Report on the Public Consultations Held in November 2012 Following Implementation of Hydro-Québec’s Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion Project la Convention de la Baie-James et du Nord québecois Comité d’examen Review Committee Report on the Public Consultations Held in November 2012 Following Implementation of Hydro-Québec’s Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion Project December 2013 PRODUCTION TEAM Supervision: Pierre Mercier, COMEX Chairman Philip Awashish, COMEX member Daniel Berrouard, COMEX member Brian Craik, COMEX member Robert Lemieux, COMEX member Text: Karine Dubé, MDDEFP Pascale Labbé, MDDEFP Marie-Michèle Tessier, COMEX executive secretary Contributors: Pierre-Michel Fontaine, MDDEFP Kelly Leblanc, CRA Carl Ouellet, MDDEFP COVER PAGE picTURES: Rupert dam and spillway, photo credit: Photo Hydro-Québec, 2012. Stocking of lake sturgeon in the Rupert River, photo credit: Photo Hydro-Québec, 2008. Archaeological digs in the Rupert diversion area, photo credit: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Program (Cree Nation Government), 2009. LEGAL DEPOSIT Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, 2014 ISBN: 978-2-550-69727-5 (Print) ISBN: 978-2-550-69726-8 (PDF) © Gouvernement du Québec, 2014 In case of discrepancy, the French version shall prevail. Chairman’s Message It has been seven years since the certificate of authorization for Hydro-Québec’s Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion Project in the James Bay Territory, known as “Eeyou Istchee” to the Crees, was issued. One of the conditions of authorization stipulated that the proponent had to collaborate with COMEX to set up a process for consulting the Cree population and that the consultation had to take place between the end of the construction period and before the commissioning of the project. The primary objective was to, among other things, make known the point of view of the Crees on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures put in place and the means that could be envisaged to deal with the project’s residual impacts. Note that COMEX was not responsible for conducting a cost analysis of the hydroelectric infrastructure, establishing the price/quality ratio or deciding the technology to be used. In November 2012, COMEX held public consultations in the communities of Mistissini, Nemaska, Chissaibi, Eastmain, Wemindji and Waskaganish. Some 200 Crees participated. This report takes into account the points of view expressed by participants and the explanations and responses provided by the proponent and, for each of the themes addressed, includes COMEX’s opinions, analyses, and views in response to the questions raised during the consultation sessions. The consultations revealed strong feelings among the Crees, especially toward their land. The Grand Chief of the Crees, Mathew Coon Come, summarized their feelings during the last public consultation held in Waskaganish, recalling the discord several of his fellow Crees experienced following the signing of the James Bay Agreement. Moreover, he recalled that the Paix des Braves agreement won over a majority of people, adding in the same breath that many families were divided over what was happening to their river. He concluded with this appeal: “We therefore need to try and find solutions for these people. That’s what the agreement, the James Bay Agreement, is there for: to find solutions for everyone, not just for those directly affected by the flooding.” In COMEX’s opinion, there has been very good collaboration between the Cree Nation and the proponent in recent years. In addition, the Committee is convinced that the Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle Powerhouses and Rupert Diversion Project will have contributed to greater understanding between all the parties concerned, to greater Cree involvement in the development of the territory, and perhaps to empowering them to achieve their long-term economic and community development goals. ublic Consultations P COMEX intends to remain attentive and wishes to thank the proponent and the Cree communities for participating in these public consultations. on the T OR P E COMEX R Pierre Mercier V December 2013 TAblE OF CONTENTS PRODUCTION TEAM ...............................................................................................................................IV CHAIRMAN’S MESSAGE .......................................................................................................................V TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... VII LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................................X LIST OF APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................X LIST OF ACRONYMS ..............................................................................................................................XI 1. INtrODUctiON .............................................................................................................................1 1.1 The Review Committee.............................................................................................................1 1.2 Background .................................................................................................................................2 1.3 Objectives of the report .........................................................................................................11 1.4 Main mitigation measures implemented by Hydro-Québec in relation to the Eastmain-1-A/Sarcelle/Rupert project ..................................................................11 1.5 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 14 2. MAIN IssUes RaiseD BY THE Crees DUriNG THE PUBLic CONSULtatiONS ........................................................................................................................17 2.1 Impacts on avian, terrestrial and aquatic fauna............................................................... 17 2.2 Impacts on hunting, fishing and trapping ......................................................................... 18 2.3 Sociocultural impacts ............................................................................................................. 19 2.4 Psychosocial impacts .............................................................................................................21 2.5 Economic impacts and spinoffs ..........................................................................................24 3. MistissiNI .................................................................................................................................... 27 3.1 Concerns expressed at the public hearings held in 2006............................................ 27 ublic Consultations P 3.2 Views expressed by Cree participants at the consultation sessions held on the in 2012 .......................................................................................................................................28 T OR P 3.2.1 General comments ...................................................................................................28 E 3.2.2 Impacts as noted by participants at the consultation session held in Mistissini .................................................................................................................28 COMEX R 3.2.3 Concerns expressed ................................................................................................29 VII 4. NemasKA ...................................................................................................................................... 31 4.1 Concerns expressed at the public hearings held in 2006............................................31 4.2 Views expressed by Cree participants at the consultation sessions held in 2012 .......................................................................................................................................32 4.2.1 General comments ...................................................................................................32 4.2.2 Impacts as noted by participants at the consultation session held in Nemaska ...............................................................................................................33 4.2.3 Concerns expressed ................................................................................................39 5. CHisasiBI ...................................................................................................................................... 41 5.1 Concerns expressed at the public hearings held in 2006............................................41 5.2 Views expressed by Cree participants at the consultation sessions held in 2012 .......................................................................................................................................42 5.2.1 General comments ...................................................................................................42 5.2.2 Impacts as noted by participants at the consultation session held in Chisasibi ................................................................................................................43 5.2.3 Concerns expressed ...............................................................................................