mikisew cree submission - canada.ca · mikisew cree first nation submission august 24, 2010 in the...

“Keetaskenow”

Mikisew Cree First Nation Submission August 24, 2010

In the Matter of Energy Resources Conservation Board Application No. 1445535

And In the Matter of Alberta Environment Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act

Application No. 001-228044

And In the Matter of Water Act File No. 001-00228047

And In the Matter of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Section 35(2) Authorization Application

PROWSE CHOWNE LLP

Donald P. Mallon, Q.C.

Eva Chipiuk

Suite 1300, 10020 101 A Avenue

Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3G2

Phone: (780) 439-7171

Fax: (780) 439-0475

E-mail: [email protected]

[email protected]

JANES FREEDMAN KYLE LAW CORPORATION

Robert Janes

Karey Brooks

Christina Scattolin

816 - 1175 Douglas Street

Victoria, British Columbia V8W 2E1

Phone: (250) 405-3460

Fax: (250) 381-8567

Email: [email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]





MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION SUBMISSION

ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1445535

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3

II. DESCRIPTION OF INTERVENERS ......................................................................... 6

III. REASONS FOR OBJECTION ................................................................................... 7

IV. REQUESTED DISPOSITION AND REASONS ....................................................... 9

V. FACTS TO BE SHOWN IN EVIDENCE ................................................................ 13

A. Mikisew Member Evidence ................................................................................ 13

B. Mikisew Traditional Territory ............................................................................ 14 C. Extinguishment ................................................................................................... 17

VI. EFFORTS MADE BY THE PARTIES TO RESOLVE THE MATTER ................. 21

VII. NATURE AND SCOPE OF INTENDED PARTICIPATION ................................. 22

VII. APPENDIX ............................................................................................................... 23

A. Treaty 8 Documents ............................................................................................ 23

B. Mikisew Cree First Nation Will Says ................................................................. 29 C. Curriculum Vitaes ............................................................................................... 30 D. Expert Reports and Presentations ....................................................................... 31

E. Traditional Use Documents ................................................................................ 34 F. Intergovernmental Correspondence .................................................................... 41 G. Project Related Correspondence ......................................................................... 46



3

“Keetaskenow”

Definition(Cree): “Everything - air, land, animals, plants, fish, birds, insects, water

– works together to sustain life”

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The Mikisew First Nation (“Mikisew”) are intervening in the joint Government of

Canada Energy Resources and Conservation Board review panel (the “Joint

Review Panel”) of the application by TOTAL E&P Canada Ltd. (“TOTAL”) for

approval of the Joslyn North Mine Project, Energy Resources Conservation Board

(“ERCB”) Application No. 1445535 (the “Project”).

2. In February of 2006, Deer Creek Energy Limited (“DCEL”) filed an application

with the Energy Utilities Board under:

1) Section 10 of the Oil Sands Conservation Act, R.S.A. 2000, O-7 (“OSCA”),

and ss. 3, 24 and 26 of the Oil Sands Conservation Regulation, Alta. Reg.

76/1988 (“OSCR”) for approval for the mining, lease development, on-site

waste management and reclamation activities to be carried out on the Joslyn

Lease;

2) Sections 10 and 11 of OSCA and ss. 3 and 48 of the OSCR, for approval of an

oil sands processing plant for the recovery of bitumen and treatment of

bitumen froth; and

3) Section 11 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-16

(“HEEA”), for approval to construct and operate a co-generation plant.

3. DCEL also submitted the Project Environmental Impact Assessment (the “EIA”)

to the Director of Alberta Environment for his review, pursuant to s. 50 of the

Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-12 (“EPEA”)

and for a decision, in due course, by the Director that the Report is complete

pursuant to s. 53 of EPEA.



4

4. DCEL also sought an approval from Alberta Environment (“AENV”), pursuant to

s. 66 of EPEA and the Approvals and Registrations Procedure Regulation, for the

activities as described in the Project Application, including the construction,

operation and reclamation of the Project.

5. DCEL further applied to AENV, pursuant to ss. 37 and 42 of the Water Act,

R.S.A. 2000, c. W-3 (“WA”), for an amendment to WA Approval No. 198991-00-

00, as amended, allowing for the construction of a water intake at the Athabasca

River and for other oil sands facilities as described in the Project Application.

DCEL also applies to AENV for a license, pursuant to section 50 of the WA, to

divert from the Athabasca River and site surface runoff an additional 29,090

m3/cd (10,617,000 m

3/year) for a total annual volume of 11,000,000 m

3.

6. The EIA also stated that federal approval will be filed in the future.

7. Sometime after DCEL submitted its application, TOTAL purchased DCEL‟s

interests in the Project. Since the initial application was made in 2006 TOTAL

made a number of changes to the Project design and consequently its application.

Although these changes are not readily apparent in the EIA or the Joint Panel

Review registry website, TOTAL‟s most recently filed documents, filed in

February of 2010, states that TOTAL is seeking approvals for:

1) Energy Utilities Board (now ERCB) Application No. 1445535;

2) Alberta Environment Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA)

Application No. 001-228044;

3) Water Act File No. 001-00228047; and

4) Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Section 35(2) Authorization Application.



5

8. The Joslyn North Mine Project is located approximately 70 kilometres north of

Fort McMurray within Township (“TWP”) 94, Range (“Rge”) 11 and 12, TWP

95, Rge 11, 12, and 13, and TWP 96, Rge 11, 12, 13and are Oil Sands Leases

7280060T24, 7404110452 and 7405070799. .

9. The expected production capacity from the two trains will be approximately

11,924 cubic metres per day of partially deasphalted bitumen. The Project, if

approved, could begin construction in 2011-2012, with mining expected to occur

from 2017 to 2037.

10. On August 8, 2008, the Joint Review Panel was established to review the Project.

The Joint Panel Review agreement states that the scope of the factors to be

considered by the Joint Review Panel includes, in part:

Cumulative Effects Assessment

The Panel shall identify and assess the project‟s cumulative effects.

Cumulative effects are those changes to the environment due to the project

combined with the existence of other works or other past, present and

reasonably foreseeable future projects.

…

The Panel should focus its consideration of cumulative effects on key valued

environmental components. Without limiting itself thereto, the following

components may be considered:

Water quality and quantity;

Air quality;

Current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal

persons;

Wildlife and wildlife habitat for key species;

Effects of changes to the environment

To take into account the “environmental effects” defined by the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act, the environmental assessment will consider

the effects of any changes to the environment caused by the project on the

following factors:

Health and Socio-Economic Conditions

Physical and Cultural Heritage

Current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal

persons

Any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological or

architectural significance [emphasis added]



6

II. DESCRIPTION OF INTERVENERS

11. The Mikisew are an Indian Band, registered in accordance with the Indian Act,

R.S.C., c. I-6. It is comprised of approximately 2400 members, or 55% of the

aboriginal people living within the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo.

Approximately half of the band members live in and around Fort Chipewyan and

the surrounding traditional trapping, hunting and fishing lands, and most of the

remaining half live in the vicinity of Fort McKay and Fort McMurray, Alberta.

12. The traditional lands of the Mikisew extend around Lake Athabasca over the

entire Peace-Athabasca Delta, and south to and including Fort McMurray and the

Clearwater River. The area described above includes the proposed project

location.

13. In 1899 when Mikisew entered into Treaty 8 with the Crown it was promised

certain harvesting rights which embodied a promise that by signing the treaty they

were not giving up their way of life. While the use of land would change after the

treaty, Mikisew and the other treaty signatories understood that their harvesting

practices would be protected and not limited or interfered with to such an extent

as to render them meaningless as constitutionally protected treaty rights. In

essence, the treaty provided there would be a balanced sharing of the land – the

Crown and Euro-Canadian society would be able to use the land to carry out

certain practices and to develop resources while the beneficiaries of Treaty 8

would be guaranteed the continuation of their way of life, the protection of the

Crown and certain material benefits (such as the annuity payment). A list of

documents relating to Treaty 8 is attached at Appendix A.

14. The evidence set out in the various historic records that are filed at Appendix A

describes the government‟s understanding of the events leading up to and

motivating the negotiation of the treaty as well as reports concerning the

negotiation of the treaty. This evidence shows that the Crown understood that the

aboriginal signatories of Treaty 8 were concerned about threats to their way of life



7

posed by the influx of non-aboriginal people into their territory. The aboriginal

signatories were clearly interested in entering into treaty not just to obtain the

material benefits that came from treaty (such as the five dollar annuity) but most

importantly to actually protect their hunting, trapping and fishing. This accorded

well with the government‟s objectives at that time as they were keen to see the

aboriginal people support themselves through their traditional activities and not

become dependent upon welfare or other forms of assistance. These records also

describe the process in the twentieth century by which the government of Alberta

worked in the twentieth century to limit the Mikisew to Wood Buffalo National

Park.

III. REASONS FOR OBJECTION

15. The Project constitutes an unjustifiable infringement of Mikisew‟s Treaty rights.

16. Aboriginal peoples, including the ancestors of the Mikisew, have inhabited the

lands surrounding and downstream of the Project for over 8,000 years.

Subsistence hunting, trapping, fishing and gathering still occur as part of their

way of life. The Mikisew have lived and flourished on their traditional lands for

millennia. However since the British and Canadian Crown authorized the

exploitation and immigration on their lands, they have witnessed significant

depletion and deterioration of fish, animals and plants they rely on for their health,

sustenance and economy. The irreversible negative impacts to the rivers,

wetlands, forests and meadows are a result of government authorized activities.

17. Since the fur trade many Mikisew people traveled continuously up and down the

Athabasca River to and from Fort McMurray to Fort Chipewyan for various

activities such as trading, shopping, work at Bitumount, hauling wood from

sawmills, accessing the railway, summer hunting and fishing. The Athabasca

River was and currently is an important “highway” for the Mikisew. Rivers such

as the Muskeg were used as transportation routes by the aboriginal peoples of the

region.



8

18. In addition to providing habitat for fish, plants, and animals for subsistence

purposes, the traditional lands of the Mikisew supply resources for medicinal,

spiritual, and cultural purposes. Each time a large section of traditional lands are

removed it makes it more difficult to maintain their way of life including their

culture language and spiritual practices. The loss of the Project lands and

surrounding lands and water impacted by the Project means a loss of and access to

cultural and spiritual places. The Mikisew rely on the land for various traditional

medicinal herbs and plants. This loss is a significant blow to their traditional

culture and way of life.

19. To the extent that the proposed Project affects the Project lands and the lands and

waters adjacent to the proposed Project location, and to the extent that it affects

the Athabasca and the Muskeg River, it affects the Mikisew, their health, and their

social, economic and cultural well-being.

20. The Mikisew filed an initial Statement of Concern, dated May 29, 2006, Mikisew

expressed concern about the Project relating to: the cumulative effects of the

Project on the environment; effect of the Project on the cultural ecosystem and

traditional land uses; and the socio-economic effects of the Project.

21. Mikisew submits that the cumulative effect of all of the development in and

around its traditional land has rendered the rights promised to them in Treaty 8

meaningless. Rather than sharing the use of the land and allowing the Mikisew to

maintain their way of life, Canada and Alberta have transformed the land into a

largely urbanized or industrialized landscape. The lands along the Athabasca

River south of Wood Buffalo National Park have been heavily developed in the

manner described above and opportunities to hunt, harvest or otherwise use the

land for traditional purposes are severely limited and, for the most part, not

available to be used in a traditional manner.



9

22. This has been compounded by the fact that other aspects of Mikisew‟s traditional

way of life have been compromised by the alteration in the water regime caused

by the Bennett Dam and the extraction of water for oil sands and other purposes.

This has limited the ability of the Mikisew to continue to enjoy their traditional

fish harvest and also limited the economic opportunities created by the fishery.

IV. REQUESTED DISPOSITION AND REASONS

23. Mikisew asks that the approval for the Project sought by TOTAL be denied.

Mikisew submits that the approval of the Project would constitute an unjustifiable

infringement on Mikisew‟s treaty rights. Further, in light of the cumulative

impacts of current and approved oil sands projects Mikisew submits it is not in the

public interest that TOTAL‟s applications be approved.

24. The Mikisew will pose to the following constitutional questions to the Joint

Review Panel:

Would the proposed approval constitute an unjustifiable infringement of the

Treaty 8 Harvesting Rights of the Mikisew?

Would the proposed approval constitute an unlawful intrusion into Federal

jurisdiction over Indians and Lands Reserved for the Indians (s. 91(24),

Constitution Act, 1982)?

25. The Mikisew culture and their ability to exercise their rights are highly dependent

on the state of the environment. As a result, not only are they deeply concerned

about the ecological state of the region in which they live, but they are directly

and adversely affected by the changing landscape of the region.

26. Mikisew submits that further large scale industrial development within the lands

subject to the Project would constitute an unjustifiable infringement of the treaty

rights of the Mikisew. The Project would take even more land and make it



10

unavailable or unsuitable for traditional purposes and also delay even further

prospect of any recovery of the land in the foreseeable future and that this

infringement is unconstitutional for two reasons:

First, by infringing the treaty rights of the Mikisew (rather than merely

taking-up lands and limiting the rights without infringing), irrespective of the

question of justification, the approval would trench on the exclusive aspect of

federal jurisdiction over Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians under s.

91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 and so is of no force and effect by virtue

of s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982; and

Second, as an unjustifiable infringement of a treaty right, the approval is of no

force and effect as a breach of s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

27. Due to the unjustified infringement of the Mikisew treaty rights, the Mikisew

submit that the Joint Review Panel refuse to grant approval of the Project in

accordance with Section 10(3)(b) of the OSCA.

28. Further, the TOTAL application, when considered in light of the cumulative

impacts of current and approved projects, does not pass the public interest test.

29. Section 3 of the Energy Resources Conservation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-10 reads:

Consideration of public interest

3 Where by any other enactment the Board is charged with the conduct of a

hearing, inquiry or other investigation in respect of a proposed energy

resource project, it shall, in addition to any other matters it may or must

consider in conducting the hearing, inquiry or investigation, give

consideration to whether the project is in the public interest, having regard to

the social and economic effects of the project and the effects of the project on

the environment.

30. The purpose of the OSCA as listed in part as follows:

Purposes of the Act

3 The purposes of this Act are…….



11

(b) to ensure orderly, efficient and economical development in the public

interest of the oil sands resources of Alberta,

…

(e) to assist the Government in controlling pollution in the development and

production of the oil sands resources of Alberta,

…

(g) to ensure the observance, in the public interest, of safe and efficient

practices in the exploration for and the recovery, storing, processing and

transporting of oil sands, discard, crude bitumen, derivatives of crude bitumen

and oil sands products. [emphasis added]

31. The purposes of the HEEA are set out in Section 2 in part as follows:

Purposes of the Act

2 The purposes of this Act are

(a) to provide for the economic, orderly and efficient development and

operation, in the public interest, of hydro energy and the generation and

transmission of electric energy in Alberta,

(b) to secure the observance of safe and efficient practices in the public

interest in the development of hydro energy and in the generation,

transmission and distribution of electric energy in Alberta,

(c) to assist the Government in controlling pollution and ensuring

environment conservation in the development of hydro energy and in the

generation, transmission and distribution of electric energy in Alberta

[emphasis added]

32. The Terms of Reference of the Joint Review Panel as stated above include

consideration of “current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by

aboriginal persons”

33. For all these reasons and separate and apart from the obligation of the Joint

Review Panel to consider the constitutional rights of First Nations potentially

impacted by the Project, the Joint Review Panel must also within its own guiding

principles consider those rights and impacts. Mikisew respectfully submits that

the Joint Review Panel is mandated to consider aboriginal and treaty rights within

the public interest test, irrespective of any constitutional questions posed to it.

34. The public interest test involves several factors that have been taken in the past to

include resource conservation, economics, public safety, environmental protection

and social interests.



12

35. Aboriginal and treaty rights cross the plane of most of these factors and Mikisew

submits the weight to be placed on its rights, as a separate consideration within

the public test, is of the highest order.

36. In R. v. Conway, 2010 SCC 22, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”)

confirmed that expert tribunals should play a primary role in determining

constitutional issues that fall within their specialized jurisdiction.

37. In discussing the duty to consult and accommodate the SCC also said in Haida

Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73, that: “...the

Province took the Lands subject to this duty.” The SCC went on to state in that

case that the fulfillment of the Crown‟s fiduciary duty requires it to “…act with

reference to the Aboriginal group’s best interest in exercising discretionary

control over the specific Aboriginal interest at stake.”

38. The SCC also found that the duty to accommodate requires a balance that must be

sought between Aboriginal concerns and competing societal concerns (Taku River

Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), 2004 SCC

74T.) Resource conservation and economics, elements of the public interest test

are examples of such societal concerns. The fact that the ERCB is legislatively

mandated to consider those and environmental and cultural concerns and the Joint

Review Panel is mandated by its terms of reference to consider Aboriginal

concerns means that without anything more the Joint Review Panel must take note

of, consider and make the determinations sought by Mikisew.

39. Further, as an agency of the Crown, the Joint Review Panel must act honorably

(Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005

SCC 69, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 388) and in fulfilling their duties consider the rights of

Mikisew. In Carrier Sekani Tribal Council v. British Columbia (Utilities

Commision) 2009 BCCA 67 the B.C. Court of Appeal stated “ The honour of the

Crown requires not only that the Crown actor consult, but also that the regulatory

tribunal decide any consultation dispute which arises within the scheme of its



13

regulation. It is useful to remember the relationship between government and

administrative tribunals generally.” Mikisew respectfully submits that any

obligation of a tribunal with respect to a consultation issue would equally apply to

an infringement issue.

40. Mikisew treaty rights are being unjustifiably infringed, therefore the Project

cannot be in the public interest and TOTAL must be denied its approvals in

accordance with Section 10(3)(b) of the OSCA.

V. FACTS TO BE SHOWN IN EVIDENCE

41. The Mikisew will present witnesses consisting of Mikisew members and leaders,

traditional use specialists and environmental scientists to demonstrate why this

Project should be denied. The will say statements Mikisew members and leaders

are located at Appendix B.

42. The Mikisew experts (see Appendix C for qualifications) have prepared reports

that are appended to this submission as Appendices D and E. The Mikisew agree

with all of their findings and recommendations and adopt those same findings and

recommendations as their own.

A. Mikisew Member Evidence

43. The Mikisew members and leaders will give evidence of the interests of the

Mikisew and the direct impacts of the project. Chief Marcel and a number of

Mikisew members will testify as to the current state of Mikisew territory and the

importance and significance of the treaty rights.

44. Mikisew harvesting rights continued to have great cultural and social significance.

Hunting still provides a significant source of food both for hunters and other

members of the community who rely upon the hunters. Hunting also continues to

have spiritual significance to Mikisew members.



14

45. Mikisew members continue to hunt and see hunting as an important part of

maintaining the connection between their community and their lands and an

important part of passing down their distinct culture to future generations.

46. As Mikisew people have moved away from Fort Chipewyan to southern parts of

their territory to take advantage of economic opportunities, they have continued to

try to exercise their rights in these southern areas (Fort McMurray, Fort Mackay,

Birch Hills and lands along the Athabasca River and its tributaries). While a great

deal of harvesting in the twentieth century focused on Wood Buffalo National

Park, it was not confined to the park and there was hunting and other activities in

areas to the south, particularly along the Athabasca River and its tributaries.

B. Mikisew Traditional Territory

47. Mikisew will present evidence that the Project is situated in Mikisew‟s Traditional

Territory and is in an area subject to Treaty 8 rights. Specifically, Professor

McCormack will provide an ethnographic description of the people who now

make up the Mikisew and describe their Traditional Territory.

48. Mikisew‟s Traditional Territory reflects the territories of the Cree and Chipewyan

people who participated in Treaty 8 and came together to form Mikisew as the

Indian Act bands were formed after the signing of the treaty in 1899. These

territories covered an extensive area focused around several major axes which

represented major land and water transportation routes, one of the most important

of which was the Athabasca River.

49. As described in Professor McCormacks‟ report, this territory reflected a number

of cultural factors, including the maintenance animal populations; the ability to

adapt to fluctuations in animal populations; the maintenance of extensive and

overlapping kinship networks. This territory extended south to the Fort

McMurray and Fort Mackay regions and certainly includes the lands on which the

Project is situated.



15

50. Professor McCormack‟s evidence also describes how the Cree and Chipewyan

harvesting practices and way of life evolved following contact with Europeans

through to the late twentieth century. This evidence shows that while the

Mikisew were keen and willing to take advantage of European technologies and

take advantage of the opportunities that the introduction of the European market

economy created, they carefully maintained their way of life.

51. Hunting, trapping and other forms of harvesting remained important both as a

means of providing a products to trade into the western economy (i.e. furs) but

also as a means of subsistence and cultural survival. The maintenance of the

traditional culture and harvesting rights allowed the Mikisew to maintain a

significant degree of autonomy despite the introduction of the market economy.

52. Professor McCormack also discusses how from approximately 1929 through the

late twentieth century there were a series of government policies implemented

(particularly by the government of Alberta) that had the effect of re-focusing a

great deal of Mikisew harvesting to the northern part of their territory around

Wood Buffalo National Park. Despite this, however, harvesting continued

elsewhere and the Mikisew maintained their way of life and connection with their

larger territory.

53. Professor McCormack will also testify as to the background of Treaty 8 and the

significance of the harvesting rights in those negotiations. This evidence will

show that one of the major motivating factors for the aboriginal signatories

(including the people who are now the Mikisew) in negotiating the treaty was to

obtain protection for their way of life – particularly their hunting and trapping – in

light of the influx of non-aboriginal people (including trappers who threatened to

extirpate furbearers from certain areas).



16

54. At page 73, Professor McCormack concludes by stating:

The First Nations who entered into Treaty No. 8 agreed to share their land

with newcomers. They could work around a few blocks of land removed from

the totality of their traditional lands. Blanketing an entire landscape with

industrial lands is a different matter entirely, a kind of industrial clearcutting.

As industries have expanded their northern presence and began to build roads

to access oil and gas and forestry resources, it opened the door to additional

people moving onto even those lands that Indians had managed to preserve.

At some point, they will run out of lands to which they can move. There is no

evidence that these changes will or even can be compensated for by the

provision of wage labor. Although government officials have assumed for

many years that at some point in the future Aboriginal people will no longer

support themselves by hunting, that does not mean that Aboriginal people

hold the same belief about their future. [emphasis added]

55. The aboriginal signatories of Treaty 8 clearly understood that while the treaty

would allow non-aboriginal people to come onto their lands, the treaty also

promised them protection for their way of life and in no way represented a

decision on their part to give up their way of life.

56. Dr. Doug Elias will provide evidence concerning what over-arching conclusions

can be drawn from an examination of a collection of traditional use studies

(“TUS”) conducted by or on behalf of the Mikisew over the years. This evidence

will confirm that the Project is within Mikisew Traditional Territory.

57. While all of the TUS evidence will show historical and current, albeit reduced,

use of the Project and Study areas, the report of the Calliou Group, which was

specifically commissioned for this project through the evidence of Tracy

Campbell will address that question specifically.

58. The Calliou Group report concluded at page 3 that:

additional development within MCFN traditional territory, such as the

proposed Project, will further restrict MCFN member‟s ability to exercise

their treaty rights. This will occur both directly by removing the Project area

from the land available for traditional uses, and indirectly by contributing to

the cumulative effects (including perceived health, economic, environmental

and cultural) described by Study participants. [emphasis added]



17

59. This report and other evidence to be placed before the panel will also show key

species of importance to the Mikisew. Mikisew members will caution the panel

of the principle embodied by the word “Keetaskenow” – Everything is important

for our survival. This embodies their holistic approach to life.

60. Sherri Labour will provide further analysis of Aboriginal perspectives and the

significance of environmental effects on the Mikisew.

61. The Firelight Group will discuss the continued importance of the Athabasca River

to the Mikisew people and the ability to carry out their traditional rights.

Specifically, at page 10 of the Firelight report, they found that:

…reductions in the quantity and quality of the Athabasca River‟s flow are

having adverse effects on the ability of MCFN members to access territories,

and to practice their aboriginal and Treaty rights, including hunting, trapping,

fishing, and related activities. Adverse effects are particularly evident where

the preferred manner, or location, of exercising rights involves access to

territories by boat, or where the right relies upon confidence in the quality, or

safety, of foods or other resources procured on traditional lands influenced by

industrial use.

62. The totality of this evidence establishes that the Mikisew hold treaty rights in the

area of the Project; that the Project is in their traditional territory and that the

continued exercise of these rights is economically, culturally and spiritually

significant.

C. Extinguishment

63. Mikisew‟s submission is that at its core the harvesting rights contained in Treaty 8

reflects the promise that the Mikisew way of life would not be taken away but

instead would be protected. In analyzing the question of whether the Treaty 8

harvesting rights have been infringed or whether development threatens to take

away any meaningful right to hunt, it is important to bear in mind that the right is

intimately tied up with maintaining a way of life and not merely a sport hunt or

even a subsistence hunt. Thus answering this question requires the Joint Review



18

Panel to address the question of whether t the Mikisew way of life has been

threatened by the development which has occurred in and about the lands on

which the Project is to be carried out.

64. In addition to the evidence described above, Professor McCormack will show that

the traditional harvesting practices were carried out in a manner which required

the existence of substantial tracts of open land. The harvesting efforts of the

Mikisew were dispersed throughout the territory as family groups or bands (not

Indian Act bands) spread out through the Traditional Territory to places where

they would hunt, trap and fish. The aboriginal people would need land available

for the purpose of re-locating as animal populations were exploited or fluctuated

for natural causes. The ability to re-locate to areas used by other family members

or relatives was tied to the availability of land and resources in the areas being

used by those people. Further, the Mikisew were sensitive to non-aboriginal uses

of the land would be respectful of those, thus making it difficult for them carry

out their traditional way of life in areas that were fenced, cut or otherwise

occupied by non-aboriginal land uses.

65. The evidence of the Mikisew members will clearly demonstrate that the

development of the territory and a wide variety of non-aboriginal land uses has

had a devastating impact on their ability to carry out their way of life. Members

who have hunted for a long time, have observed that animal populations have

significantly reduced or have moved. Animals avoid or stay away from oil sands

developments and such areas are not suitable for hunting in any event. The areas

are bright and noisy and furthermore the presence of large populations of workers

and others makes it unsafe to hunt in these areas.

66. Further, game harvested in these areas tastes poorly. While these effects alone are

very significant, all of this has been made worse by changes in the water regime

in the area. The building of the Bennett Dam on the Peace River and the

extraction of water from the Athabasca River has contributed significantly to (if



19

not caused) the drying out of the Peace-Athabasca Delta, one of the great inland

deltas of the world and has devastated the traditional trapping areas of the

Mikisew removing this as a practical supplement or alternative to hunting and

compounding the loss of traditional activities. The fish populations have also

been affected by pollution of the Athabasca River by development (including oil

sands development) and the members of Mikisew are afraid to eat the fish.

Mikisew members still try to maintain their way of life – sustenance harvesting is

still carried on to the extent that it can be and members hope to pass their way of

life on to future generations.

67. The historic records from the time of treaty negotiation, some of which are in

evidence, show that the Crown understood and recognized that the Mikisew

people tended to operate spread out over the land rather than concentrated in

communities. This is consistent with the desire for the protection of an adequate

land base to allow for such harvesting.

68. Management Solutions in Environmental Science (“MSES”) analyzed satellite

photographs of the region together with government records of surface

development. He has analyzed how much of the land has been cleared; how much

of the land is within the zone of influence of development; and the degree to

which land has been fragmented or broken-up by development. This analysis

includes an analysis of habitat for different species and how it has been affected

by development and fragmentation. His evidence shows that across the board

there has been very significant loss of habitat for large ungulates, furbearing

animals and birds harvested by the Mikisew. Specifically, at Page 1 of the MSES

it states:

Our main findings are that the Project‟s impacts, in accumulation with past,

present, and future projects will remove any undisturbed land from the RSA

by about 2021. Within ten years after that, the habitats for moose, beaver and

waterfowl will be removed and, as a result, their populations in the RSA will

likely not be viable.



20

To date, reclamation practices have not re-established vegetation and wildlife

diversity similar to pre-disturbance conditions, and are unlikely to do so in the

future. Finally, the environmental planning process does not provide the

scientifically rigorous information necessary to understand and prepare the

First Nations for the erosion of traditional resources. [emphasis added]

69. MSES concludes that if current development patterns continue then there would

be categories of habitat that would be lost from the area entirely together with the

loss of associated animal populations. The level of fragmentation of the land is

already extremely severe. All of this is associated with an observed reduction in

the populations of animals harvested by the Mikisew.

70. Dr. David Schindler will describe the effects of oil sands development on water

quality in the Athabasca River and in Lake Athabasca. Specifically Dr. Schindler

will present evidence that shows that the oils sands industry substantially

increases loadings of toxic materials into the Athabasca River and its tributaries

and that the current monitoring programs fail to detect these patterns.

71. A soon to be released new juried paper identifying further toxic releases into the

Athabasca River is expected to be published shortly. Dr. Schindler‟s new paper is

listed in Appendix D and Mikisiew will provide same as soon as this document

will be made available. Finally, Dr. Schindler will also present photographs of

fish removed from the Athabasca River in the spring of 2010 with severe

deformities. This evidence will substantiate the significant adverse effects

recounted by the Mikisew members.

72. Dr. Doug Elias‟ analysis of existing TUS data will show that there is a direct

conflict between areas reported to be of continuing interest for harvesting along

the Athabasca River and its tributaries and the areas used for oil sands

development, including the area of the Project.



21

73. Sherri Labour describes the concerns raised by the Mikisew at page 7 of her

report as follows:

Informants reiterated that MCFN members are experiencing significant

impacts to their traditional lifeways and practices. Existing cumulative effects

were described as preventing the meaningful use of traditional areas, and of

conducting traditional practices. In the past, people could simply „dip a cup in

the water‟ if they needed a drink. Now they must calculate how much water

they need for the amount of time they wish to spend in the bush, or plan extra

travel to visit a creek that is known to be „clean‟ (all informants). Elders

wonder how their grandchildren “will survive” (MC25*). Parents wanting to

take their adult children out on the land cannot, in some cases, access the

areas where these same children „grew up‟ (MC28). [emphasis added]

74. Mikisew submits that the totality of this evidence shows that there has been an

inexorable process of conversion of most of the land south of Wood Buffalo

National Park and along the Athabasca River and its tributaries into an industrial

landscape. That is, there has been a conversion of the land from a landscape with

a balance of wilderness and habitat suitable for traditional harvesting practices, to

a landscape dominated by industrial features associated with oil sands

development, oil sands exploration, oil and gas development; forestry; road

networks and urban and suburban development. While this conversion may allow

for some hunting, it does not allow for the continuation of a way of life that

requires tracts of undeveloped, unfragmented land that is managed for traditional

harvesting.

75. As a result of the above the Project, in the context of existing and approved

development, constitutes an infringement of the Treaty 8 rights.

VI. EFFORTS MADE BY THE PARTIES TO RESOLVE THE MATTER

76. The evidence filed consists of a record of correspondence between the Miksew (or

related agencies) and the Crown with respect to the Project but also with respect

to certain larger land use planning processes which Alberta has fitfully attempted

to advance (Appendices F and G).



22

77. Melody Lepine, the director of the Mikisew GIRC, also provides a description of

Mikisew‟s concerns with the consultation process and the inadequacies of the

processes that have been carried out to date.

VII. NATURE AND SCOPE OF INTENDED PARTICIPATION

78. The Mikisew intend to fully participate in the hearing and will be presenting

evidence through a joint panel of leaders and experts. The Mikisew ask for the

opportunity to cross-examine witnesses put forth by the Applicant and other

interveners.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

MIKISEW FIRST NATION,

by their legal Counsel,

PROWSE CHOWNE LLP

Donald P. Mallon, Q.C.

Eva Chipiuk

JANES FREEDMAN KYLE LAW CORPORATION

Robert Janes

Karey Brooks

Christina Scattolin



23

VII. APPENDIX

A. Treaty 8 Documents

TAB DATE (DD/MM/YYYY)

APPENDIX A - TREATY 8 DOCUMENTS

1. 1880 Alexander Morris, The Treaties of Canada with the Indians of Manitoba

and the North-West Territories Including the Negotiations on which

they were Based and other Information Relating Thereto

2. 05/11/1883 L. Vankoughnet, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, to

John A. Macdonald, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs

3. 25/04/1884 Letter from Office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, North-West

Territories, File Number 12650

4. 26/01/1891 Order in Council P.C. 52

5. 29/05/1894 Hayter Reed to Charles Constantine

6. 21/12/1896 L. W. Herchmer, Commissioner, NWMP, to Inspector A. M. Jarvis,

NWMP

7. 24/04/1897 A. M. Jarvis, Inspector in charge of Northern Patrol, NWMP

8. 30/11/1897 James Walker to Clifford Sifton, Minister of the Interior

9. 02/12/1897 L. W. Herchmer, Commissioner, North West Mounted Policy, to

Comptroller, NWMP

10. 18/12/1897 J. D. McLean, Secretary, Department of Indian Affairs, to A. E. Forget,

Indian Commissioner

11. 12/01/1898 A. E. Forget, Indian Commissioner, North West Territories, to

Secretary, Department of Indian Affairs

12. 04/04/1898 W. H. Routledge, Inspector, NWMP, Commanding Northern Patrol, to

the Commissioner, NWMP

13. 16/04/1898 A. E Forget, Indian Commissioner, to J. A. J. McKenna, Department of

Indian Affairs

14. 25/04/1898 A. E. Forget, Indian Commissioner, North West Territories, to

Secretary, Department of Indian Affairs

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20A%20-%20Treaty%208%20Documents/Tab%201.pdf



























24



15. 18/06/1898 Clifford Sifton, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, to the

Governor General in Council

16. 27/06/1898 John J. McGee, Clerk of the Privy Council, to Superintendent General of

Indian Affairs Order in Council P.C. 1703

17. 06/07/1898 J. A. J. McKenna to A. E. Forget, Indian Commissioner

18. 30/11/1898 Clifford Sifton, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, to Governor

General in Council

19. 03/12/1898 J. A. Macrae, Commissioner, to J. A. J. McKenna

20. 05/12/1898 J. A. J. McKenna to David Laird, Indian Commissioner

21. 06/12/1898 Clerk of the Privy Council to the Superintendent General of Indian

Affairs

22. 07/01/1899 David Laird, Indian Commissioner, “Memorandum respecting proposed

Indian Treaty No. 8 and Halfbreed claims”

23. 14/01/1899 J. D. Moodie, Inspector, NWMP, to the Commissioner, NWMP

24. 17/02/1899 Clifford Sifton, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, to the

Governor General in Council

25. 02/03/1899 Order in Council P.C. 330

26. 17/04/1899 J. A. J. McKenna, Treaty Commissioner, to Clifford Sifton,

Superintendent General of Indian Affairs

27. 12/05/1899 Clifford Sifton, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, to David

Laird, J. A. J. McKenna, and J. H. Ross, Treaty Commissioners

28. 14/07/1899 Debates of the House of Commons

29. 22/09/1899 D. Laird, J.H. Ross and J.A.J. McKenna to C. Sifton, Superintendent

General of Indian Affairs, Report of Commissions for Treaty No. 8

30. 30/09/1899 James Walker and J. Arthur Cote, Half-breed Commissioners, to

Clifford Sifton, Minister of the Interior





























25



31. 31/12/1899 Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs for the Year Ended

June 30, 1899

32. 01/01/1900 L. W. Herchmer, Commissioner, NWMP, to the President of the Privy

Council

33. 05/02/1900 David Laird, Indian Commissioner, to Secretary, Department of Indian

Affairs

34. 01/04/1900 Chief and Councillors, Lesser Slave Lake Band, to Superintendent

General of Indian Affairs

35. 10/11/1900 J. A. Macrae, Inspector of Indian Agencies and Reserves, to Secretary,

Department of Indian Affairs

36. 11/12/1900 J.A. MacRae to Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, Report of

Commissions for Treaty No. 8

37. 19/01/1901 J. A. Macrae, Commissioner, to Clifford Sifton, Minister of the Interior

38. 05/10/1903 H. A. Conroy, Inspector, Treaty No. 8, to the Superintendent General of

Indian Affairs

39. 29/04/1904 D. Laird, Indian Commissioner, to Secretary, Department of Indian

Affairs

40. 05/02/1907 H. A. Conroy, Inspector, Treaty No. 8, to Frank Pedley, Deputy


41. 1908 Charles Mair, Through the Mackenzie Basin: A Narrative of the

Athabasca and Peace River Treaty Expedition of 1899



43. 11/01/1910 D. Laird, Indian Commissioner, to Deputy Minister, Department of

Indian Affairs

44. 10/10/1910 R. Field, In charge Chipewyan Detachment, to the Officer

Commanding, RNWMP, Athabaska Landing


































26



46. 02/08/1911 Frank Pedley, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, to

Frank Oliver, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs

47. 01/09/1913 Appendix Q - Sergeant A. H. L. Mellor, Fort Chipewyan to Fort

McMurray, Attending Treaty Payments

48. 31/03/1915 Report of Henry A. Conroy, Inspector for Treaty No. 8

49. 1923 Emile Grouard, Souvenir de mes Soixante Ans d‟Apostolat dans

l‟Athabasca Mackenzie

50. 18/12/1929 Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs to Charles Stewart,


51. 18/02/1938 G.H. McGill to K.R. Daly, Senior Solicitor, Legal Division, Department

of Mines and Resources

52. 25/02/1938 W. W. Cory, Solicitor, Legal Branch, Department of Mines and

Resources, to H. W. McGill

53. 09/03/1940 C. Pant. Schmidt, Inspector of Indian Agencies, Alberta Inspectorate, to

Secretary, Indian Affairs Branch, Department of Mines and Resources

54. 12/08/1943 C. W. Jackson, Chief Executive Assistant, to R. A. Hoey, Acting

Director, Indian Affairs Branch

55. 06/10/1945 Gabriel Breynat, Cinquante Ans au Pays des Neiges

56. 1946 J. Alden Mason, Notes of the Indians of the Great Slave Lake Area

57. 10/12/1959 Report of the Royal Commission Appointed to Investigate the

unfulfilled provisions of Treaties 8 and 11 as they apply to the Indians

of the Mackenzie District

58. 1968 Jack Sissons, Judge of the Far North: The Memoirs of Jack Sissons

59. 1971 Morris Zaslow, The Opening of the Canadian North, 1870-1914

60. 1972 Peter Cumming and Neil Mickenberg, Native Rights in Canada

61. 1974 Keith Crowe, A History of the Original Peoples of Northern Canada





























27



62. 1975 Rene Fumoleau, As Long As This Land Shall Last: A History of Treaty

8 and Treaty 11, 1870-1939

63. 1975 Indian Claims Commission, Indian Claims in Canada: An Introductory

Essay and Selected List of Library Holdings

64. 14/04/1976 Martin O‟Malley, The Past and Future Land: An Account of the Berger

Inquiry into the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline

65. 1977 Richard Daniel, Indian Rights and Hinterland Resources: The Case of

Northern Alberta

66. 1977 Richard T. Price, Indian Land Claims in Alberta: Politics and Policy-

Making (1968-77)

67. 1979 Richard Daniel, The Spirit and Terms of Treaty Eight

68. 1979 Ronald Maguire and George Brown, Indian Treaties in Historical

Perspective

69. 1979 J. E. Foster, Indian-White Relations in the Prairie West during the Fur

Trade Period - A Compact?

70. 1980 Richard Daniel, Treaties of the Northwest, 1871-1930

71. 1981 Hugh Brody, Maps and Dreams: Indians and the British Columbia

Frontier

72. 1981 D. J. Hall, Clifford Sifton, Volume 1; The Young Napolean, 1861-1900

73. 1981 Joe Sawchuk, Patricia Sawchuk, and Theresa Ferguson, Metis Land

Rights in Alberta: A Political History

74. 1981 Dennis Madill, British Colombia Indian Treaties in Historical

Perspective

75. 1983 D. J. Hall, Clifford Sifton and Canadian Indian Administration, 1896-

1905

76. 1984 William R. Morrison, Under the Flag: Canadian Sovereignty and the

Native People in Northern Canada






























28



77. 1985 William R. Morrison, A Survey of the History and Claims of the Native

Peoples of Northern Canada





29

B. Mikisew Cree First Nation Will Says

TAB APPENDIX B - DESCRIPTION

1. Overview of Lay Witness Evidence

2. Will Say Statements of the Mikisew Cree First Nation

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20B%20-%20MCFN%20Will%20Says/Tab%201.pdf

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20B%20-%20MCFN%20Will%20Says/Tab%202.pdf



30

C. Curriculum Vitaes

TAB APPENDIX C - CURRICULUM VITAES

Land Disturbance Panel

1. Petr Komers

2. Zoran Stanojevic

3. Sherri Gutsell

Cultural Panel

4. Sherri Labour

5. Patricia McCormack

Water Panel

6. David Schindler

7. Craig Candler

8. Steven DeRoy

9. Rachel Olson

Traditional Use Panel

10. Doug Elias

11. Barry Hunter

12. Sara Cook

13. Terry Tobias

14. Jim Tanner

15. Tracy Campbell

16. Germaine Conacher

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20C%20-%20Curriculum%20Vitae/Tab%201%20-%20Petr%20Komers%20CV.pdf

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20C%20-%20Curriculum%20Vitae/Tab%202%20-%20Zoran%20Stanojevic%20CV.pdf

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20C%20-%20Curriculum%20Vitae/Tab%203%20-%20Sherri%20Gutsell%20CV.pdf

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20C%20-%20Curriculum%20Vitae/Tab%204%20-%20Sherri%20Labour%20CV.pdf

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20C%20-%20Curriculum%20Vitae/Tab%205%20-%20Patricia%20McCormack%20CV.pdf

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20C%20-%20Curriculum%20Vitae/Tab%206%20-%20David%20Schindler%20CV.pdf

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20C%20-%20Curriculum%20Vitae/Tab%207%20-%20Craig%20Candler%20CV.pdf

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20C%20-%20Curriculum%20Vitae/Tab%208%20-%20Steven%20DeRoy%20CV.pdf

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20C%20-%20Curriculum%20Vitae/Tab%209%20-%20Rachel%20Olson%20CV.pdf

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20C%20-%20Curriculum%20Vitae/Tab%2010%20-%20Doug%20Elias%20CV.pdf

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20C%20-%20Curriculum%20Vitae/Tab%2011%20-%20Barry%20Hunter%20CV.pdf

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20C%20-%20Curriculum%20Vitae/Tab%2012%20-%20Sara%20Cook%20CV.pdf

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20C%20-%20Curriculum%20Vitae/Tab%2013%20-%20Terry%20Tobias%20CV.pdf

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20C%20-%20Curriculum%20Vitae/Tab%2014%20-%20Jim%20Tanner%20CV.pdf

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20C%20-%20Curriculum%20Vitae/Tab%2015%20-%20Tracy%20Campbell%20CV.pdf

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20C%20-%20Curriculum%20Vitae/Tab%2016%20-%20Germaine%20Conacher%20CV.pdf



31

D. Expert Reports and Presentations

LAND DISTURBANCE REPORTS AND PRESENTATION

TAB AUTHOR(S) APPENDIX D

EXPERT REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS

1. Management

Solutions in

Environmental

Science

Report – Effects on Traditional Resources of the

Mikisew Cree First Nation: The Joslyn Creek Project

Specific and Cumulative Effects in the Oil Sands

Region (August, 2010)

2. Management

Solutions in

Environmental

Science

Report - Review of Total‟s Joslyn North Mine

Project Additional Information (July, 2010)

3. Management

Solutions in

Environmental

Science

Presentation - Effects on Traditional Resources of

the Mikisew Cree First Nation: Joslyn Cree Project

Specific and Cumulative Effects in the Oil Sands

Region (September, 2010)

CULTURAL REPORTS



4. Sherri Labour Report – Mikisew Cree First Nation Traditional

Environmental Knowledge – Summary Report for the

Total Joslyn North Project Regulatory Hearing

(August 20, 2010)

5. FMA Heritage

Resources

Consultants Inc.

Report – Mikisew Cree First Nation Traditional

Ecological Knowledge Report – Synenco Energy Inc.

Northern Lights Oil Sands Development (May, 2007)

(Note: Missing Figures 1-3)

6. Patricia

McCormack

Report – Research Report for Mikisew Cree First

Nation dated (August 20, 2010)

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20D%20-%20Expert%20Reports/Tab%201.pdf






















32

WATER REPORTS, PRESENTATIONS AND MAPS



7. David Schindler Report – Oil sands development contributes toxic

concentrations of elements to the Athabasca River and

its tributaries (September 14, 2010)

8. David Schindler Report – Oil sands development contributes

polycyclic aromatic compounds to the Athabasca

River and its tributaries (December 29, 2009)

9. David Schindler Presentation – Deformed Fish Removed from the

Athabasca River (Spring, 2010)

10. Firelight Group

Research

Report - As Long As The Rivers Flow: Athabasca

River Use, Knowledge and Change (August 16, 2010)

11. Firelight Group

Research

Large size maps – Firelight Group Report - As Long

As The Rivers Flow: Athabasca River Use,

Knowledge and Change (August 16, 2010)

12. Firelight Group

Research

Report - Review of the Athabasca River Phase II

Framework Committee (P2FC) Report, January 2010 -

Aboriginal knowledge, use, interests and rights (July

30, 2010)

13. Firelight Group

Research

Maps – TOTAL 20 kilometer Footprint

TRADITIONAL USE REPORTS



14. Doug Elias Report – Description, Analysis and Synthesis of Six

Traditional Use Studies (August 22, 2010)

15. Calliou Group Mikisew Cree First Nation - Traditional Land Use

Study – Total Joslyn North Mine Project with

Appendix 1: Interview Summaries and Individual

Maps Mikisew Cree First Nation Traditional Land

Use Study: Total Joslyn North Mine Project (July,

2010)

http://www.prowsechowne.com/files/index.php?sessionID=e948d9cb865ee57854832ef0e8f72fa8&act=getfile&pwd=%2FMikisew+Cree+First+Nation%2FAppendix+D+-+Expert+Reports&mimetype=application%2Fpdf&file=Tab%2B7.pdf










http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20D%20-%20Expert%20Reports/Tab%2011.zip


















33



16. Terry Tobais Data-Collection Methodology Report, Mikisew Cree

First Nation 2009-2010 Use-and-Occupancy Map

Survey (August, 2010)






34

E. Traditional Use Documents

PACTEAM CANADA INC.

Report

TAB DATE APPENDIX E

TRADITIONAL USE DOCUMENTS

1. September 2007 Report on the Southern Territory Use and Occupancy

Mapping Project prepared by PACTeam Canada Inc.

Maps

TAB DATE APPENDIX E


2. Undated Map – TLU and Use & Occupancy Data

Interview Transcripts

TAB DATE

(MM/DD/YY)

APPENDIX E


3. 06/11/06 Alec Courtoreille

4. 06/11/06 George Wanderingspirit

5. 03/04/07 Madeline Gladue

6. 08/12/05 Jocelyn Marten

7. 09/12/06 Lawrence Vermillion

8. 09/12/06 Jack Marten

9. 09/12/06 Alec Whiteknife

10. 10/12/06 Albina Marten

11. 09/12/06 George Martin

12. 09/12/06 Joe Kaskamin and John Tuccaro

13. 21/04/07 Reggie McKay

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20E%20-%20TUS/Tab%201.pdf





35

TAB DATE

(MM/DD/YY)

APPENDIX E


14. 12/12/06 Reggie McKay

15. 09/12/06 Ernie Courtoreille

16. 13/12/06 George Waquan and Marie-Rose Waquan

17. 09/12/06 Larry Ratfat and Elizabeth Lacorde

18. 20/04/07 Elizabeth Larcode

19. 03/04/07 Darrell Salamo Tuccaro

20. 03/04/07 Steve Courtoreille

21. 12/04/07 Charlie Simpson

22. 21/04/07 Margaret Shortman

23. 28/04/07 Joe Boucher

24. 28/04/07 Daniel Whitehead

25. 28/04/07 Katy Dene

26. 12/04/07 Norman Simpson

27. 23/04/07 Alec Martin

28. 23/04/07 Harvey Marten

29. 23/04/07 Sydney McKay

30. 24/04/07 Ralph Simpson

31. 24/04/07 Hilda Lepine

32. 25/04/07 James Grandejambe

33. 25/04/07 Maria Vemillion

34. 30/05/07 Basil Tourangeau



36

CALLIOU GROUP

Report

TAB DATE APPENDIX E


35. July 2010 Mikisew Cree First Nation - Traditional Land Use

Study – Total Joslyn North Mine Project with

Appendix 1: Interview Summaries and Individual

Maps Mikisew Cree First Nation Traditional Land

Use Study: Total Joslyn North Mine Project

Maps

TAB DATE APPENDIX E


36. Undated Map – Data and TLU Maps


TAB DATE

(MM/DD/YY)

APPENDIX E


37. 12/01/09 Dennis Larcorde and Map

38. 12/01/09 Darrel Tuccaro and Map

39. 02/12/08 Maurice Marten and Map

40. 14/01/09 Maurice Marten and Map

41. 30/01/09 Willie Courtoreille and Map

42. 12/01/09 George Lepine and Map

43. 03/12/08 George Whiteknife and Map

44. 28/01/09 Leonard Piche and Map

45. 13/01/09 Rosie Vermillion and Map

46. 27/01/09 Bruce Dene and Map

47. 12/01/09 Dale Lepine and Map









37

TAB DATE

(MM/DD/YY)

APPENDIX E


48. 13/01/09 Adam Wigmore and Shaun Wigmore and Map

49. 13/01/09 Robert Dolboc and Map

50. 03/12/08 Mary Rose Waquan and Map

51. 03/12/08 Larry Ratfat and Map

52. 27/01/09 Katie Dene and Map

53. 03/12/08 Jocelyn Marten and Map

54. 03/12/08 Harvey Antoine and Map

TOBIAS

Report

TAB DATE APPENDIX E


55. August 2010 Data-Collection Methodology Report, Mikisew Cree

First Nation 2009-2010 Use-and-Occupancy Map

Survey

Maps

TAB DATE APPENDIX E


56. Undated Maps of MCFN Use and Occupancy Data

Collection of Various Datasets

TAB DATE

(MM/DD/YY)

APPENDIX E


57. 18/06/03 National Scale Frameworks re: Populated Places

58. Undated National Scale Frameworks re: Land Boundaries





http://prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20E%20-%20TUS/Tab%2057.pdf




38

TAB DATE

(MM/DD/YY)

APPENDIX E


59. 16/12/02 National Scale Frameworks re: Rail Networks

60. 16/12/02 National Scale Frameworks re: Road Networks

61. 16/12/02 National Scale Frameworks re: Hydrology

62. Undated Table of Drainage Areas

63. Blank Intentionally Left Blank

64. 12/03/02 Geobase Level - Standard Geographical

Classification Release Notes

65. 14/08/03 Description of Table of FDA Flows

66. 01/11/00 National Atlas VMAP0 Data for Canada (V2)–

Release Notes

67. 18/06/03 Maps of Various Lakes

68. Undated Mikisew Cree First Nation 2009 – 2010 UOM

Survey Index

TANNER

Report

TAB DATE APPENDIX E


69. 2006 Ayapaskowinowak (Northern Study)

Maps

TAB DATE APPENDIX E


70. Undated Maps of MCFN Total Traditional Land Use

















39


TAB DATE

(MM/DD/YY)

APPENDIX E


71. 29/04/08 Dale Lepine

72. 13/05/08 Dennis Lacorde

73. 14/06/08 Earney Courtoreille

74. 08/05/08 Elizabeth Lacorde

75. 07/07/08 Lena Friesen

76. 25/04/08 George Whiteknife

77. 20/04/08 Hilda Lepine

78. 01/05/08 Jocelyn Marten

79. Undated Joe Boucher

80. Undated Lorne Antoine

81. 23/05/08 Mary Antoine

82. 06/07/08 Mary Rose Waquan

83. Undated Alec Courtoreille

84. 22/06/08 Johnny Courtoreille

85. 10/09/08 Larry Ratfat

86. 06/05/08 Katy Dene

87. 08/05/08 Alice Marten

88. 06/07/08 Madeline Gladue

89. Undated Margo Vermillion

90. 10/09/08 Maurice Marten

91. 10/08/08 Norman Simpson



40

TAB DATE

(MM/DD/YY)

APPENDIX E


92. Undated Ralph Simpson

93. 25/06/08 Raymond Lepine

94. Undated Reggie McKay

95. 25/06/08 Raymond Lepine

96. 14/05/08 Scotty Lacorde

97. 12/06/08 Willie Courtoreille

98. Undated Leonard Piche

99. 12/05/08 Shawna Courtoreille Faichney

100. 04/07/08 Stanley Shortman

101. 03/07/08 Peter Van Names

102. Undated Willie Courtoreille

103. 22/06/08 Johnny Courtoreille

HUSKY / IMPERIAL

Report

TAB DATE APPENDIX E


104. June 2005 Mikisew Cree First Nation Traditional Land Use

Impact Assessment re: Husky Sunrise Thermal

Project






41

F. Intergovernmental Correspondence

TAB DATE

DD/MM/YY

APPENDIX F – INTERGOVERNMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

1. 22/09/04 Correspondence from CEMA to Mikisew regarding IFN task group and

upcoming workshop

2. 07/04/05 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV regarding notice of CEMA task

group

3. 27/05/05 Correspondence from Mikisew to CEMA expressing concern over process

for IFN

4. 14/07/05 Correspondence from Mikisew to EUB regarding IFN for Athabasca River,

attaching CEMA email

5. 19/09/05 Correspondence from Mikisew to RAMP regarding hydrogeology

monitoring

6. 16/10/05 Correspondence from Mikisew to CFO regarding lack of consultation in

respect of No Net Loss Plan for Horizon and Jackpine mines

7. 16/11/05 Correspondence from RAMP to Mikisew regarding regionally organized

groundwater monitoring program

8. 22/02/06 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV and DFO regarding IFN for

Athabasca River

9. 02/03/06 Correspondence from Mikisew regarding formal response to proposed

interim framework for IFN

10. 24/03/06 Mikisew response to interim IFN and Water Management System,

submitted to AENV

11. 31/03/06 Correspondence from Minister for AENV in connection with Mikisew

letter regarding IFN

12. 10/05/06 Correspondence from Athabasca Tribal Council requesting meeting

regarding IFN framework

13. 16/05/06 Correspondence from Mikisew to ASRD regarding point of contact and

noting that Mikisew participation in PWG is not substitute for consultation

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20F%20-%20Intergovernment%20Correspondence/Tab%20(01).pdf




























42

TAB DATE

DD/MM/YY


14. 17/05/06 Alberta Press Release: Backgrounder on Oil Sands Consultation Group

15. 05/07/06 Correspondence from AENV to Mikisew

16. 19/07/06 Correspondence from Alberta to Mikisew regarding Consultation policy

and point of contact

17. 19/07/06 Correspondence from ASRD regarding recommendations of oil sands

consultation advisory group

18. 08/08/06 Correspondence from Alberta to Mikisew regarding proposed consultation

guidelines and current projects

19. 18/09/06 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV and DFO regarding August, 2006

IFN stakeholder meeting

20. 10/11/06 Spreadsheet entitled "AENV background information for Nov. 10, 2006

High Level Meeting with Mikisew."

21. 10/11/06 Notes from 11/10/06 meeting between Mikisew and AENV

22. 15/11/06 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV regarding November 10 meeting

and regarding consultation

23. 06/12/06 Correspondence from AENV to Mikisew acknowledging Mikisew's

November 15 letter

24. 02/02/07 Correspondence from Mikisew officially withdrawing from CEMA

25. 15/03/07 Mikisew's response to DFO's invitation to peer review meeting of IFN

assessment

26. 26/03/07 Correspondence from AENV noting completion of Water Management

Framework

27. 05/04/07 Correspondence from AENV noting AENV has sent Mikisew

correspondence to DFO

28. 10/04/07 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV and DFO rejecting March 1, 2007

IFN and water management framework

29. 06/01/07 Report "Response to Multi-Stakeholder Committee Phase II and to

submissions of Alberta"































43

TAB DATE

DD/MM/YY


30. 01/01/08 Mikisew Response to Muskeg River Watershed Framework for Water

Quality, December 2007, submitted to AENV

31. 26/03/08 Correspondence from Mikisew to Alberta regarding failure of Alberta to

consult Mikisew on Land Sales

32. 11/09/08 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV and DFO regarding IFN P2

Consultation process and the Dan Olsen process

33. 19/06/08 Correspondence between Mikisew and AENV regarding scheduling

meeting with Alberta SRD regarding consultation process

34. 28/11/08 Correspondence from AENV to Athabasca Tribal Council responding to

consultation framework agreement submitted on August 28, 2008

35. 12/05/08 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV regarding IFN process, Ohlson

process, and urging acceptance of Framework Agreement

36. 12/01/08 Alberta Land-Use Framework

37. 08/01/09 Forwarding correspondence from Mikisew to AENV regarding IFN Phase

2

38. 13/02/09 Correspondence from Alberta Aboriginal Relations to Mikisew regarding

Mikisew letter to Hon. Rob Renner in respect of consultation process

39. 19/02/09 Correspondence from Mikisew to ASRD regarding consultation process on

dispositions

40. 16/04/09 Joint Submissions of Mikisew and CPDFN on Land Use Framework

41. 29/04/09 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV urging consultation with Mikisew

42. 08/05/09 Correspondence from AENV responding to Athabasca Tribal Council

consultation proposal

43. 25/05/09 Correspondence from Alberta Justice to R. Freedman regarding LARP

44. 27/05/09 Correspondence from R. Freedman to Alberta Justice regarding

consultations with Mikisew on LARP














http://www.prowsechowne.com/files/index.php?sessionID=e948d9cb865ee57854832ef0e8f72fa8&act=getfile&pwd=%2FMikisew+Cree+First+Nation%2FAppendix+F+-+Intergovernment+Correspondence&mimetype=application%2Fpdf&file=Tab%2B%252837%2529.pdf

http://www.prowsechowne.com/files/index.php?sessionID=e948d9cb865ee57854832ef0e8f72fa8&act=getfile&pwd=%2FMikisew+Cree+First+Nation%2FAppendix+F+-+Intergovernment+Correspondence&mimetype=application%2Fpdf&file=Tab%2B%252837%2529.pdf














44

TAB DATE

DD/MM/YY


45. 28/05/09 Agenda for June 11th meeting with AENV and correspondence from

Mikisew to AENV regarding AENV's position on IFN2 consultation

proposal

46. 28/05/09 Correspondence from Alberta Justice to R. Freedman regarding LARP

47. 15/06/09 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV regarding lack of government

consultation on UTS-Teck Cominco projects

48. 19/06/09 Correspondence from R. Vermillion to Oil Sands Secretariat regarding

concerns with consultations and RAC

49. 13/07/09 Correspondence from K. Buss regarding June 26, 2009 PWG meeting and

government-to-government consultation process

50. 30/07/09 Correspondence from Alberta Justice to K. Buss regarding use of PWG

Guidelines

51. 31/07/09 Alberta press release announcing release of guidelines for LARP and

Backgrounder on Terms of Reference for LARP and RAC

52. 19/08/09 Correspondence from Mikisew to ASRD transmitting Mikisew's work plan

for LARP

53. 28/08/09 Correspondence from ACFN and Mikisew regarding ASRD's response to

First Nation Consultation Plan in connection with LARP

54. 08/09/09 Correspondence between R. Freedman and Alberta regarding scheduling

meeting in connection with LARP

55. 09/09/09 Correspondence from Mikisew to Alberta requesting status update on

LARP consultation work plan

56. 17/09/09 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV following up on Mikisew's

request for GIS data to assist in consultations

57. 17/11/09 Correspondence from Mikisew withdrawing from RAMP

58. 24/09/09 Consultation Protocol of the Mikisew Cree First Nation

59. 12/11/09 Correspondence from Alberta declining consultation in connection with

transfer of crown lands































45

TAB DATE

DD/MM/YY


60. 01/02/10 Correspondence from ACFN and Mikisew to H. Kennedy re LARP

61. 10/03/10 Correspondence from ACFN and Mikisew to H. Kennedy, ADM re CRISP

62. 12/03/10 H. Kennedy's response to ACFN- Mikisew correspondence regarding

CRISP

63. 30/03/10 Correspondence from R. Vermillion concerning disappointment with

LARP

64. 25/05/10 Correspondence from ACFN and Mikisew regarding LARP information

session and asking questions about LARP

65. 11/06/10 Correspondence from AENV to ACFN and Mikisew denying additional

funding for draft management plan review

66. 13/07/10 P2FC Final Report

67. 27/07/10 Correspondence from D. Bartesko regarding funding agreement for LUF in

connection with LARP

68. 19/08/10 Correspondence from Mikisew to Alberta and DFO regarding

disappointment with Phase Two Framework Committee conclusions

69. 20/08/10 The Relationship Between The Lower Athabasca River And The

Traditional Uses And Rights Of The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation

And Mikisew Cree First Nation, a Summary Report

70. 23/08/10 Correspondence from ACFN and Mikisew to AENV and DFO regarding

Technical Reviews of the Phase 2 Framework Committee

Recommendations





http://prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20F%20-%20Intergovernment%20Correspondence/Tab%20(63).pdf

http://prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20F%20-%20Intergovernment%20Correspondence/Tab%20(63).pdf










http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20F%20-%20Intergovernment%20Correspondence/Tab%2069.pdf








46

G. Project Related Correspondence

TAB DATE

DD/MM/YY

APPENDIX G – PROJECT RELATED CORRESPONDENCE

1. 00/06/04 Deer Creek Public Disclosure Document for the Proposed Joslyn

Project

2. 01/05/05 Draft Terms of Reference for Joslyn North Mine Project, May

2005

3. 15/07/05 Correspondence from Mikisew regarding proposed terms of

reference

4. 26/07/05 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV attaching Mikisew

comments on proposed terms of reference

5. 29/09/05 Final Terms of Reference for the Environmental Impact

Assessment Report for Deer Creek

6. 03/10/05 Correspondence from AENV indicating final Terms of Reference

were issued on Sept 29, 2005

7. 21/10/05 Notes from pre-filing meeting held at Deer Creek

8. 29/05/06 Mikisew Statement of Concern, transmitted to AENV

9. 30/05/06 Correspondence from TOTAL acknowledging receipt of statement

of concern

10. 01/06/06 Integrated Environments Ltd. Report of Review of Deer Creek

regulatory application docs for Mikisew, June 2006

11. 01/08/06 Correspondence and attached Integrated Environments' August

2006 Review of Joslyn project

12. 25/08/06 Correspondence confirming TOTAL's receipt of Mikisew

submission

13. February,

2008

Report entitled "Tanner's Responses to the Responses"

14. 01/03/08 Report entitled "Review of Responses to Mikisew" dated March

2008

http://www.prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20G%20-%20Project%20Related%20Correspondence/Tab%201.pdf








http://prowsechowne.com/documents/Mikisew%20Cree%20First%20Nation/Appendix%20G%20-%20Project%20Related%20Correspondence/Tab%205.pdf



















47

TAB DATE

DD/MM/YY


15. 08/04/08 Correspondence from CEAA regarding establishment of Joint

Review Panel

16. 11/04/08 Correspondence between CEAA and counsel for Mikisew

regarding support for Joint Review Panel

17. 16/04/08 Correspondence between CEAA and R. Freedman regarding Terms

of Reference for Joint Review Panel

18. 17/04/08 Correspondence from D. Mallon to ERCB regarding Joslyn North

Mine Project Application

19. 28/04/08 Correspondence from CEAA regarding agreement to establish

Joint Review Panel and related attachments

20. 13/05/08 Correspondence between CEAA and R. Freedman regarding the

Joint Review Panel

21. 15/05/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA regarding Joint

Review Panel Terms of Reference

22. 22/05/08 Correspondence regarding meeting between Mikisew and Total

23. 26/05/08 Correspondence regarding scheduling of meeting with CEAA

24. 26/05/08 Minutes from May 26, 2008 meeting between TOTAL and

Mikisew

25. 29/05/08 Correspondence from CEAA to R. Freedman regarding

establishing Joint Review Panel

26. 08/06/08 Correspondence regarding establishing Joint Review Panel

27. 19/06/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman regarding Joint Review Panel

Terms of Reference

28. 07/07/08 Participant Funding Program Review Committee's Report of

Allocation of Funds in the Panel Review of the Joslyn North Mine

Project

29. 09/07/08 TOTAL's assessment of Mikisew's review of responses of Deer

Creek































48

TAB DATE

DD/MM/YY


30. 14/07/08 Correspondence from D. Mallon to CEAA regarding "effects" and

adverse impacts on constitutional rights

31. 16/07/08 Correspondence from CEAA to R. Freedman regarding its mandate

to consult, etc.

32. 30/07/08 TOTAL correspondence regarding correspondence between R.

Freedman and CEAA

33. 08/08/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA regarding issuance of

final Terms of Reference and consultation

34. 09/08/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA posing questions

raised during meeting with CEAA

35. 11/08/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA regarding

participation in consultation and process-related issues

36. 12/08/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA regarding

outstanding responding to issues raised prior to issuing of the

Terms of Reference

37. 13/08/08 Correspondence from CEAA to R. Freedman regarding Terms of

Reference including attachments

38. 14/08/08 Correspondence from CEAA to R. Freedman regarding scheduling

and procedural issues

39. 14/08/08 Correspondence from CEAA to R. Freedman regarding contact

information

40. 18/08/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to ERCB regarding Joint

Review Panel

41. 19/08/08 ERCB correspondence regarding R. Freedman August 18, 2008

letter

42. 21/08/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA regarding timing of

response to various letters submitted to Joint Review Panel

43. 27/08/08 Correspondence from TOTAL to ERCB regarding Mikisew's

questions posed to Joint Review Panel
































49

TAB DATE

DD/MM/YY


44. 28/08/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA regarding agenda for

meeting on Sept 3, 2008

45. 28/08/08 Correspondence between Mikisew and TOTAL regarding Sept 8

meeting and project specific concerns

46. 29/08/08 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV and Environment Canada

regarding consultation, proper planning, and related issues

47. 29/08/08 Correspondence from Mikisew to TOTAL regarding Mikisew

concerns and attaching list of information deficiencies

48. 29/08/08 Correspondence from D. Mallon to ERCB responding Mikisew

concerns and hearing issues

49. 03/09/08 Agenda for Mikisew meeting with CEAA and DFO, attaching list

of questions prepared and posed by Mikisew during meeting and

other meeting materials

50. 05/09/08 Correspondence from D. Mallon to ERCB regarding Sept 3

meeting with CEAA and DFO

51. 08/09/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA attaching Mikisew

letter to AENV and EnviroCanada and Mikisew letter to TOTAL

52. 10/09/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman's office forwarding traditional

land use map to AENV in connection with letter from Chief

Marcel to Ministers Renner and Bard

53. 12/09/08 TOTAL's response to various Mikisew correspondence regarding

sufficiency of information before the Joint Review Panel

54. 15/09/08 Correspondence from Mikisew regarding draft no net loss habitat

loss plan

55. 16/09/08 Correspondence from D. Mallon responding to TOTAL

correspondence

56. 18/09/08 Correspondence from TOTAL forwarding Table of Concordance

to interested parties































50

TAB DATE

DD/MM/YY


57. 18/09/08 Correspondence from Joint Review Panel regarding review of

information in public registry and requesting additional

information; Additional information requests are attached

58. 23/09/08 Correspondence from AENV to Mikisew regarding aboriginal

perspectives in regulatory review processes

59. 02/10/08 Correspondence from D. Mallon to counsel for TOTAL regarding

consultation issues and Additional Information Requests

60. 09/10/08 Correspondence from Joint Review Panel regarding meeting with

TOTAL regarding Additional Information Requests

61. 05/11/08 Correspondence from AENV regarding consultation on Joslyn

North Mine

62. 06/11/08 Correspondence from CEAA regarding Mikisew questions in

respect of consultation processes

63. 19/11/08 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA re consultation and

CEAA letter of 11/6/08

64. 02/12/08 Correspondence from TOTAL regarding traditional knowledge

study

65. 10/12/08 Correspondence from Mikisew to TOTAL regarding additional

information requests and TUS

66. 10/12/08 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV following up on

November 10, 2008 meeting with Alberta, attaching questions for

AENV

67. 11/12/08 Correspondence between Mikisew and TOTAL regarding MCNF

TOTAL Joslyn Mine Application TLU Update

68. 11/12/08 Correspondence from Mikisew to AENV regarding consultation

issues

69. 23/01/09 Correspondence from CEAA responding to D. Mallon letter [letter

is misdated - the correct date is 1/23/09, not 1/23/08]































51

TAB DATE

DD/MM/YY


70. 27/01/09 Correspondence from AENV to Mikisew regarding Mikisew

consultation concerns

71. 09/02/09 TOTAL providing progress report for Joint Review Panel

72. 23/02/09 Correspondence from Mikisew requesting meeting with AENV

73. 24/02/09 Correspondence from D. Mallon to CEAA and ERCB regarding

TOTAL's amendment of its application

74. 01/03/09 MSES Review of Terrestrial Ecosystem Management Framework

75. 01/03/09 MSES Report: "Effects on Traditional Resources of the Mikisew:

The Joslyn Creek Project Specific and Cumulative Effects in the

Oil Sands region"

76. 04/03/09 Correspondence from TOTAL to Mikisew committing to update

Mikisew on its plans re tailings and other matters develop

77. 04/03/09 Correspondence from AENV committing to meet with Mikisew on

March 12 and circulating draft agenda

78. 09/03/09 Mikisew correspondence to AENV circulating document entitled

"preliminary description of Mikisew Treaty Rights and Traditional

Uses in and Around Joslyn North" for upcoming meeting

79. 11/03/09 Joslyn Regulatory Timeline - through EIA being completed in Jan,

2008

80. 12/03/09 Minutes from March 12, 2009 meeting of AENV and Mikisew

regarding consultation in connection with Joslyn North Mine

Project

81. 20/04/09 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA addressing need for

discussion on consultation process, ministerial response, and other

matters

82. 20/04/09 Correspondence from R. Freedman to Alberta SRD in connection

with March 12, 2009 meeting and seeking to schedule future

meeting on work plan, consultation plan, and responses to Mikisew

questions
































52

TAB DATE

DD/MM/YY


83. 20/04/09 Correspondence from R. Freedman to AENV requesting responses

to questions tabled during March 12 meeting

84. 15/10/09 Correspondence from TOTAL providing progress report on AIRs,

extraction/tailings management, environmental assessment,

consultation and other matters

85. 22/02/10 Correspondence from TOTAL to Mikisew attaching responses to

AIRs

86. 25/02/10 TOTAL responses to Additional Information Requests from JRP in

connection with Joslyn North Mine Application

87. 15/04/10 Correspondence from CEAA attaching documents in connection

with Joslyn North Mine Application, including CEAA responses

to Mikisew's consultation questions, CEAA aboriginal consultation

framework, and other documents

88. 17/05/10 Correspondence from Mikisew to Joint Review Panel commenting

on adequacy of new information provided by TOTAL to the Joint

Review Panel and attaching MSES Review of TOTAL's additional

Information provided February 2010 and related correspondence

89. 01/06/10 Correspondence from R. Freedman regarding consultation

90. 01/06/10 Correspondence from Mikisew to TOTAL regarding concern over

effects of Joslyn North Mine on Mikisew rights and attaching list

of questions for TOTAL

91. 03/06/10 Correspondence from TOTAL to Joint Review Panel regarding

adequacy of information

92. 08/06/10 Correspondence from R. Freedman detailing TOTAL's information

deficiencies

93. 08/06/10 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA conveying questions

and concerns regarding consultation process and other matters,

attaching Appendix A describing potential information

requirements to assess impacts on s.35 rights and baseline

information needs and Appendix B regarding Traditional Resource

Use Plan


































53

TAB DATE

DD/MM/YY


94. 09/06/10 Correspondence from Mikisew to TOTAL, AENV and CEAA

regarding consultation issues. Attached to letter is Appendix A

listing Mikisew's information requests and Appendix B regarding

TRUP

95. 21/06/10 Correspondence from CEAA forwarding letter from Joint Review

Panel to TOTAL regarding additional information and attaching

June 21, 2010 Requests for Additional Information

96. 25/06/10 Notice of Hearing

97. 07/07/10 Correspondence from D. Mallon to ERCB regarding hearing date

98. 13/07/10 Joint Review Panel letter acknowledging Mikisew request for

delay and requesting submissions on request

99. 27/07/10 Correspondence from TOTAL enclosing answers to Joint Review

Panel's June 24, 2010 information requests

100. 28/07/10 Correspondence from D. Mallon responding to TOTAL's

opposition to postponing the hearing

101. 30/07/10 Correspondence between Mikisew and TOTAL regarding meeting

and Mikisew's concern that TOTAL claims not to understand

Mikisew concerns

102. 06/08/10 Correspondence from R. Freedman to CEAA following up on June

8 letter regarding consultation, information deficiencies and other

matters

103. 18/08/10 Correspondence from Mikisew to TOTAL regarding meeting and

Mikisew concerns

104. 20/08/10 Correspondence from Mikisew to TOTAL regarding March 29,

2010, meeting and Mikisew Concerns
























