Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. (“Enbridge”) Enbridge Northern Gateway Project (“Project”) NEB File OF-Fac-Oil-N304-2010-01 01

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

1.1 Aboriginal Consultation

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

ii) Application Volume 5A, 2.5

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

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

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

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

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

d) Please provide examples of where Enbridge has engaged Aboriginal groups differently in terms of agreements, capacity funding, and Aboriginal traditional knowledge (“ATK”) study funding, despite those groups being in similar circumstances relative to the Project and its likely impacts. Please fully explain the rationale behind these differences in treatment.

e) Will Enbridge still build the Project if the Crown has not fulfilled its duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate each of the Nations concerning the Project?

f) Please advise which federal department Enbridge has provided information to related to Enbridge’s Aboriginal engagement process concerning the Nations. In particular, please outline what potential Project impacts to the Nations’ rights and interests Enbridge has communicated to federal departments, and please provide copies of all such communications.

1.2 Traditional Land Use Impacts and Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge

Reference: i) Application Volume 5A, pp. 2-13 to 2-14

ii) Application Volume 5A, p. 5-12 to 5-13

iii) Application Volume 5A, p. 5-2 to 5-3

iv) Application Volume 5A, p. 5-27 to 5-33

v) Application Volume 6C, p. 6-30

vi) Application Volume 5A, Appendix M

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

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

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

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

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

Reference vi) provides a summary of concerns and responses.

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

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

c) Please list and describe all historic trails identified by Enbridge in each of the Nations’ traditional territories, and please explain the mitigation Enbridge is proposing to avoid impacting these historic trails.

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

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

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

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

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

- 3 - i) Based on specific TLU and ATK information concerning each of the Nations, please provide a cumulative effects analysis of Project effects in conjunction with other past, present and future projects on each Nation’s Aboriginal and Treaty rights in each Nation’s traditional territory. j) If an ATK study has not been conducted for each of the Nations in the Project area, please explain how Enbridge intends to identify effective mitigation specific to each Nation’s rights and interests? k) As a general proposition, does Enbridge believe it has the responsibility to investigate and facilitate the gathering of ATK and TLU information for the Project? l) What criteria does Enbridge use to determine (i) whether an ATK study is needed for the Project and, if one is determined to be needed, (ii) how does Enbridge determine what level of funding it will contribute to such studies? m) Please describe which hunters and fishers from each Nation that Enbridge has had discussions with concerning hunting activities within the Project area, and also describe any inquiries Enbridge made with the Government of regarding the number of net fishing licenses issued to members of each Nation on bodies of water within or near the Project area. n) Please describe which gatherers from each Nation that Enbridge has had discussions with concerning traditional gathering activities within the Project area. o) Please describe which trappers from each Nation that Enbridge has had discussions with concerning traditional trapping activities within the Project area, and also describe any inquiries Enbridge made with the Government of Alberta regarding registered traplines held by members of each Nation. p) Please explain in detail with supporting references how each Nation’s TLU activities, ATK and the cultural significance of traditional harvesting resources were taken into consideration when developing Application Volume 5A, Appendix M. q) Please explain in detail with supporting references how each Nation’s TLU activities, ATK and the cultural significance of traditional harvesting resources to each of the Nations were taken into consideration when identifying appropriate

- 4 - mitigation measures with respect to Project impacts on each Nation’s TLU activities including hunting, trapping, fishing and gathering rights and interests.

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

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

1.3 Enoch ATK Study

Reference: i) Application Volume 5B, Appendix C

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.4 Benefits

Reference: i) Project Update Volume 5A, 4.1

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

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

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

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

Reference iii) explains that Enbridge has offered to enter into a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) with Aboriginal groups which will define potential economic opportunities and benefits in the areas of procurement, employment and training in the context of the Aboriginal group in question. These MOUs and Enbridge’s Economic Benefits Package as a whole will also incorporate Enbridge’s Aboriginal Procurement Initiative, and Enbridge’s - 6 - Aboriginal Employment and Training Initiative. Enbridge also states it is committed to facilitating meaningful Aboriginal contracting and Employment opportunities. Enbridge further explains that a cornerstone of this commitment is an underlying commitment to facilitate training initiatives required to enable prospective Aboriginal employees to gain necessary skills.

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

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

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

d) Please confirm that the information provided with the Aboriginal Economic Benefits Package did not explain in detail Enbridge’s decision-making criteria regarding training, employment and contracting opportunities?

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

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

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

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

- 7 - i) What specific measures will Enbridge take to facilitate and encourage participation by individual members of each of the Nations and businesses affiliated with or owned by the Nations in training, employment and contract opportunities for the Project? j) Please advise whether the Project is likely to utilize unionized or non-unionized labour. k) Please explain in detail how Enbridge is going to assist with addressing Aboriginal business capacity issues so that Aboriginal groups can take advantage of Project contracting opportunities. l) With respect to benefits, please explain in detail the circumstances where Enbridge would treat certain Aboriginal groups differently in terms of training, employment and contracting opportunities despite being in similar circumstances relative to the Project and its likely impacts. m) Please provide examples of where Enbridge has provided different training, employment and contracting opportunities concerning the Project to Aboriginal groups despite being in similar circumstances relative to the Project and its likely impacts. Please fully explain the rationale behind this difference in treatment. n) Please identify by province, Aboriginal group, and distance from the Project, all benefits offered or provided to Aboriginal groups claiming to be impacted by the Project. In providing this response, please fully explain the difference in benefits between and Alberta Aboriginal groups. If Enbridge will not provide all of the requested information, please provide the information without making specific Aboriginal groups. o) Please confirm whether there will be sole source and/or preferred source contracts for Aboriginal groups and, if so, please explain in detail the criteria Enbridge will use for determining which Aboriginal groups will be selected for sole source and/or preferential contracts, and also explain when Enbridge anticipates concluding such contracts with Aboriginal groups. p) Please explain which Aboriginal groups will be eligible for equity ownership in the Project, how Enbridge will assist an ineligible Aboriginal group to become eligible, and also explain when Enbridge intends to conclude binding

- 8 - agreements with Aboriginal groups for equity stake ownership in the Project.

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

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

1.5 Interests and Concerns of Whitefish

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

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

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

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

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

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

e) Enbridge has indicated to Whitefish that Enbridge is willing to provide sole source and/or preferred contracts to Whitefish for work on the Project. Please confirm when and how Enbridge communicated the offer of sole source and/or

- 9 - preferred contracts to Whitefish and describe what steps Enbridge has taken or intends to take to confirm those contractual arrangements.

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

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

1.6 Interests and Concerns of Enoch

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

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

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

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

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

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

In reference i) Enbridge states that it will also follow up with Enoch during detailed engineering to review and discuss proposed responses

- 10 - to identified interests and concerns, and to attempt to resolve any outstanding issues.

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

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

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

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

e) Please provide a detailed response and plan for addressing potential impacts specific to Enoch in the event of oil spills from the proposed pipeline onto lands and into water bodies within Enoch’s traditional use areas.

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

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

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

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

j) Enbridge has indicated to Enoch that Enbridge is willing to provide sole source and/or preferred contracts to Enoch for

- 11 - work on the Project. Please confirm when and how Enbridge communicated the offer of sole source and/or preferred contracts to Enoch and describe what steps Enbridge has taken or intends to take to confirm those contractual arrangements.

1.7 Interests and Concerns of Samson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

e) Please confirm that if no ATK study is completed with respect to Samson, Enbridge will not have sufficient information to predict likely Project impacts specific to Samson’s rights and interests, and Enbridge will similarly not be able to identify appropriate mitigation to address Project impacts to Samson’s

- 12 - specific rights and interests. When providing a response to this information request, please be as specific as possible and be advised that the information request is asking for greater detail than general effects predictions and general statements concerning proposed mitigation.

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

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

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

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

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

1.8 Interests and Concerns of Ermineskin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.9 Interests and Concerns of Louis Bull

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.10 Interest and Concerns of Montana

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

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

- 16 - not address Montana’s concern regarding the Lac St. Anne area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- 17 -

APPENDIX “A”

- 18 - Press Release Re:

First Nation in Alberta Concerned About Impacts of Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline

September 30, 2010

The Whitefish Lake First Nation, , Samson Cree Nation, Sucker Creek First Nation, and Louis Bull Tribe in Alberta are concerned about serious flaws with the regulatory process that is supposed to review the impacts of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline.

The First Nations say that the regulatory panel is assuming that the pipeline in Alberta has less potential for environment impacts than the proposed port facilities in B.C. Enbridge’s record does not support this assumption. The company reported more than 600 spills between 1999 and 2008, releasing more than 20 million litres of hydrocarbons. 1 Last year Enbridge was convicted of more than 500 environmental violations regarding a pipeline in Wisconsin. The Attorney General of Wisconsin commented that the violations were “numerous and widespread, and resulted in impacts to the streams and wetlands throughout various watersheds.” 2 The recent Enbridge spill in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan is another cause for concern. Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline will cross or come close to a number of major rivers and lakes and pass through wetland areas in Alberta.

The First Nations also say that the timelines for the review are too short, it is poorly funded, and that consultation with First Nations won’t happen until the end of the process when the review of the project will be practically complete. Enbridge and the regulator have provided roughly half the resources to Alberta First Nations to participate in the review of the project that have been given to BC First Nations. Enbridge has promised economic benefits and work on the pipeline to offset impacts on First Nations but those discussions have been delayed without explanation for more than a year and the regulatory process is already underway.

Chief Jackson of Whitefish Lake First Nation summed up the First Nations’ concerns stating: “At this point we have no reason to believe that we will see anything from this project except for more environmental damage in areas where our people hunt, fish and pursue our traditional way of life.”

Media contact: [email protected]

1 “Out on the Tar Sands Mainline: Mapping Enbridge’s Web of Pipelines” by Richard Girard, Polaris Institute, May 2010. 2 The Canadian Press: Enbridge Energy agrees to pay $1.1 million for Wisconsin environmental violations, and http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/2009 (See press release for Jan. 2/09). - 19 -