Edmonton, AB T5J 4C3 Phone: (780) 495-8713 Fax: (780) 495-4582 Email: [email protected]

C.c. Chris Loewen, Project Leader, MGPO-CCU Nicola Johnson, Fisheries and Oceans Christine Wan, Transport Canada Bernard Larochelle, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Warren Fenton, Environment Canada Keith Hickling, Government of the NWT Steve Deschene, INAC Patti Szkwarok, MGPO-CCU

Canada Page 30 of 58 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

10. DENE THA’ FIRST NATIONS (DTFN)

On November 10, 2006, the Federal Court held that the government breached its duty to consult with the DTFN. Following this decision, the DTFN Settlement Agreement (DTFNSA) was negotiated. The terms of the DTFNSA include protocols (such as the MGP Consultation Protocol) to guide future consultations between the Dene Tha’ and Canada for the MGP and other projects in DTFN traditional territory requiring federal authorizations, the payment of funds by Canada, and the removal of DTFN recommendations and objections filed in the JRP process9.

Consultation activities with the Dene Tha’ First Nation are, therefore, divided into two distinct time frames: prior to November 10, 2006 (pre-ruling) and post November 10, 2006 (post-ruling). Highlights of the Crown’s record of consultation with the DTFN include the following.

Pre-ruling, a meeting with the DTFN was held on August 26, 2006. Discussions focused on roles and responsibilities of Departments and Regulators and on the concerns and recommendations of the DTFN as they relate to consultation processes and MGP infringements.

Post-ruling, in accordance with the terms set out in the DTFNSA, Canada continued to meet and consult with the DTFN throughout 2007, 2008 and 2009.

Based on meetings with the DTFN and DTFN submissions to the JRP, Canada prepared a MGP Consultation Binder. On September 5, 2007, Canada met with the DTFN in Yellowknife, NT. The purpose of the meeting was to share and discuss Canada’s responses to DTFN concerns. See Volume 4, Tab G.

The above and the supporting materials included in Volume 4, Tab G, constitutes the body of Canada’s Update on Consultation Activities with the Dene Tha’ First Nation to this stage in the MGP regulatory process.

Based on the above, and the activities reported in the Crown’s log of DTFN consultation activity (see Volume 4, Tab G), Canada concludes that consultation with the DTFN has been adequate to this stage of the MGP.

10.1 Summary of Concerns

The concerns expressed by the DTFN in meetings with Canada and in information presented to the JRP are summarized in tables found in Volume 4, Tab G.

9 On October 10, 2007, Robert Freedman, counsel for the DTFN provided a letter to the JRP stating that the DTFN withdraw all their recommendations filed with the JRP in 2006. (Volume 4, Tab G)

Page 31 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

11. DEHCHO FIRST NATION (DFN)

11.1 Overview

Since August 10, 2006, consultations with the DFN have been conducted on a community by community basis. Canada has consulted extensively, but with some exceptions as not every Council within the DFN agreed to meet and participate in consultations. A consultation binder was prepared for each DFN community who participated in consultations.

As a result of this extensive consultation, Canada is informed of the communities’ concerns relating to possible infringements that may arise as regulatory processes and activities supporting the MGP proceed.

Canada reviewed its understanding of concerns at the community level, whereupon Canada sought to confirm that the community was satisfied with consultations held to that stage of the Environmental Assessment.

Based on the activities reported in the Crown’s log of consultation activity (see Volumes 4 and 5 - Tabs G to R), Canada concludes that consultation with the DFN has been adequate to this stage of the MGP.

11.2 Workshops and Information Sessions

On March 10, 2009, the Government of Canada funded and participated in a regulatory workshop in Trout Lake, NT with selected DFN communities. The purpose of this workshop was to share the information Canada had regarding post- panel and regulatory stage consultations. Written answers were given in response to questions arising from the workshop. These responses and other workshop material are presented in Volume 2, Tab B.

11.3 DFN Communities

The following is a summary of the meetings that have been held with DFN Communities. A more detailed log of consultation activities within the DFN can be found in Volumes 4 and 5.

Page 32 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

11.3.1 Pehdzeh Ki First Nation – Wrigley (PKFN)

Characterized by periodic changes in leadership, consultations between Canada and the Crown continued until August 2008 when the Pehdzeh Ki First Nation (PKFN) Council determined that consultations should be paused. Highlights of the Crown’s record of consultation with the PKFN include the following.

Canada met with the PKFN community on October 5, 2006 in Wrigley, and had a subsequent meeting with the PKFN Council on March 14, 2007 in Yellowknife. The MGP-CCU and federal departments introduced themselves, answered questions, attempted to familiarize community members with the EA process supporting the MGP, listened to community concerns and consulted with leadership on the best way to approach the community.

A subsequent community meeting was held on May 15, 2007 in Wrigley and Canada again introduced the community to the roles and responsibilities of federal departments, the EA process and the consultation process. Based on prior meetings with the PKFN and PKFN submissions to the JRP, Canada prepared a MGP Consultation Binder and introduced the binder to the PKFN. Section 3.1 of the PKFN Consultation Binder is found in Volume 2, Tab C - PKFN. See Volume 4, Tab H for additional material relating to consultations with the PKFN.

On August 22, 2007, a letter by the Federal Project Co-ordination Secretariat was issued which in part, notified the PKFN of the JRP’s Topic 17 Hearing; the intent of which was to allow communities to provide recommendations to mitigate impacts. See Volume 2, Tab B.

On July 29, 2008, representatives of the MGP-CCU met with PKFN Council to discuss the potential for another meeting with the PKFN, to review minor amendments to the Consultation Binder and to obtain input from the community on consultations going forward into the next stages of the MGP.

On December 17, 2008, Canada sent a letter to the PKFN which set out the attempts to arrange additional meetings with the PKFN. The letter also stated that the Government of Canada understood the PKFN to be satisfied with consultations to date. The letter follows at the end of this section.

On March 10, 2009, Canada funded and participated in a workshop with selected Dehcho First Nations including the Sambaa K’e Dene Band, the Liidlii Kue First Nation, and the Tthets’ éhk’e Déli First Nation of Jean Marie River. The purpose of this workshop was to share the information Canada had regarding post-panel and regulatory stage consultations. Canada was advised that the PKFN were invited to this workshop, however, they did not attend. See Volume 2, Tab B.

Based on our letter dated December 17, 2008, Canada did not undertake additional consultations with this First Nation through 2009. The above, with supporting materials included in Volume 4, Tab H, constitutes the body of

Page 33 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

Canada’s Update on Consultation Activities with the PKFN to this stage in the MGP regulatory process.

Based on the above, and the activities reported in the Crown’s log of PKFN consultation activity (see Volume 4, Tab H), Canada concludes that consultation with the PKFN has been adequate to this stage of the MGP.

Summary of Concerns

The concerns expressed by the PKFN in meetings with Canada and in information presented to the JRP are summarized in tables found in Volume 4, Tab H.

Page 34 of 58 March 15, 2010 Page 35 of 58 Page 36 of 58 Page 37 of 58 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

11.3.2 Liidlii Kue First Nation – Fort Simpson (LKFN)

Early in the consultation process, Canada received instruction that efforts at consultation on the MGP should be co-ordinated between the Fort Simpson Métis and Liidlii Kue First Nation. The LKFN were initially cautious in their approach to MGP consultation. Highlights of the Crown’s record of consultation with the Liidlii Kue First Nation are as follows.

Canada, the LKFN Council and the Fort Simpson Métis met on May 2 and 3, 2007 in Fort Simpson, NT. A verbal presentation was made to the tri-Council meeting on May 2. Representatives from the MGP-CCU introduced themselves, answered questions, attempted to familiarize Council members with the EA process supporting the MGP and to consult with the leadership on the best way to approach the community. Canada was again informed that the LKFN and local Métis work closely and the MGP-CCU was advised to seek concurrent meetings whenever meetings were being arranged in the Fort Simpson area.

A subsequent community meeting was held on June 13, 2007 in Fort Simpson and Canada introduced the community to the roles and responsibilities of federal departments, the EA process and the consultation process. Based on prior meetings with the LKFN and LKFN submissions to the JRP, Canada prepared a MGP Consultation Binder and introduced the Binder to the LKFN. Section 3.1 of the LKFN Consultation Binder is found in Volume 3, Tab C – LKFN.

On August 22, 2007 a letter by the Federal Project Co-ordination Secretariat was issued which in part, notified the LKFN of the JRP’s Topic 17 Hearing; the intent of which was to allow communities to provide recommendations to mitigate impacts. See Volume 2, Tab B.

Letters dated September 18 and September 28 2007 were sent confirming Canada’s interest in consulting with the LKFN. See Volume 4, Tab I.

On October 19 2007, Canada met with the LKFN in Fort Simpson. The purpose of this meeting was to review the contents of the MGP Consultation Binder prepared by Canada for the LKFN and to ascertain Canada’s understanding of LKFN concerns and recommendations. See Volume 4, Tab I for meeting notes.

On March 10, 2009, Canada funded and participated in a workshop with selected Dehcho First Nations including the Sambaa K’e Dene Band, the LKFN and the Tthets’ éhk’e Déli First Nation of Jean Marie River. The purpose of this workshop was to share what information Canada possessed with regard to post-panel and regulatory stage consultations. We understand that copies of all materials were sent to the LKFN by the workshop facilitator. See Volume 2, Tab B.

Canada’s attempts to schedule another meeting for May 26, 2009 did not yield any further meetings.

Page 38 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

Based on the above, and the activities reported in the Crown’s log of LKFN consultation activity (see Volume 4, Tab I), Canada concludes that consultation with the LKFN has been adequate to this stage of the MGP.

Summary of Concerns

The concerns expressed by the LKFN in meetings with Canada and in information presented to the JRP are summarized in tables found in Volume 4, Tab I.

Page 39 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

11.3.3 Fort Simpson Métis Nation (FSMN)

Early in the consultation process, Canada received instruction that efforts at consultation on the MGP should be co-ordinated between the Métis of Fort Simpson and Liidlii Kue First Nation (LKFN). Highlights of the Crown’s record of consultation with the FSMN include the following.

Canada and the FSMN met on February 14, 2007 in Fort Simpson. Information on the MGP-CCU and the federal government’s approach to consultation was shared. President Lafferty informed the federal representatives that the Métis will work closely with the LKFN. Then, Ms. Lafferty went on to express some concerns on behalf of her membership.

Canada, the FSMN, and the Liidlii Kue First Nation Council, met on May 2 and May 3, 2007 in Fort Simpson, NT. A verbal presentation was made to the tri-Council meeting on May 2. Representatives from the MGP-CCU introduced themselves, answered questions, attempted to familiarize Council members with the EA process supporting the MGP and to consult with leadership on the best way to approach the community. Canada was again informed that the LKFN and local Métis work closely and the MGP-CCU was advised to seek concurrent meetings whenever meetings were being arranged in the Fort Simpson area.

A subsequent community meeting was held on June 13, 2007 in Fort Simpson where Canada introduced the community to the roles and responsibilities of federal departments, the EA process and the consultation process. Based on prior meetings with the FSMN, Canada prepared a MGP Consultation Binder and introduced the Binder to the FSMN. Section 3.1 of the FSMN Consultation Binder is found in Volume 3, Tab C – FSMN.

On August 22, 2007, a letter by the Federal Project Co-ordination Secretariat was issued which in part, notified the FSMN of the JRP’s Topic 17 Hearing; the intent of which was to allow communities to provide recommendations to mitigate impacts. See Volume 2, Tab B.

Canada’s attempts to schedule another meeting for the spring of 2009 did not yield any further meetings.

The above, with supporting materials included in Volume 5, Tab J, constitutes the body of Canada’s Update on Consultation Activities with the FSMN to this stage in the MGP regulatory process.

Based on the above, and the activities reported in the Crown’s log of FSMN consultation activity (see Volume 5, Tab J), Canada concludes that consultation with the FSMN has been adequate to this stage of the MGP.

Page 40 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

Summary of Concerns

The concerns expressed by the FSMN in meetings with Canada and in information presented to the JRP are summarized in tables found in Volume 5, Tab J.

Page 41 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

11.3.4 Tthets’ éhk’e Déli First Nation – Jean Marie River First Nation (JMRFN)

Since August 10, 2006, Canada and the JMRF Nation have met three times to discuss and consult on matters relating to the MGP. Highlights of the Crown’s record of consultation with the JMRFN include the following.

Canada and the JMRFN Council met on April 19, 2007 in Jean Marie River to share information with community members on the role of federal departments, to listen to community concerns and recommendations, and to discuss and facilitate consultations.

A subsequent community meeting was held on June 12, 2007 in Jean Marie River where Canada introduced the community to the roles and responsibilities of federal departments, the EA process and the consultation process. Members of JMRFN elaborated on their concerns and recommendations.

On August 22, 2007, a letter by the Federal Project Co-ordination Secretariat was issued which in part, notified the JMRFN of the JRP’s Topic 17 Hearing; the intent of which was to allow communities to provide recommendations to mitigate impacts. See Volume 2, Tab B.

Based on prior meetings and on JMRFN submissions to the JRP, Canada prepared a MGP Consultation Binder. Canada met and reviewed the contents of Section 3.1 of the binder with JMRFN Council in Yellowknife, NT on September 18, 2007. Section 3.1 of the JMRFN Consultation Binder is found in Volume 3, Tab C - JMRFN.

On March 10, 2009, Canada funded and participated in a workshop with selected Dehcho First Nations including the Sambaa K’e Dene Band, the Liidlii Kue First Nation, and the JMRFN. The purpose of this workshop was to share the information Canada had regarding post-panel and regulatory stage consultations. See Volume 2, Tab B.

Canada’s attempts to schedule another meeting for May 26, 2009 did not yield any further meetings.

The above, with supporting materials found in Volume 5, Tab K, constitutes the body of Canada’s Update on Consultation Activities with the JMRFN to this stage in the MGP regulatory process.

Based on the above, and the activities reported in the Crown’s log of JMRFN consultation activity (see Volume 5, Tab K), Canada concludes that consultation with the JMRFN has been adequate to this stage of the MGP.

Page 42 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

Summary of Concerns

The concerns expressed by the JMRFN in meetings with Canada and in information presented to the JRP are summarized in tables attached as Volume 5, Tab K.

Page 43 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

11.3.5 Sambaa K’e Dene Band – Trout Lake (SKDB)

The Sambaa K’e Dene Band participated in consultations early in the process, and since Canada filed its report on consultation activities with the NEB on September 8, 2006, the SKDB continued to meet and discuss their concerns with Canada. Highlights of the Crown’s record of consultation with this First Nation include the following.

On August 14, 2006, Canada met with the SKDB in Trout Lake, NT to follow up on previous meetings and to discuss the July 7, 2006 letter from the SKDB to the JRP.

On August 22, 2007, a letter by the Federal Project Co-ordination Secretariat was issued which in part, notified the SKDB of the JRP’s Topic 17 Hearing; the intent of which was to allow communities to provide recommendations to mitigate impacts. See Volume 2, Tab B.

Based on prior meetings with the SKDB and SKDB submissions to the JRP, Canada prepared a MGP Consultation Binder. On September 12, 2007, Canada met with the SKDB in Yellowknife, NT. The purpose of the meeting was to share and discuss Canada’s responses to SKDB concerns. A copy of the MGP Consultation Binder and the government recommendations made to the JRP to date were shared with SKDB participants prior to the meeting. Section 3.1 of the SKDB Consultation Binder is found in Volume 3, Tab C - SKDB.

On June 3, 2008, Canada met with the SKDB in Yellowknife, NT. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the contents of the letter dated May 23, 2008 from Mr. Lojek (SKDB legal counsel).

On March 10, 2009, Canada funded and participated in a workshop with selected Dehcho First Nations including the SKDB, the Liidlii Kue First Nation, and the Tthets’ éhk’e Déli First Nation of Jean Marie River. The purpose of this workshop was to share the information Canada had regarding post-panel and regulatory stage consultations. See Volume 2, Tab B.

On November 25, 2009, Canada met with the SKDB in Trout Lake, NT to review SKDB concerns relating to the MGP and to discuss Canada’s approach to post- panel consultations and to review Section 3.1 of the SKDB Consultation Binder. See meeting notes in Volume 5, Tab L.

The above, with supporting materials included in Volume 5, Tab L, constitutes the body of Canada’s Update on Consultation Activities with the Sambaa K’e Dene Band to this stage in the MGP regulatory process.

Based on the above, and the activities reported in the Crown’s log of SKDB consultation activity (see Volume 5, Tab L), Canada concludes that consultation with the SKDB has been adequate to this stage of the MGP.

Page 44 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

Summary of Concerns

The concerns expressed by the SKDB in meetings with Canada and in information presented to the JRP are summarized in tables found in Volume 5, Tab L.

Page 45 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

11.3.6 Acho Dene Koe First Nation – Fort Liard (ADK)

Between August 10, 2006 and December 31, 2009, the Acho Dene Koe did not participate in direct consultations with Canada. The ADK and the Ft. Liard Métis were approached as one group by Canada. Highlights of the Crown’s record of consultation with the ADK include the following.

Canada sent a letter dated March 15, 2007 to request a meeting with the ADK to discuss matters relating to the MGP. Attached to this letter was a table listing ADK concerns as submitted to the JRP.

On August 22, 2007, a letter by the Federal Project Co-ordination Secretariat was issued which in part, notified the ADK of the JRP’s Topic 17 Hearing; the intent of which was to allow communities to provide recommendations to mitigate impacts. See Volume 2, Tab B.

Based on the ADK’s submissions to the JRP, a Consultation Binder was prepared. On September 26, 2007, a letter was sent to Chief Deneron expressing Canada’s interest to meet and consult on impacts which may arise, should the MGP receive approval to proceed. Canada attached the ADK Consultation Binder to this letter along with a comprehensive list of recommendations Canada was contemplating for submission to the JRP’s Topic 17 Hearing. Section 3.1 of the ADK Consultation Binder is found in Volume 3, Tab C - ADK. See Volume 5, Tab M for additional consultation related material.

Throughout 2006 and 2007, Canada called the ADK Band Office and attempted to discuss the possibility of setting up a consultation meeting. The ADK did not respond.

As Canada has not received any indication from the ADK that they wish to be consulted on matters relating to the MGP, and because this community is quite distant from the MGP RoW, Canada has not pursued any further attempts to consult this First Nation beyond September 2007.

The above, with supporting materials included in Volume 5, Tab M, constitutes the body of Canada’s Update on Consultation Activities with the Acho Dene Koe First Nation to this stage in the MGP regulatory process.

Based on the above, and the activities reported in the Crown’s log of ADK consultation activity (see Volume 5, Tab M), Canada concludes that consultation with the ADK has been adequate to this stage of the MGP.

Summary of Concerns

The concerns expressed by the ADK in meetings with Canada and in information presented to the JRP are summarized in tables attached as Volume 5, Tab M.

Page 46 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

11.3.7 Fort Liard Métis (FLM)

As stated in Canada’s report on consultation filed with the NEB on September 8, 2006, the Fort Liard Métis are not a registered intervener in either the JRP or NEB hearings for the MGP.

Between August 10, 2006 and December 31, 2009, the FLM Métis did not participate in direct consultations with Canada. Highlights of the Crown’s record of consultation with the FLM include the following.

On August 22, 2007, a letter by the Federal Project Co-ordination Secretariat was issued which in part, notified the FLM of the JRP’s Topic 17 Hearing; the intent of which was to allow communities to provide recommendations to mitigate impacts. See Volume 2, Tab B.

Based on the FLM’s limited consultations with Canada, a Consultation Binder was prepared. On September 26, 2007 a letter was sent to President Ernie McLeod expressing Canada’s interest to meet and consult on impacts which may arise should the MGP receive approval to proceed. Canada attached the FLM Consultation Binder to this letter along with a comprehensive list of recommendations Canada was contemplating for submission to the JRP’s Topic 17 Hearing. Section 3.1 of the FLM Consultation Binder is found in Volume 3, Tab C- FLM.

As Canada has not received any expression of interest from the FLM that they wished to be consulted on matters relating to the MGP, and because this community is quite distant from the MGP RoW, Canada has not pursued any further attempts to consult this group beyond September 2007.

The above, with supporting materials included in Volume 5, Tab N, constitutes the body of Canada’s Update on Consultation Activities with the Fort Liard Métis to this stage in the MGP regulatory process.

Based on the above, and the activities reported in the Crown’s log of FLM consultation activity (see Volume 5, Tab N), Canada concludes that consultation with the FLM has been adequate to this stage of the MGP.

Summary of Concerns

The concerns expressed by the FLM in meetings with Canada and in information presented to the JRP are summarized in tables found in Volume 5, Tab N.

Page 47 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

11.3.8 Na_ahdee Dene Band – Nahanni Butte Dene Band (NBDB)

As stated in Canada’s report on consultation filed with the NEB on September 8, 2006, the Nahanni Butte Dene Band is not a registered intervener in either the JRP or NEB hearings for the MGP.

Between August 10, 2006 and December 31, 2009, the NBDB did not participate in direct consultations with Canada. Highlights of the Crown’s record of consultation with the NBDB include the following.

Canada sent a letter dated March 13, 2007 requesting a meeting to discuss matters relating to the MGP. Attached to this letter was a copy of the Terms of Reference for the MGP-CCU.

On August 22, 2007, the Federal Project Co-ordination Secretariat issued a letter which in part, notified the NBDB of the JRP’s Topic 17 Hearing; the intent of which was to allow communities to provide recommendations to mitigate impacts. See Volume 2, Tab B.

Based on the NBDB’s consultations with Canada, a Consultation Binder was prepared. On September 26, 2007, a letter was sent to Chief Vital expressing Canada’s interest to meet and consult on impacts which may arise should the MGP receive approval to proceed. Canada attached the NBDB Consultation Binder to this letter along with a comprehensive list of recommendations Canada was contemplating for submission to the JRP’s Topic 17 Hearing. Section 3.1 of the NBDB Consultation Binder is found in Volume 3, Tab C - NBDB.

As Canada has not received any indication from the NBDB that they wished to be consulted on matters relating to the MGP, and because this community is quite distant from the MGP RoW, Canada has not pursued any further attempts to consult this First Nation beyond September 2007.

The above, with supporting materials included in Volume 5, Tab O constitutes the body of the Crown’s Update on Consultation Activities with the Nahanni Butte Dene Band to this stage in the MGP regulatory process.

Based on the above, and the activities reported in the Crown’s log of NBDB consultation activity (see Volume 5, Tab O), Canada concludes that consultation with the NBDB has been adequate to this stage of the MGP.

Summary of Concerns

The concerns expressed by the NBDB in meetings with Canada and in information presented to the JRP are summarized in tables found in Volume 5, Tab O.

Page 48 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

11.3.9 Deh Gah Got’ie Dene Council and Fort Providence Métis Council

Canada continued to work with both the Deh Gah Got’ie Dene Council (DGGDC) and the Fort Providence Métis (FPM). Highlights of Canada’s record of consultation with the DGGDC include the following.

On September 21, 2006, Canada met with the DGGDC and with the Métis in Fort Providence, NT and, through the MGP-CCU, introduced its approach to Aboriginal consultations, and introduced the federal regulating departments.

On August 22, 2007, the Federal Project Co-ordination Secretariat issued a letter which in part, notified the DGGDC and FPM of the JRP’s Topic 17 Hearing; the intent of which was to allow communities to provide recommendations to mitigate impacts. See Volume 2, Tab B.

Based on information obtained in a meeting with the DGGDC and the FPM in Fort Providence on September 21, 2006, and upon information submitted by the DGGDC to the Joint Review Panel, a Consultation Binder was prepared which contains written responses to DGGDC concerns and recommendations. The Consultation Binder was sent to the Chief and the President, of the DGGDC and FPM respectively, as well as to Council on August 15, 2007. Section 3.1 of the DGGDC Consultation Binder is found in Volume 3, Tab C - DGGDC.

Following our meeting of September 21, 2006, consultation with the DGGDC and FPM has been sporadic. Based on the correspondence exchanged between Canada and the DGGDC and FPM, as set out in Volume 5, Tab P; Canada believes that neither group wishes to pursue consultation with the Crown.

The above, with supporting materials found in Volume 5, Tab P constitutes the body of the Canada’s Update on consultation activities with the Deh Gah Got’ie Dene Council and Fort Providence Métis to this stage in the MGP regulatory process.

Based on the above, and the activities reported in the Crown’s log of DGGDC consultation activity (see Volume 5, Tab P), Canada concludes that consultation with the DGGDC has been adequate to this stage of the MGP.

Summary of Concerns

The concerns expressed by the DGGDC and FPM in meetings with Canada and in information presented to the JRP are summarized in tables attached as Volume 5, Tab P.

Page 49 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

11.3.10 Ka’a’gee Tu First Nation – Kakisa (KTFN)

The August 23, 2006 meeting in Kakisa between the KTFN and Canada (referred to in Canada’s report on consultation filed with the NEB on September 8, 2006) did not occur until September 22, 2006. Highlights of Canada’s record of consultation with the KTFN include the following.

On September 22, 2006, Canada, through the MGP-CCU, introduced its approach to Aboriginal consultations and introduced the federal regulating departments. Members of the KTFN elaborated on their concerns and recommendations.

On May 7, 2007, the Government of Canada met with the KTFN to exchange information and discuss concerns relating to the MGP.

On August 22, 2007, the Federal Project Co-ordination Secretariat issued a letter which in part, notified the KTFN of the JRP’s Topic 17 Hearing; the intent of which was to allow communities to provide recommendations to mitigate impacts. See Volume 2, Tab B.

Based on information obtained from the May 7, 2007 meeting with the KTFN in Kakisa, and upon information submitted by the First Nation to the JRP, a Consultation Binder was prepared which contained written responses to KTFN’s concerns and recommendations. The Consultation Binder was sent to the Chief and Council on September 25, 2007. Section 3.1 of the KFTN Consultation Binder is found in Volume 3, Tab C – KTFN.

On December 7, 2007, the Government of Canada met with the KTFN in Kakisa. During this meeting federal Departments reviewed the written responses provided in Section 3.1, provided clarifications where necessary, and responded to additional questions. Based on this meeting, Canada believes that to date, the KTFN are satisfied with MGP related consultations. A letter dated February 8, 2008, written to confirm this understanding follows this section. Meeting notes from the December 7, 2007 meeting are provided in Volume 5, Tab Q.

The above, with supporting materials found in Volume 5, Tab Q constitutes the body of Canada’s Update on Consultation Activities with the Ka’a’gee Tu First Nation to this stage in the MGP regulatory process.

Based on the above, and the activities reported in Crown’s log of KTFN consultation activity (see Volume 5, Tab Q), Canada concludes that consultation with the KTFN has been adequate to this stage of the MGP.

Page 50 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

Summary of Concerns

The concerns expressed by the KTFN in meetings with Canada and in information presented to the JRP are summarized in tables found in Volume 5, Tab Q.

Page 51 of 58 March 15, 2010 Page 52 of 58 Page 53 of 58 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

11.3.11 K’atlodeechee First Nation – Hay River Reserve (KFN)

Following the KFN Chief’s direction to broadly engage the community, Canada set about meeting the KFN in MGP consultations. Highlights of Canada’s record of consultation with the KFN include the following.

On December 5, 2006, the MGP-CCU organized a community meeting where it introduced its approach to Aboriginal consultations and introduced the federal regulating departments.

Based upon information obtained in a meeting with the KFN in Hay River on December 5, 2006, and upon information submitted by the First Nation to the Joint Review Panel, a Consultation Binder was prepared. It contained written responses to KFN concerns and recommendations. The Consultation Binder was sent to the KFN’s Chief and Council on September 25, 2007. Section 3.1 of this binder is found in Volume 3, Tab C - KFN.

On August 22, 2007, the Federal Project Co-ordination Secretariat issued a letter which in part, notified the KFN of the JRP’s Topic 17 Hearing; the intent of which was to allow communities to provide recommendations to mitigate impacts. See Volume 2, Tab B.

On April 28, 2008, Canada met with the KFN in Hay River to exchange information and discuss concerns relating to the MGP, and reviewed in detail the contents of Section 3.1 of the Consultation Binder. Federal departments reviewed the written responses provided in Section 3.1, provided clarification where necessary, and responded to additional questions. Meeting notes from April 28, 2008 are provided in Volume 5, Tab R.

Based on this meeting, Canada believes that to date, the KFN are satisfied with MGP related consultations. A letter dated July 3, 2008 confirming this understanding follows this section.

The above, with supporting materials found in Volume 5, Tab R constitutes the body of Canada’s Update on Consultation Activities with the K’atlodeechee First Nation to this stage in the MGP regulatory process.

Based on the above, and the activities reported in the Crown’s log of KFN consultation activity (see Volume 5, Tab R), Canada concludes that consultation with the KFN has been adequate to this stage of the MGP.

Summary of Concerns

The concerns expressed by the KFN in meetings with Canada and in information presented to the JRP are summarized in tables found in Volume 5, Tab R.

Page 54 of 58 March 15, 2010 Page 55 of 58 Page 56 of 58 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

11.3.12 West Point First Nation – Hay River (WPFN)

Highlights of Canada’s record of consultation with the WPFN include the following.

A follow-up meeting to the April 27, 2006 meeting was held in Hay River on August 24, 2006. During the August meeting, Canada reviewed the concerns and recommendations submitted to the JRP in detail.

Based on information obtained from the August 2006 meeting with the WPFN, and upon information submitted by the First Nation to the JRP, a Consultation Binder was prepared which contains written responses to West Point First Nation’s concerns and recommendations.

On August 22, 2007, the Federal Project Co-ordination Secretariat issued a letter which in part, notified the WPFN of the JRP’s Topic 17 Hearing; the intent of which was to allow communities to provide recommendations to mitigate impacts. See Volume 2, Tab B.

Due to a governance dispute, the WPFN currently has no effective political leadership to enable Canada to conclude consultations. As a result, on April 25, 2008, Canada mailed to each registered member of the WPFN a copy of Section 3.1 from the Consultation Binder (see Volume 3, Tab C – WPFN). Each registered member was, therefore, provided with a copy of the information Canada had obtained to date, federal responses to concerns, and a self addressed envelope to mail comments to the attention of the MGP-CCU.

The above, with supporting materials found in Volume 5, Tab S constitutes the body of Canada’s Update on Consultation Activities with the West Point First Nation to this stage in the MGP regulatory process.

Based on the above, and the activities reported in the Crown’s log of WPFN consultation activity (see Volume 5, Tab S), Canada concludes that consultation with the WPFN has been adequate to this stage of the MGP.

Summary of Concerns

The concerns expressed by the WPFN in meetings with Canada and in information presented to the JRP are summarized in tables attached as Volume 5, Tab S.

Page 57 of 58 March 15, 2010 Updated Report on Canada’s Aboriginal Consultation Activities for the Mackenzie Gas Project

12. OTHER ABORIGINAL GROUPS

As stated in Canada’s report on consultation filed with the NEB on September 8, 2006, “Other Aboriginal Groups”, with the exception of the Hay River Métis, refers to Aboriginal groups not directly in the MGP RoW or transportation corridor. These groups include the Tlicho First Nation Government, the Akaitcho Territory Dene First Nations, and the Northwest Territories Métis Nation. In this Update report, “Other Aboriginal Groups” has been expanded to include the Nacho Nyak Dun First Nation (NND), and the North Slave Métis Alliance.

Highlights of Canada’s record of consultation with these Other Aboriginal Groups include the following.

On September 9, 2008, Canada met with the Yellowknives Dene First Nation (communities of Dettah and Ndilo). See Volume 5, Tab T for meeting notes.

On November 23, 2006, and February 7, 2007, letters were sent to the Nacho Nyak Dun First Nation. See Volume 5, Tab T.

On July 10, 2007, and June 2, 2008, letters were sent to the North Slave Métis Alliance. See Volume 5, Tab T.

Canada did not receive any response to the correspondence referred to above. Likewise, Canada did not receive any follow-up correspondence or contact after meeting with the Akaitcho Yellowknives. As a result, Canada did not pursue any further consultation activity with these groups.

Based on the above, Canada concludes that consultation with the Other Aboriginal Groups has been adequate to this stage of the MGP.

12.1 Hay River Métis Council (HRMC)

Canada met with the Hay River Métis Council on September 18, 2006 in Hay River (following a meeting on April 27, 2006), and the HRMC expressed concerns about potential infringements to their rights during this meeting. The HRMC has not, however, responded to attempts by Canada to arrange subsequent follow-up meetings.

As a result, no Consultation Binder was produced for the HRMC. In addition, the concerns identified for this group in Canada’s report on consultation filed with NEB on September 8, 2006 were not followed up in subsequent meetings. See Volume 5, Tab U for a log of consultation activities with the HRMC.

Based on the above, and the activities reported in the Crown’s log of HRMC consultation activity (see Volume 5, Tab U), Canada concludes that consultation with the HRMC has been adequate to this stage of the MGP.

Page 58 of 58 March 15, 2010