Musqueam Indian Band 6735 Salish Drive Vancouver, B.C
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MUSQUEAM INDIAN BAND 6735 SALISH DRIVE VANCOUVER, B.C. CANADA V6N 4C4 TELEPHONE: 604 263-3261 FAX: 604 263-4212 June 15, 2015 Candace Anderson Crown Consultation Coordinator Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 160 Elgin st., Ottawa, ON, K1A 0H3 Dear Ms. Anderson, Re: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Environmental Impact Statement Review for Completeness Attached please find a copy of Musqueam Indian Band’s comments on the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Environmental Impact Statement Review for Completeness. Please note that given time and resource limitations, Musqueam has been unable to conduct a fulsome completeness review of the draft EIS. Only a very limited budget was provided by the Agency to review the EIS, a massive undertaking, and this high level completeness review has exposed a large number of concerns not only in relation to the completeness of the EIS as against the EISG, but also concerns about the sufficiency of scope, VCs, baseline data collection, alternatives evaluation, and effects assessment proper, which will require a significant, multifaceted review by Musqueam if and when the EIS is accepted and the technical review begins. Absence of comment on any particular line item cannot be read as lack of concern with the completeness or sufficiency of the EIS treatment of that element of the EISG. Musqueam has not weighed in on the completeness of each line item in the EISG, only including those line items that it deems in this first pass to be deficient. Musqueam would like to highlight that recent federal EA Panels and even non-panel reviews (e.g. Shell Jackpine; PNW LNG) have required assessments of effects on VCs like current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes (CULRTP) and other Section 5(1)(c) factors to be conducted on a “per First Nation” basis, and require the EIS to be revised accordingly. Musqueam requests direct consultation with the Agency regarding the need for adoption of CULRTP as a VC and implications for the defensibility of the EA if this is not a requirement put forward to the Proponent. It should also be noted through the revision of the EIS it was identified that most comments on VCs did not provide a clear correlation between specific VC-related concerns that are attributed to multiple FNs and specific basis for Musqueam concern. Musqueam should be provided with disaggregated information that provides basis for our specific concerns, separate from those of other First Nations. Musqueam has been consistent in stating to both CEAA and Port Metro Vancouver that it has an established right to fish. There is a serious risk of causing potentially irreparable adverse effects to the territory and Musqueam’s ability to exercise its Aboriginal rights including the right to fish established by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sparrow case. This is an issue that Musqueam has repeatedly brought to Port Metro Vancouver’s attention but that they prefer to ignore and to push Musqueam into the same category as other First Nations such as the Cowichan Tribes who have no established rights in the area. The list of First Nations that falls under Section 3 of the Proposed Consultation Work Plan is of great concern to Musqueam. The only First Nation that has a claim to be consulted at the same level as Musqueam based on their treaty rights, would be Tsawwassen First Nation. The other First Nations have only asserted rights. Musqueam’s participation in this process is without prejudice to our Aboriginal rights and title including the established Aboriginal right to fish protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act and Musqueam fully reserves all its rights and remedies for any breach by the Crown including by the Canadian Environmental Assesment Agency, the federal Minister of the Environment, the provincial Minister of Envorinment and Port Metro Vancouver. As a point of clarification, the underlined text included in the table is highlighting key phrases by Musqueam, not from the original EISG. Sincerely, Chief Wayne Sparrow Musqueam Indian Band cc. Laura Strand, Manager Aboriginal Affairs, Port Metro Vancouver – [email protected] Honorable Leona Aglukkaq, Federal Minister of the Environment – [email protected] Honorable Mary Polak, Provincial Minister of the Environment – [email protected] Musqueam Indian Band Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Environmental Impact Statement – Comments on Completeness June 15, 2015 Participant: Chief Wayne Sparrow Organization (if applicable): Musqueam Indian Band General Comments: Please see comments entered in table below. 1. Underlined text in the table in the “EISG requirement” column is highlighting of key phrases in the EISG by Musqueam, not from the original EISG. 2. All references to “the Agency” in the table below are to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Musqueam Indian Band Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Environmental Impact Statement – Comments on Completeness June 15, 2015 Comments on Completeness of Information in the EIS Section of EISG EISG Requirement Relevant Issue Requested Rationale Section of EIS Completeness Information Section in EISg where Section of EIS information is where the Request for Why information required What is the requirement? information Issue - what is missing additional should be present should be information present 2.3 - Aboriginal Did proponent provide Musqueam Section 7.2; EIS suggests this is the Appendix 7.2-b The First Nations- Engagement Indian Band with opportunities to case, but Musqueam needs to be specific (each (Consultation learn about the project and its Appendix 7.2-A; has concerns about disaggregated to First Nation) Delegation to potential effects, make their the process not provide more context in which Proponent concerns known about the Section 8.1.1 - adequately addressing detail on the an issue is raised, through EISg) project’s potential effects and 8.1.3 Musqueam Aboriginal issues raised the specific discuss measures to mitigate these rights and title (including specific concerns (not a effects. concerns, in particular, language of generic the established fishing concerns) by each interpretation of right under Sparrow individual First it by the and the duty of the Nation. In Proponent), and Crown (including Port addition, all requests for Metro Vancouver) to Appendix 7.2-b changes in data justify any needs to identify collection, infringement. In any mitigation, analysis, addition, none of the monitoring, or mitigation and EIS was ground alternatives monitoring, truthed with proposed by First among other Musqueam prior to it Nations to issues, are not Musqueam Indian Band Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Environmental Impact Statement – Comments on Completeness June 15, 2015 Section of EISG EISG Requirement Relevant Issue Requested Rationale Section of EIS Completeness Information being filed; this means overcome clear in the by definition that potential impacts, existing EIS body Musqueam had no and data text or advance opportunity collection and appendices. As a to even understand analysis “asks” of result, the EIS is the results of the each individual inadequate to effects assessment First Nation. This identify (results of which are revised “per First Musqueam’s provided for the first Nation” appendix main concerns or time in the draft EIS). then needs to be examine the In addition, the ground adequacy of the concerns of individual truthed/verified Proponent’s First Nations are by each First response to pooled and Nation prior to it same. This is genericized in the EIS, being filed into inappropriate as especially but not evidence. The the Crown’s duty limited to in Appendix same is required to justify any 7.2-b, meaning that of the list of proposed the specific concerns potential adverse infringement of of individual First effects on our established Nations are by no Aboriginal and Aboriginal fishing means identified or Treaty rights in right and to dealt with in the EIS. Section 32.3 and consult on the unilaterally Musqueam’s developed list of priority rights Aboriginal issues under the “PMV considers Constitution are to be specific to our Musqueam Indian Band Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Environmental Impact Statement – Comments on Completeness June 15, 2015 Section of EISG EISG Requirement Relevant Issue Requested Rationale Section of EIS Completeness Information outstanding” in First Nation, and Section 32.3.3.4. not to be pooled into a generic analysis. More active, pre-filing, First Nations- specific ground truthing/verificati on is needed prior to the finalization of the EIS. 2.3 Did proponent work with Section 7.2; Musqueam had The Proponent In general, the Musqueam Indian Band to develop repeatedly requested did not accede to draft EIS, and the engagement approach? Appendix 7.2-A; a separate the Musqueam process with engagement/consultat request for a which it was Section 8.1.1 - ion/justification distinct and generated by the 8.1.3 process with the separate Proponent, Proponent due to the engagement/cons exhibits a “top- unique requirements ultation/justificati down, outside-in” related to on process, approach to EA, Musqueam’s making this an with the most established fishing outstanding issue sensitive right under Sparrow in the EA and a receptors (e.g., and the legal duty of breach of the Musqueam Indian the Crown (including Crown’s duty to Band) left on the Port Metro justify any outside looking Vancouver) to justify proposed in. This reflects Musqueam Indian Band Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Environmental Impact Statement – Comments on Completeness