December 3, 2020 the Canada Energy Regulator Suite 210, 517

Home , Churchill Falls, George River (Quebec), John McLean (explorer), Natuashish, Nitassinan, Sheshatshiu

Nancy Kleer [email protected] T: 416.981.9336 F: 416.981.9350 73353

December 3, 2020

The Canada Energy Regulator Suite 210, 517 Tenth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2R 0A8

Mr. Stéphane Talbot Director – Planning Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie 2, Complexe Desjardins East Tower, 9th floor C.P. 10000, succ. Desjardins Montréal, QC H5B 1H7 [email protected]

The Honourable Seamus O’Regan Minister of Natural Resources Natural Resources Canada 580 Booth Street, 21st Floor Ottawa, ON K1A 0E4 [email protected]

Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

Re: Comments of Innu Nation Inc. on Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie Application for the Appalaches-Maine Interconnection Power Line Project, Application No. C01914

I write on behalf of the Innu Nation of Labrador (“Innu Nation”) to comment on Hydro- Québec’s application for a permit (the “Permit”) to build the Appalaches-Maine Interconnection Power Line Project (the “Project”). The Project is a proposed direct current transmission line approximately 103 kilometers long between the Appalaches substation in the municipality of Saint-Adrien-d’Irlande, and a crossing point on the Canada-US border in the municipality of Frontenac.

The Project will permit Hydro-Québec to further profit from the Churchill Falls Generating Station (“CFGS”) by selling electricity generated at that facility into U.S. markets.

250 UNIVERSITY AVE., 8TH FLOOR, TORONTO, ON, M5H 3 E 5 T E L : 4 1 6 - 9 8 1 - 9 3 3 0  F A X : 4 1 6 - 981- 9 3 5 0  WWW.OKTLAW.COM

Page 2

CFGS was built, without their consent, on the Innu of Labrador’s traditional territory. This territory is coextensive with the Innu of Labrador’s land claim area that was accepted for negotiation by Canada, and the Innu of Labrador have never given up their aboriginal rights and title to it. CFGS has caused untold and ongoing damage to the Innu of Labrador’s territory and way of life. Hydro-Québec – which played a critical role in the design and construction of the CFGS and now takes most of the electricity generated by that facility – has made no effort to compensate the Innu for those damages. It has not even taken the symbolic step of acknowledging CFGS’ impacts on the Innu. Instead, while the Innu continue to live every day with the legacy of environmental degradation and damage caused by CFGS, Hydro-Québec continues to reap extraordinary profits from that project (estimated at up to $80 billion to date).

Hydro-Québec’s actions have breached several of the Innu people’s rights under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These include their right to their traditional territory and the resources derived from it. They also include their right to not have development proceed on their traditional territory without first providing their free, prior, and informed consent to that development. And they include their right to compensation for these and other past and ongoing breaches of their rights.

In the context of Hydro-Québec’s application for the Permit, the Innu Nation submits that it would not be in the public interest to allow the Project to proceed while these breaches of UNDRIP remain unaddressed. Similarly, it would not be in the public interest to permit Hydro- Québec to develop new mechanisms to profit from conduct that clearly breaches several the Innu’s rights under UNDRIP. Accordingly, the Innu Nation respectfully request that:

a) the Commission exercise its broad public interest jurisdiction in s. 32(1) of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act to impose a condition in the Permit that states: “Prior to the start of construction, Hydro-Québec must submit to the Commission documentation of permission to use Innu Territory for the CFGS that includes the signature of a duly authorized representative of the Innu Nation;” or

b) in the alternative, if the Commission is unprepared to do so, that the Governor in Council designate the Project under s. 258(1)(a) of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act as a project requiring a certificate; and

c) the Commission hold a public hearing to determine whether the Project is and will be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity in accordance with the factors set out in s. 262(2) of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act.

The Commission and the Governor in Council have the jurisdiction to grant these remedies. The Innu respectfully submit that these are appropriate circumstances in which to grant them.

The Innu of Labrador, their territory, and Innu Nation

The Innu of Labrador have a population of approximately 3,200 who now reside primarily in two separate communities: the reserves set aside for their people at Natuashish and

250 UNIVERSITY AVE., 8TH FLOOR, TORONTO, ON, M5H 3 E 5 T E L : 4 1 6 - 9 8 1 - 9 3 3 0  F A X : 4 1 6 - 981- 9 3 5 0  WWW.OKTLAW.COM

Page 3

Sheshatshiu. Both are First Nations having the capacity of Bands under the Indian Act. The Innu are an Aboriginal people within the meaning of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and an Indigenous people within the meaning of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Innu have, since time immemorial, lived in their territory, which they call “Nitassinan” (which means “Our Land” in Innu-aimun). The Innu are hunters who have travelled over these lands in family groups, using timeworn travelling routes to hunt, fish, gather and trade. Travelling was and is central to the Innu identity, since through travel they maintained their social and ceremonial connections with other Innu, neighbouring peoples, and the land. Innu gatherings at central locations for trade and cultural events, including near Churchill Falls, have been integral to their way of life.

Nitassinan includes much of present-day Labrador and parts of eastern Quebec. Nitassinan is where the Innu hunt and trap wildlife, fish, and collect plants and other natural resources, for food, clothing, shelter, medicine, tools, trade, and ceremonial purposes. The Innu use its rivers, streams and water bodies for transportation, food, and cultural purposes. They use specific sites in Nitassinan to exercise spiritual and cultural practices. And they transmit traditional knowledge about the history, uses and values of Nitassinan, including the animals, flora, lands, resources, and the Innu’s way of life in it and as part of it, to subsequent generations of Innu.

The Innu were able to resist the forces of colonization and maintain their way of life until resource developers started looking in earnest to exploit their lands starting in the 1950s, at which point they were forced into settled communities by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Innu now reside primarily in two communities: Sheshatshiu and Natuashish.

In the 1980s Canada accepted their land claim for negotiation under Canada’s comprehensive land claims policy, which includes the area damaged by the CFGS. Formal negotiations began in the 1990s. Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada have recognized and acknowledged that the Innu of Labrador have a legitimate and unresolved Aboriginal title and Aboriginal rights claim to a significant area of Labrador (the area the Innu call Nitassinan). Those parties are participating in negotiations to resolve this outstanding land claim. On November 18, 2011, they signed an Agreement-in-Principle with Canada and the Province with respect to the Innu claim to lands in Labrador, confirming the intention of the parties to enter into a final agreement to settle the land claim. Negotiations are ongoing.

Innu Nation Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador to represent the rights and interests of the Innu. Innu Nation Inc. represents the Innu, including in land claim and self-government negotiations with Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador. Its mandate is to speak as one voice to protect the interests of the Innu people in relation to their land.

250 UNIVERSITY AVE., 8TH FLOOR, TORONTO, ON, M5H 3 E 5 T E L : 4 1 6 - 9 8 1 - 9 3 3 0  F A X : 4 1 6 - 981- 9 3 5 0  WWW.OKTLAW.COM

Page 4

Churchill Falls Generating Station

CFGS is a massive hydro-electric project located in western Labrador. CFGS is owned and operated by Churchill Fall (Labrador) Corporation (“CF(L)Co”). Nalcor Energy – Newfoundland and Labrador’s provincially owned electricity utility – and Hydro-Quebec are CF(L)Co’s sole shareholders. Nalcor is the majority shareholder.

The main works that comprise the CFGS include a series of dikes and control structures along a 64 kilometer stretch of waterways in the watershed of Mishtashipu, a river that drains an area of over 90,000 kilometers, which comprises a large portion of Nitassinan. The Innu call Mishtashipu the “Great River.” It is also known as the “Churchill River.” The dikes and control structures on Mishtashipu result in the diversion or drainage of an area of approximately 72,000 square kilometers.

The main works of CFGS also include a reservoir called the “Smallwood Reservoir”, which covers an area of over 6,500 square kilometers to contain the water diverted by the dikes, and a power generation station that uses water from the Smallwood reservoir and another reservoir (the Ossokamanuan Reservoir) to generate electricity. The massive scale of the Smallwood Reservoir is shown on this map:

Before the reservoir was created by flooding, this area was a gathering place for the Innu from across the Québec-Labrador Peninsula. It was known to the Innu as the Meshikamau area, named for Lake Meshikamau. The area was rich in fish and wildlife and was on the migration

250 UNIVERSITY AVE., 8TH FLOOR, TORONTO, ON, M5H 3 E 5 T E L : 4 1 6 - 9 8 1 - 9 3 3 0  F A X : 4 1 6 - 981- 9 3 5 0  WWW.OKTLAW.COM

Page 5

path of two herds of caribou, which are integral to the Innu diet and cultural and spiritual identity. It was also the location of an important Innu spiritual site, Petshishkapushkau. Meshikamau was also a place where the Innu buried their dead.

CFGS’ impacts on the Innu and the Innu’s traditional territory

The CFGS’ impacts on the Innu, their way of life and their traditional territory are substantial. Put simply, the construction of the CFGS, the damming of Churchill Falls, and the flooding of large portions of Nitassinan have deprived the Innu of the way of life that they have engaged in since time immemorial. The CFGS has done this by, among other things:

• depriving, or severely compromising, the ability of the Innu to engage in the activities described on the proceeding pages in the area of the CFGS;

• destroying burial, ceremonial and habitation sites throughout the CFGS area;

• destroying the tools and materials stored in cache sites in the area flooded by the Smallwood Reservoir;

• fragmenting wildlife habitat and disrupting migration patterns in the CFGS area;

• harming the availability and health of fish in the CFGS area as a result of mercury poisoning caused by the extensive flooding required for the Smallwood Reservoir;

• diminishing the abundance, diversity and quality of available wildlife and flora for harvesting in the region as a result of the CFGS and its associated activities;

• depriving the Innu of the ability to visit and reverence burial and ceremonial sites used for thousands of years in the CFGS area; and

• depriving the Innu of the ability to use the land in its natural condition in a manner consistent with the cultural values and beliefs of the Innu.

The following map shows Innu travel routes and camps that were flooded by the CFGS:

250 UNIVERSITY AVE., 8TH FLOOR, TORONTO, ON, M5H 3 E 5 T E L : 4 1 6 - 9 8 1 - 9 3 3 0  F A X : 4 1 6 - 981- 9 3 5 0  WWW.OKTLAW.COM

Page 6

Members of the Innu have also found the bones of their ancestors, long buried, exposed as a result of flooding caused by the CFGS, as shown in the following images:

250 UNIVERSITY AVE., 8TH FLOOR, TORONTO, ON, M5H 3 E 5 T E L : 4 1 6 - 9 8 1 - 9 3 3 0  F A X : 4 1 6 - 981- 9 3 5 0  WWW.OKTLAW.COM

Page 7

The short report attached as Appendix “A” describes the remains of some of the Innu’s camps and graves, and other archeological artifacts, located in areas flooded by the Smallwood Reservoir. The short report attached as Appendix “B” describes in a preliminary fashion the Innu’s historical use and occupation of that area.

These impacts, and others, have had profound effects on the spiritual, cultural, economic, physical and psychological health of the Innu. Those effects are described by Innu Elder Elizabeth Penashue in a video available here.1 In recognition of these impacts, Nalcor and Newfoundland and Labrador have settled with the Innu for their roles in the CFGS under the Upper Churchill Redress Agreement. Hydro-Québec, on the other hand, has not yet even acknowledged the role it played in causing these harms to the Innu. Instead, it has consistently ignored the Innu’s overtures to negotiate a settlement of their grievances related to the CFGS.

The Innu were not consulted about the CFGS before it was built

The failures of Hydro-Québec, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nalcor to consult with the Innu before building the CFGS, and their failures to accommodate the Innu for its impacts on them, were contrary to Canadian law. They were also contrary to Hydro-Québec policy on engagement with First Nations, titled Nos relations avec les autochtones,2 which sets out Hydro- Québec’s commitment to engage with First Nations impacted by its projects. Among other things, Hydro-Québec’s policy, which is only available in French, says that Hydro-Québec will:

• Inform First Nations about every step in a project’s life-cycle: “Hydro-Québec s’engage à […] informer et impliquer les communautés autochtones à toutes les étapes du cycle de vie de ses projets (planification, conception, réalisation et exploitation) afin de s’assurer que leurs attentes et préoccupations soient prises en compte.”

1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWc664PWeQ8&feature=youtu.be 2 https://www.hydroquebec.com/data/a-propos/pdf/nos-relations-autochtones.pdf

250 UNIVERSITY AVE., 8TH FLOOR, TORONTO, ON, M5H 3 E 5 T E L : 4 1 6 - 9 8 1 - 9 3 3 0  F A X : 4 1 6 - 981- 9 3 5 0  WWW.OKTLAW.COM

Page 8

• Consult with First Nations in a culturally appropriate manner: “Hydro-Québec s’engage à […] recourir à un processus de consultation et de participation du public adapté et qui tient compte des spécificités sociales, culturelles, politiques des communautés autochtones et du savoir autochtone.”

• Prioritize economic spin-off opportunities for First Nations: “Hydro-Québec s’engage à […] favoriser les retombées économiques des communautés autochtones en encourageant la participation des entreprises autochtones aux activités de l’entreprise.”

• Implement measures to ensure First Nation support for its projects: “ Hydro-Québec s’engage à […] favoriser, au besoin, la mise en place de mesures visant à s’assurer du soutien des communautés autochtones à l’égard de ses projets et activités”

The Innu’s consent to the construction of the CFGS, the flooding required to create the Smallwood Reservoir, and the other profound, destructive alterations of their lands and waters, was neither sought nor obtained. The Innu were not told when the flooding would happen, or the anticipated scale of that flooding. It came as a complete surprise.

Innu Elders tell stories of members of the Innu encountering newly flooded lands and changed landscapes on their return home from months-long hunting and gathering trips. Because of their reliance on natural features on the landscape for navigation, features which were drowned by flooding, these individuals could not find their way home. Innu lands and waters, and the plants, animals and burial sites on those lands and waters, remain underwater to this day.

Hydro-Québec’s involvement in the Churchill Falls Generating Station

In 1969, Hydro-Québec and CF(L)Co signed a Power Contract that entitles Hydro- Québec to take delivery of nearly all of the electricity generated by CFGS at below market price. The electricity generated by CFGS is equal to about one-sixth of the total electricity generated by Hydro-Québec’s system, and equal to almost the entire amount of electricity that Hydro-Québec exports, including to New York State and states in New England. In other words, Hydro-Québec can be said to be exporting nearly all the energy it takes from the CFGS. This is the electricity that it is proposing to export through the Project after being granted the Permit.

These exports generate massive profits for Hydro-Québec. Although the exact figures are not publicly disclosed, Professor James Feehan at Memorial University in St. John’s estimates that Hydro-Québec’s profits from the CFGS could be in the range of $1 to $2 billion per year.3 The Power Contract will continue until 2041, allowing Hydro-Québec to continue to make profits at this, or a potentially higher, level until then. In short, Hydro-Québec takes enormous benefits from the electricity generated at the CFGS (which it does not share with the Innu),

3 James Feehan, The Churchill Falls Contract: What Happened and What’s to Come? Page 1, http://www.mun.ca/harriscentre/policy/memorialpresents/2008c/NQ_article_Vol_101_No_4.pdf

250 UNIVERSITY AVE., 8TH FLOOR, TORONTO, ON, M5H 3 E 5 T E L : 4 1 6 - 9 8 1 - 9 3 3 0  F A X : 4 1 6 - 981- 9 3 5 0  WWW.OKTLAW.COM

Page 9

without also being responsible for the burdens imposed on the Innu by the generation of this electricity. This is fundamentally unfair.

Hydro-Québec is not a mere shareholder in CF(L)Co. This is a defence it has previously asserted when challenged about its role in the construction of the CFGS and its impacts on the Innu. Rather, Hydro-Québec was indispensable in the design and construction of the CFGS. Simply put, if not for Hydro-Québec, the CFGS would never have been built. This is because of the steps that Hydro-Québec took in the 1960s to facilitate the construction of the CFGS. Those steps included:

a) guaranteeing the purchase of the vast majority of the electricity produced by CFGS, whether it needed it or not, thus assuming the risks associated with both the Project and the uncertainty of market prices for electricity;

b) providing a guarantee for large amounts of construction cost overruns, eventually providing a guarantee for all cost overruns;

c) providing a completion guarantee, which enabled financing for the CFGS to be secured;

d) ensuring that the Project was constructed to meet its own technical requirements to enable it to accept electricity generated by the Project into its own transmission grid; and

e) constructing a high-voltage transmission line to the Québec-Labrador border to enable it to accept power from the Project.

Without these and other steps taken by Hydro-Québec, the CFGS would not have been built. Therefore, in considering the remedy requested by the Innu in this letter, the Commission must take into account the active and key role that Hydro-Québec played in the development and construction of the CFGS, and the corresponding impacts on the Innu. Any suggestion by Hydro- Québec that it bears no responsibility for impacts to the Innu because it is just a shareholder should be dismissed.

Hydro- Québec has breached UNDRIP

UNDRIP recognizes and affirms the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples around the world, including the Innu. This recognition and affirmation underlies the entire resolution, and is spelled out explicitly in UNDRIP’s recitals:

Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual

250 UNIVERSITY AVE., 8TH FLOOR, TORONTO, ON, M5H 3 E 5 T E L : 4 1 6 - 9 8 1 - 9 3 3 0  F A X : 4 1 6 - 981- 9 3 5 0  WWW.OKTLAW.COM

Page 10

traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources […]4

UNDRIP recognizes that “that control by indigenous peoples over developments affecting them and their lands, territories and resources will enable them to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures and traditions.” It also acknowledges the historical injustice suffered by Indigenous peoples:

indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests […]5

It is therefore a critical instrument in Indigenous peoples’ ongoing battle for the recognition and protection of their rights and interests.

The Government of Canada adopted UNDRIP without qualification on May 10, 2016. In taking that important step, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Carolyn Bennett announced that “[w]e intend nothing less than to adopt and implement the declaration in accordance with the Canadian Constitution.”6 Breaches of UNDRIP in Canada should of course be avoided in the future, and compensation paid for past and ongoing breaches.

The construction and operation of the CFGS has breached, and continues to breach, a number of the Innu’s rights under UNDRIP.

For example, Article 26 of UNDRIP gives the Innu “the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.” It also gives “Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use.”7

The Innu were deprived of lands they traditionally owned by the construction of the CFGS. Hydro-Québec and CF(L)Co therefore breached the Innu’s rights under Article 26.

4 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007, A/61/L.67 and Add.1), available here, p. 3 5 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007, A/61/L.67 and Add.1), available here, p. 3 6 https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/canada-adopting-implementing-un-rights-declaration-1.3575272 7 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007, A/61/L.67 and Add.1), available here, p. 19

250 UNIVERSITY AVE., 8TH FLOOR, TORONTO, ON, M5H 3 E 5 T E L : 4 1 6 - 9 8 1 - 9 3 3 0  F A X : 4 1 6 - 981- 9 3 5 0  WWW.OKTLAW.COM

Page 11

Article 29 gives the Innu “the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources.”8

Among other things, the CFGS destroyed salmon spawning habitat, waterfowl (see Appendix “C”) and caribou breeding grounds, various forms of plant life, and other resources on which the Innu have historically relied. The Innu were therefore deprived of the productive capacity of lands on which they have traditionally relied, contrary to their rights under Article 29.

Article 32 gives the Innu the right to “determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.” It imposes a corresponding obligation to “consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources” [emphasis added].9

The Innu’s lands were taken and used for the construction of the CFGS without their input, and certainly without their free, prior, and informed consent. Hydro-Québec and CF(L)Co therefore breached the Innu’s rights under Article 32.

Finally, Article 28 gives the Innu “the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and re-sources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent.”10

The Innu have not received restitution or just, fair, and equitable compensation from Hydro-Québec for the lands taken from them for the construction and operation of the CFGS. These are not historical breaches from some distant past that can be ignored as the products of less enlightened times. The negative effects of these breaches are felt every day by the Innu. The harms persist. Compensation is owing. By not providing it, Hydro-Québec and CF(L)Co have breached the Innu’s right under Article 28.

8 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007, A/61/L.67 and Add.1), available here, p. 21 9 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007, A/61/L.67 and Add.1), available here, p. 23 10 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007, A/61/L.67 and Add.1), available here, p. 20

250 UNIVERSITY AVE., 8TH FLOOR, TORONTO, ON, M5H 3 E 5 T E L : 4 1 6 - 9 8 1 - 9 3 3 0  F A X : 4 1 6 - 981- 9 3 5 0  WWW.OKTLAW.COM

Page 12

Allowing Project to proceed while UNDRIP breaches remain unaddressed is not in the public interest

The CER has broad jurisdiction under s. 32 of the Canada Energy Regulator Act to give appropriate orders or directions in a “document of authorization,” such as the Permit, if the Commission determines it is “in the public interest” to do so:

32 (1) The Commission has full and exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into, hear and determine any matter if the Commission considers that […]

(c) the circumstances may require the Commission, in the public interest, to make any order or give any direction, leave, sanction or approval that it is authorized to make or give, or that relates to anything that is prohibited, sanctioned or required to be done under this Act, a condition of a document of authorization, or an order made or direction given under this Act.11

As the Supreme Court of Canada explained in similar circumstances in Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo‑Services Inc., “[a] project authorization that breaches the constitutionally protected rights of Indigenous peoples cannot serve the public interest.”12

Innu Nation submits that the same reasoning applies here: it would not be in the public interest to grant the Permit and to allow the Project to proceed without first imposing conditions requiring Hydro-Québec to take steps to address breaches of UNDRIP for which it is responsible. Allowing otherwise would permit Hydro-Québec to further benefit from the still uncompensated harms it played a key role in inflicting on the Innu. It cannot be in the public interest to permit a proponent to proceed with a project when doing so would permit it to continue to benefit, or to expand existing benefits, from activities that breach UNDRIP.

Accordingly, if the Commission issues the Permit, it should do so subject to conditions which will ensure that Hydro-Québec takes steps to remedy its breaches of UNDRIP. To permit the Innu and Hydro-Québec maximum flexibility to determine how best to address these breaches, the Commission should insert a condition in the Permit that states: “Prior to the start of construction, Hydro-Québec must submit to the Commission documentation of permission to use Innu of Labrador’s Territory that includes the signature of a duly authorized representative of the Innu Nation.” The Innu are prepared to make additional submissions regarding this condition if required to do so by the Commission.

The conditions sought by the Innu in the preceding paragraph are within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Section 32 of the Canada Energy Regulator Act gives the Commission the power to convene hearings and/or to receive submissions on this issue. It also gives the

11 Canadian Energy Regulator Act (S.C. 2019, c. 28, s. 10) 12 Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo‑Services Inc., 2017 SCC 40, para. 40

250 UNIVERSITY AVE., 8TH FLOOR, TORONTO, ON, M5H 3 E 5 T E L : 4 1 6 - 9 8 1 - 9 3 3 0  F A X : 4 1 6 - 981- 9 3 5 0  WWW.OKTLAW.COM

Page 13

Commission, like the National Energy Board before it, broad discretion to determine questions of law, including questions related to Aboriginal rights, in making a determination about whether it is in the public interest to grant the Permit.13

The Commission must, like all other tribunals and statutory decision-makers similarly empowered to decide questions of law, apply that discretion creatively, within the bounds of its jurisdiction, to achieve the over-arching goal of reconciliation. This requirement is incorporated directly into s. 56 of the Commission’s enabling statute, which requires it to consider impacts on the rights of First Nations when making decisions:

56 (1) When making a decision, an order or a recommendation under this Act, the Commission must consider any adverse effects that the decision, order or recommendation may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The condition sought by the Innu falls squarely into this category. On its own, it will not achieve reconciliation. However, it will move the needle in the right direction.

The Governor in Council must designate the Project under s. 258(1) of the Canada Energy Regulator Act

If the Commission is unprepared to impose the condition requested above, then the Governor in Council must make an order under s. 258(1)(a) of the Canada Energy Regulator Act designating the Project as an international power line that is to be constructed and operated in accordance with a certificate issued under s. 262(a) of that Act. The Commission must then hold public hearings under s. 52(1) of the Act to determine whether the Project is and will be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity. In making that determination, the Commission will be required to determine, among other things:

• any Indigenous knowledge that has been provided to the Commission;

• environmental effects, including any cumulative environmental effects;

• the interests and concerns of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, including with respect to their current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes; and

• the effects on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

13 Paul v. British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission), [2003] 2 SCR 585, para. 39; Robert Freedman and Sarah Hansen, “Aboriginal Rights vs. the Public Interest,” Presented at the Pacific Business & Law Institute conference on February 26-27, 2009. Available here.

250 UNIVERSITY AVE., 8TH FLOOR, TORONTO, ON, M5H 3 E 5 T E L : 4 1 6 - 9 8 1 - 9 3 3 0  F A X : 4 1 6 - 981- 9 3 5 0  WWW.OKTLAW.COM

Page 14

That hearing will provide the Innu, and other interested First Nations, with an opportunity to make submissions about their concerns related to the Project, and its direct and indirect effects on their rights.

CONCLUSION

Granting Hydro-Québec’s permit application will give it new ways to profit from CFGS, while continuing to shirk its responsibility for the CFGS’ impacts on the Innu. It would permit Hydro-Québec’s legacy of impunity to continue. Canadian and international law recognizes that all Canadians – including Hydro-Québec, the Government of Canada, and the Canada Energy Regulator (the “Commission”) – have a role to play in reconciling settler society and First Nations. Hydro-Québec has refused to play the role of responsible corporate citizen by participating in that process with the Innu of Labrador. The Innu Nation therefore appeals to the Commission and the Governor in Council to take reasonable steps to require it to do so.

Sincerely,

Olthuis, Kleer, Townshend LLP

NANCY KLEER NJK/as

250 UNIVERSITY AVE., 8TH FLOOR, TORONTO, ON, M5H 3 E 5 T E L : 4 1 6 - 9 8 1 - 9 3 3 0  F A X : 4 1 6 - 981- 9 3 5 0  WWW.OKTLAW.COM

Archaeology at Meshikamass, August 1995

In August 1995, Innu leader Daniel Ashini, his uncle Dominique Pokue, cousin, Charlie Pokue, archaeologists Stephen Loring (Smithsonian Institution) and Moira MacCaffrey, and anthropologist Peter Armitage, undertook a survey of portions of Meshikamass (Michikamats Lake). Due to drought conditions, the flood waters had receded exposing the beaches where Innu people had formerly camped. Whereas the former Innu gathering place to the south on Meshikamau has been scrubbed clean by the flooding, damage at Meshikamass wasn't quite as severe, enabling the archaeological crew to find and excavate some of the remaining Innu camp sites.

What follows is a brief description of some of sites found by the archaeological team.

Map 1. Location of archaeological sites found at Meshikamass, August 1995

Ptarmigan Point

Ptarmigan Point forms the western terminus of a conspicuous esker system which is over 10 kms in length. It is a prominent sandy peninsula that juts out nearly a kilometre from the western shore of former Meshikamass (Michikamats Lake). Approximately 8 kms north of the drowned discharge of the lake the peninsula was once a popular camping place for Innu families. When the reservoir is full the peninsula is completely submerged. Figure 1. Ptarmigan point, once a popular camping place for Innu families. Note damage caused by ﬂooding (photo S. Loring, 1995)

Ptarmigan Point-2 (GdDc-1).

Walking along the shore of Ptarmigan Point, Mina Hubbard noticed the remains of "a number of old camps" including the remains of one communal structure that was "a large oblong, sixteen feet in length, with two fireplaces in it, each marked by a ring of small rocks, and a doorway at either end" (Hubbard 1908:160).

The archaeological team found four hearths and a tent ring at this site. A single flake of Ramah chert and a rusted iron knife were found adjacent to one of the hearths. On the north side of the point another stone hearth was located and some quartz debitage.

Figure 2. Moira MacCaffrey takes ﬁeldnotes on Ptarmigan Point. Note damage caused by ﬂooding (photo P. Armitage, 1995). Figure 3. One of the hearths from an Innu camp on the now denuded Ptarmigan Point (photo S. Loring, 1995).

Cemetery Knoll (Ptarmigan Point-1, GdDc-2). Mina Hubbard and her party spent three days camped in the vicinity of the Meshikamass esker-peninsula in 1905 which she describes in her book:

To the south of the point was a beautiful little bay, and at its head a high sand mound which we found to be an Indian burying-place. There were four graves, one large one with three little ones at its foot, each surrounded by a neatly made paling, while a wooden cross, bearing an inscription in Montagnais, was planted at the head of each moss-covered mound. The inscriptions were worn and old except that on one of the little graves. Here the cross was a new one, and the palings freshly made. Some distance out on the point stood a skeleton wigwam carpeted with boughs that were still green, and lying about outside were the fresh cut shavings telling where the Indian had fashioned the new cross and the enclosure about the grave of his little one (Hubbard 1908:159).

Figure 4. Skeletal remains from an Innu cemetery eroding into Meshikamass due to ﬂooding (photo S.Loring, 1995).

The cemetery knoll is the western terminus of the Ptarmigan Point esker. Fluctuating reservoir water levels have created an active erosional face on the slope overlooking the lake. No evidence remains of any of the features noted by Hubbard. While walking along the foot of the knoll, Dominic Pokue found a half-dozen small weathered fragments of mammalian rib bones and a whittled fragment of wood. Dominic examined the bones pronouncing them to be neither caribou or bear. Three quarters up the face of the mound we found the edge of a human cranium eroding out of the sand bank. It was apparent that the entire post-cranial skeleton, accept for the few fragments we recovered, had already eroded into the reservoir.

Figure 5. Daniel Ashini on the bank of the eroding Innu cemetery at Meshikamass. Skull on left (photo S. Loring, 1995).

Michikamats-2 (GdDc-4). The broad sandy point of land on the north side of the little inlet north of Ptarmigan Point was found to contain a number of cultural features. Wave action has created a stone cobble beach approximately 10 meters wide behind which a nearly level, now exposed, shore extended approximately 40 meters to the edge of the driftwood raft marking the high reservoir level. Except in a few isolated "islands" of vegetation the whole point has been denuded and consists of wind-deflated and now exposed sand and gravel. Along the exposed shoreline, the archaeological team located four raised circular stone hearths three of which remained in situ having been preserved as part of a partially eroded vegetation mat. The largest of the hearths was oval, 1.7 metres by 1.2 metres raised about 20 cms above surrounding vegetation, the smaller features were circular between 80-90 cms in diameter. Hearth rocks were heavily fireburned and formed a tightly compacted "nest" of ash, charcoal and fire-burned bone. This has created an enriched environment for the growth of mosses which have "cemented" the vegetation mat (sod, turf, peat) into place.

Figure 6. Scene of Michikamats-2, north of Ptarmigan Point, where a Daniel's Rattle complex site (ca. 800 years old) was found (photo S. Loring, 1995).

Adjacent to these hearths, historic 19th century artifacts such as tobacco plugs and rosary beads, splintered caribou bone (broken in the process of extracting fat and marrow) and flakes of a dark grey chert were found eroding out onto the beach. A beautiful, finely crafted projectile point made of Ramah chert was also found at this location. Figure 7. Ramah chert projectile point found at Meshikamss (photo S. Loring).

"Signal Hill" From an island camp at the north end of Meshikamass, Dillon Wallace and his companion ascended a high in the vicinity which they named "Signal Hill." They found a small stone cairn and evidence of old Indian signal fires at the summet. "'Signal Hill,' as we called it, is the highest elevation for many miles around and a noticeable landmark" (Wallace, 1911:125). This is correctly labelled on the 1:250,000 scale map (23-I: formerly Michikamau Lake, now Smallwood Reservoir). However the 1:50,000 scale map (23 - I/9) assigns the name to a much smaller knoll east of the small stream draining Adelaide Lake on the north shore of Meshikamass. At the summit of this hill, the portage route from Meshikamass across to Lake Adelaide and the headwaters of the George River can be seen.

Figure 8. Charlie Pokue, surveying the scenery beside a hunting blind or cairn on "Signal Hill" (photo S. Loring, 1995).

Return to Innu Nation/Mamit Innuat homepage A brief Innu history of the Meshikamau region

We are completely selfish, let there be no mistake about that....This is our river, this is our waterfall, this is our land....We are developing it mainly, chiefly, principally for the benefit of Newfoundland. Newfoundland first, Quebec second, the rest of the world last (late Premier of Newfoundland, Joey Smallwood, July 17 1967).

Introduction

Located near the geographical center of Nitassinan the Meshikamau region had long ﬁgured signiﬁcantly in the lives of the Innu people. It was an important gathering place for Innu families resident throughout Nitassinan, and the hub of a complex web of travel routes. Innu could travel to the four corners of their territory from this part of the Quebec-Labrador peninsula - north along the George River, south through the Menihek system and Moisie River, to the Quebec North Shore via the Romaine River, or to Lake Melville via the Churchill and Naskaupi Rivers.

The late Sylvestre Andrew from Sheshatshit related the following about this region:

And now I will talk about long ago, the days of my grandfather and my great grandfather. I will talk about Innu land, especially about the Meshikamau area where the Innu hunted all the time. This was a good land, and truly Innu land. It's where the Innu were raised and survived by ﬁshing and hunting. It was a good area for trapping. It wasn't only the Innu of Sheshatshit that used this area around Meshikamau. The Innu from Sept-Iles [Moisie band] also used to hunt there a lot.

My great grandfathers, and great, great grandfathers hunted in the area of Meshikamau. It is said that there were no rifles in their times and that they used stone axes. They used open fires to cook, there being no stoves back then. The tents were like teepees. there were no matches and people had to start fires by other means. The bow and spear were used instead of rifles. Caribou were speared from canoes when they crossed lakes - there were no rifles back then (August 1984).

During the 1800s, the Meshikamau area was the home of a distinct ethnic grouping of Innu people most probably referred to at the time as the Meshikamaunnuat, or the "Great Lake People" (see Speck and Eiseley, 1942:234). This grouping was part of a larger conglomeration of Innu groups referred to by anthropologists as "bands." Bands consisted of closely related families that identiﬁed with a particular part of the territory such as a river basin. Band members were also closely related to people in other bands, and a great deal of immigration and emigration occurred, particularly after European diseases seriously disrupted Innu demographic patterns in the 1800s. Map 1. shows the approximate location of Innu bands in central Nitassinan in the 1920s as envisaged by anthropologists, Frank Speck and Loren Eiseley. Map 1. Location of Innu bands in the 1920s according to Speck and Eiseley (1942:216).

Speck and Eiseley interviewed Sylvestre Mackenzie, "chief" of the band, at Sept-Iles in the 1920s. From his description, they prepared the following account of the band.

The area of land usage traditionally preempted by its members in support of life centers around this immense body of water which lies considerably north of the Height of Land. The Michikamau horde is apparently the most integrated of the groups living in the central interior of the peninsula. The isolation of their habitat and the recency of their emergence from solitude into the confusing milieu of life at the Hudson’s Bay Company’s post at Seven Islands have tended to preserve their social independence....Sickness introduced by contact with the coastal populations has also begun to have its effects. The cohesion of the band depending largely upon caribou for food is nevertheless noticeable by contrast with others who hunt in segregated family fashion over a larger part of the year. The authority of its chief, Sylvestre Mackenzie, a leader by nature of his personality, authoritative and practical-minded, is pronounced, and may be a contributing factor to the uniﬁcation of the horde....The Michikamau Indians live and hunt almost continually as a community of grouped families. Only when pressed by famine do they separate and live upon small game. At other times it is the caribou that supports them....Until recent years this band went to Northwest River for trading purposes. Now its members in one large company make the long and dangerous descent from their distant lake to the post at Seven Islands by way of Menihek Lake, Ashwanipi Lake, and Moisie River each year (1942:234). Figure 1. Photograph of Sylvestre Mackenzie (Frank G. Speck, 1924, Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York).

The HBC established Fort Michikamau at Meshikamau in 1844 to pursue the fur trade with the Innu from the Meshikamau and other bands in the central plateau area, but it was abandoned after only a few years. Another post, Fort Nascopie, was established nearby at Petitsikapau in 1838. When this post was closed in 1869, the Innu from the Meshikamau and Petitsikapau bands became "attached" to the HBC post in Sept-Iles, and began a gradual process of merging with the Moisie band which resided in the Moisie River basin (Mailhot, 1997:26). Nonetheless, Meshikamau band members maintained close kinship relations with people in other bands including the Innu people who traded at North West River. They also continued to trade at this post.

The Finnish geographer, Vaino Tanner, who traveled in Labrador in the late 1930s met and photographed members of the Meshikamau group which he called the "Grand Lake Indians" or "Mishikamau Indians" (Tanner, 1944:608; Mailhot, 1997:44). The photographs in Figures 2 and 3 were taken by Tanner when he visited the Meshikamaunnuat at the end of Grand Lake in August, 1937.

Figures 2. Meshikamaunnu camp at the end of Kakatshu-utshishtun (Grand Lake) (Vaino Tanner, 14 August 1937). Figure 3. Meshikamaunnu at their camp at the end of Kakatshu-utshishtun (Grand Lake) (Vaino Tanner, 14 August 1937).

Figure 4 was taken by Father Edward O’Brien around 1930. From left to right: Ben Antane (Andrew), his wife Mani Shanima, and their son, Matiu Ben Antane. Ben Antane was a member of the Meshikamau (aka Moisie) band. His son, Matiu Ben, settled at Sheshatshit where he left many descendants (members of the Andrew family).

There is one other important chapter in the Innu history of the Meshikamau area that cannot be neglected. This is the presence of the ancestors of contemporary Mingan Innu who used the area extensively in the pre- settlement period. Mailhot notes that

in the second half of the 19th century [the Lake Melville Innu]...had particularly close relations with the Mingan band. The trading post at Mingan was then the most important east of Sept-Iles, and having become a major mission centre it was regularly visited by Lake Melville people. The relationship between Sheshatshit and Mingan was at its peak during the decade when the Hudson’s Bay Company operated an outpost on Lake Winokapau, which was accessible from Mingan via the Saint-Jean River. The post had been opened in 1865 to supply those Mingan Innu who hunted higher up the Churchill basin, as far as Lake Michikamau. Hunters would in fact have an account at both posts [Fort Michikamau and Fort Winokapau] (1997:23). The Innu people continue to harvest in the Uinukapau (Winokapau Lake) area to the present day. However, their harvesting in the Meshikamau area decreased considerably once ﬂooding occurred in 1971, and much productive territory was destroyed, particularly in the area just east of Meshikamau. Only the Kainipassuakamat (Lobstick Lake) area continued to be used, mostly in association with a commercial whiteﬁsh operation which was established in the 1970s.

Map 2. Showing affect of ﬂooding in relation to travel routes and camp location in the Meshikamau area.

European exploration and trade in the Meshikamau region

The first Europeans to travel over the now flooded region were a pair of Hudson's Bay Company employees charged with finding an overland route by which the new posts in Ungava (at Fort Chimo est. 1830) could be supplied. In 1834, Erland Erlandson passed through the Meshikamau country traveling two and from North West River (Davies, 1963). Erlandson was impressed with the fur potential of the region. John McLean, hurriedly passed through the region in February 1838 during a midwinter trip from Fort Chimo to North West River (McLean, 1932). During the summer of the same year Erlandson returned to Petitsikapau Lake and began erecting a post - Fort. Nascopie - to attract trade with the Innu in the interior. In 1839, while exploring options to travel to Hamilton Inlet, McLean became the first European to "discover" the Grand Falls (Cooke, 1969). Of course, Mishta-paushtiku (literally "grand falls") had been part of Innu mythology and land use knowledge for generations.

Despite the difﬁculties of operating the unproﬁtable Fort Nascopie post (Mattox 1964), it continued in operation to about 1869. In 1838 a post was established at the mouth of the Mushuau-shipu (George River), and soon thereafter Fort Trail on Mushuau-nipi (Indian House Lake). Michikamau Post was established by the HBC in 1844, but was closed after a few years of operation.

In the summer of 1894, A.P. Low traveled through the Meshikamau region and wrote a detailed description of it. According to Low: Michikamau, or the Great Lake of the Indians, is the largest in eastern Labrador, being second only in size to Lake Mistassini. Its greatest length from south-east to north-west is about eighty miles, and it is twenty-ﬁve miles across in its widest part opposite the discharge (1896. Report of Explorations in the Labrador Peninsula along the East Main, Koksoak, Hamilton, Manacuagan and Portions of other Rivers in 1892-93-94-95. Ottawa. Geological Survey of Canada.

On August 2, 1905, Mina Hubbard and her companions (George Elson, JobChapies, Gilbert Blake, Joseph Iserhoff) reached Meshikamau. Fearful of being detained by unfavorable winds, Hubbard's party quickly paddled north. They reached Meshikamass (Michikamats Lake) on the 5th where they were delayed for two days by a storm. Underway again on the 8th they encountered the major caribou migration. They reached the north end of the lake on the 9th from which they proceeded by canoe and portage into the headwater lakes of the George.

A month later, on September 7th, Dillon Wallace ﬁnally arrived at Meshikamass. Three days prior, on the 4th Wallace had reached Meshikamau where he sent all of his party excepting a single companion back to Northwest River. Gambling all, he decided to race the winter to Ungava. Although signs of the caribou passing were everywhere none remained to be seen.

Both Wallace and Hubbard took photographs during their trip through Meshikamau and Meshikamass Lakes. Figure 5 shows an abandoned Innu mitshuap (teepee) at Meshikamass. Note the matashantshuap (steam tent) frame to its right.

For her part, Mina Hubbard stumbled on an Innu cemetery while traveling north on Meshikamass. She described the cemetery as follows:

Figure 6 below shows the view from the top of the mound as photographed by Mina Hubbard in 1905. Return to Innu Nation/Mamit Innuat homepage Waterfowl habitat destroyed by Churchill Falls hydroelectric development

When the Churchill Falls hydroelectric project was completed and the ﬂood gates shut in 1971, important nesting areas for ducks and geese were lost. D.Bajzak estimated that about 1,400 km2 of habitat were lost in the ﬂooding. According to CWS biologists, Ian Goudie and William Whitman,

Besides the areas actually flooded, the reservoir development affected areas elsewhere in the watershed. Flooded shorelines with fluctuating water levels offer low-quality nesting habitat. During spring runoff, control structures are opened; this may flood shorelines and islands in the lower storage areas of the reservoir and along the Churchill River downstream as far as Lake Winokapau. Other secondary effects include reduced runoff to areas 'downstream' from dykes and dams other than that on the main Churchill River. Overall, the waterfowl habitat losses resulting from the hydrodevelopment may amount to 10% of that originally present in the Lake Plateau region (1987. "Waterfowl populations in Labrador, 1980-82." Waterfowl breeding populations surveys, Atlantic Provinces. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. CWS Occasional Paper, Number 60).

The following two maps show the effects of the ﬂooding of what was formely the Tshiashkunish (Kasheshibaw Lake) area of Labrador. Note how the extensive wetlands north of Tshiashkunish disappeared once ﬂooding occurred.

Map 1. Wetlands north of Tshiashkunish pre-ﬂooding. Map 2. In the post-ﬂooding period, most of the formerly extensive wetlands have disappeared.

Return to Innu Nation/Mamit Innuat homepage