métis nation of alberta – region 1alberta association region 1 (mnaa r1) is the association which...

Together We Will Continue To Build A Strong Métis Nation

1

Métis Nation of Alberta – Region 1

Métis Nation of Alberta Association, Region 1

12/16/13 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Attention: Carolyn Dunn (Panel Manager) 160 Elgin Street, 22nd floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 Telephone: 613-957-0791 or 1-866-582-1884 Fax: 613-957-0935 E-mail: [email protected] RE: Public Comment by the Métis Nation of Alberta Association Region One pertaining to Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project, Integrated Application, Supplemental Information Requests: ERCB Responses and CEAA and AESRD Responses Round 2 by Teck Resources LTD for the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Application and Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIA reference no. 12-05-65505); Integrated Application Registry (IAR) Application No. 1709793 to the ERCB, pursuant to Sections 10 and 11 of the Oil Sands Conservation Act. Dear Carolyn Dunn and To Whom It May Concern, As we made clear in our Statement of Concern (submitted June 1, 2012), the Métis Nation of Alberta Association Region 1 (MNAA R1) is the association which represents the Métis people of Northeastern Alberta. The MNAA R1 intervenes with various government agencies on behalf of members whose rights are at risk of infringement as a result of industrial development on traditional Métis territories. The Métis Nation of Alberta Association (MNAA) was established in 1928. It now represents the interests of 35 000 Métis members and with 96,865 Albertans who self-identify as Métis and new membership rules coming into effect, this number will undoubtedly rise.1 The MNAA is divided into six geographic zones or regions. Métis Nation of Alberta Association, Region 1 (MNAA R1) in Northeastern Alberta stretches from the Lac La Biche area to the border with the

1 Statistics Canada, 2011, National Household Survey: Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: First Nations, Métis and Inuit. 99-011-X accessed October 24, 2013. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-

smithj

Typewritten Text

<contact information removed>

smithj

Typewritten Text

<contact information removed>

smithj

Typewritten Text


2

Northwest Territories. The 4,354 registered members of the MNAA R1 elect a president and vice-president to three year-terms, extending to four years in 2014. The president and vice president are supported by administrative staff at the MNAA R1 Office in Lac La Biche. The role of the MNAA R1 is to coordinate region-wide activities in line with directions it receives from the Regional Council composed of presidents of Métis Locals – there are 11 Locals in total within the MNAA R1. Métis Locals are community-based organizations with a minimum membership requirement of 25 people. Locals elect members to voluntary executive positions. Presidents of these locals attend Regional meetings and Annual General Meetings of the MNAA and advocate on behalf of grass-roots members. Métis Nation of Alberta Association Local Councils are located in Fort Chipewyan (#125), Fort McKay (#63), Fort McMurray (#1935), Fort McMurray (#2020), Willow Lake/Anzac (#780), Conklin (#193), Owl River (#1949), Lac La Biche (#2097), Lakeland/Lac La Biche area (#1909), Athabasca Landing #2010, Buffalo Lake (#2002). The MNAA R1 also represents directly the interests of Métis people living in areas where no Local Council exists at present, such as Chard. They also represent the interests of individuals who are members of the Métis Nation of Alberta, but have chosen not to join a Métis Local. For more details about our organization, we encourage Teck Resources, the Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada to review the MNA bylaws at http://Metis.albertametis.com/MNAHome/MNA2/MNA-Bylaws.aspx This letter contains the MNAA R1’s comments on Teck Resources Ltd.’s Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project, Integrated Application, Supplemental Information Requests, Round 2. The first part of the letter outlines the MNAA R1’s general concerns with the consultation process to date. Teck has disregarded our request for consultation on the Frontier Mine project and has ignored our requests to determine its potential impacts on our constituent member Locals. The second part of the letter contains specific comments about Teck’s responses to the ERCB and CEAA Supplementary Information Requests (SIRs). Our review places particular emphasis on sections related to Stakeholder and Aboriginal Consultation and on Aboriginal Traditional Land Use. General Concerns with the Consultation Process Issue 1: Capacity to Undertake Effective Consultation In order for consultation with Aboriginal Stakeholders to be considered meaningful, both proponents and community representatives need to fully understand the issues and be empowered to have an informed conversation about a project’s potential impacts. Communities require information and technical capacity to review the project application. Likewise, the proponent must be provided with information on Aboriginal land use within its project areas. To date Teck has failed to provide the capacity to the Métis community in Northeastern Alberta so that it may undergo a thorough technical review of the project. Furthermore, Teck has not provided funding to complete a Traditional Land Use assessment of its project area. With the exception of the Fort McKay Métis Local 63 which has chosen to partner with the Fort McKay First Nation, none of the Métis communities which CEAA has recognized as potentially affected communities have been provided the resources necessary to review the proposed project, to engage their membership, or meet with the company on a regular basis. Furthermore, Teck has failed to respond to multiple requests that Traditional Knowledge information from Métis communities be included in this response. For this reason we believe the application should be considered incomplete and returned back to the proponent.


3

Issue 2: Lack of Engagement by Teck, the Government of Alberta and the Federal Government Closely related to the first concern, the MNAA R1 regrets that Teck, the Government of Alberta and representatives of the Federal government have had only minimal engagement with the potentially affected Métis community in Northeastern Alberta. During the first round of Supplementary Information Requests the MNAA R1 requested that the proponent meaningfully engage with the Métis community in Northeastern Alberta so that we may evaluate the potential impacts of the project on our members. To date this has not happened. Furthermore the Government of Canada has requested that MNAA R1 respond to the second round of Supplementary Information Requests but has provided only limited funds and no access to third-party technical experts. As such, it is very difficult for us to comment on issues involving air quality, water resource use and project impacts on biodiversity. Without adequate resources we have not had the chance to study the project’s potential cultural and socioeconomic impacts and possible impacts to Aboriginal traditional land use. Without such information it is impossible to consider this consultation process meaningful, particularly given the tight timelines imposed by CEAA. Issue 3: Definition for Potentially Affected Aboriginal Communities Throughout the second round of SIRs Teck makes reference to engagement with Potentially Affected Aboriginal Communities. The MNAA R1 requests that Teck clearly define what it considers to be a Potentially Affected Aboriginal Community and communicate that definition to the MNAA R1. Furthermore, the MNAA R1 asks that Teck explain its process for providing capacity funding to Potentially Affected Aboriginal Communities. As the Association representing the Métis people in Northeastern Alberta, one of Canada’s constitutionally recognized Aboriginal people, the MNAA R1 has reason to consider itself a Potentially Affected Aboriginal Community. The MNAA R1 requests that Teck and the Provincial and Federal Governments also recognize us as such or provide us with an explanation as to why not. Specific Concerns with Round 2 of the Supplementary Information Requests Cover-Letter On page 7 Teck states that it has “provided technical capacity funding to Aboriginal communities to participate in the review of Teck’s Integrated Application, responses to Round 1 SIRs and Statement of Concern. Teck plans to provide additional funding for these communities to continue to participate in the regulatory review of the project.” Unfortunately this statement is not true in regards to the Aboriginal Community of the MNAA R1. Teck has not provided our organization with funds to review the Teck Integrated Application, responses to Round 1 SIRs and Statements of Concern. Furthermore, Teck has not provided funds to potentially affected Métis Locals to review the Teck Integrated Application, responses to Round 1 SIRs and Statements of Concern (with the exception of Métis Local 63 which has agreed to work with the Fort McKay First Nation). While it is true that Métis Local 1935 and Métis Local 125 have Good Neighbour Agreements with the proponent, these agreements do not extend to the provision of funds for project-specific review or related studies. Further no agreements exist between Teck and MNAA R1, Métis Local 1909 and many other potentially affected Métis Locals in the region. It is disappointing enough that the project proponent has not provided funds to potentially affected communities so they may evaluate the project. However it is even more


4

troubling that Teck claims to have provided funding to communities to conduct full regulatory reviews of the project when in fact it has not. ERCB Response 2 (a) The Energy Resources Conservation Board asked Teck to “Provide an update on any stakeholder engagement activities that have occurred since the filing of the responses to supplemental information request no.1.” In its response to Question 2, Part A, Teck states it has responded to ML1935’s most recent Statement of Concern and is in an engagement process with that community. Unfortunately, to date Teck has not provided the MNAA R1 capacity funds to properly review the Integrated Application or Supplementary Information Requests. Teck also states that it has “provided funds for the Mark of the Métis project and plan(s) to use information generated by the research to better understand potential project impacts to Métis use of the land.” Unfortunately the Mark of the Métis was not a Frontier Mine project-specific study and information generated from it would be general in nature. As stated in the ML1935 April 10, 2013 Statement of concern, Teck needs to complete a Frontier Mine project-specific study that assesses the potential impacts on the Métis community in Northeastern Alberta. The company is silent on its engagement with other Métis communities in the region. Without undertaking project-specific traditional land use studies with potentially affected Métis communities and without providing those communities the capacity to review the Teck Integrated Application, consultation on this project cannot be deemed complete. ERCB Response 29 (b) Teck states that it will be “developing Project-specific mitigation and management plans and research programs to better understand effects of the project on vegetation and wildlife. Starting in 2014, Teck will work with regulators and potentially affected Aboriginal communities to develop a project specific wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan.” Based upon earlier comments made by Teck, the MNAA R1 asks that Teck clearly define what it means by “potentially affected Aboriginal communities.” Furthermore, we ask that the proponent clarifies the level of support it will provide to those communities. Does Teck plan to provide every potentially affected community with the same level of capacity-funding to participate in the process of developing Project-specific mitigation and management plans? Will it provide each impacted community equal funds to participate in research programs to better understand the effects of the project on vegetation and wildlife? Furthermore, Teck states that it plans to fund a number of regional programs, including COSIA. MNAA R1 is curious about which other regional monitoring initiatives Teck is planning to fund and whether it includes the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) which is a multi-stakeholder organization responsible for developing management frameworks regarding wildlife and vegetation mitigation in the region. So far to the best of our knowledge Teck has declined to participate in this important organization. ERCB Response 32 (a) Teck states that “Results [of Project-related employment and procurement policies and programs] will be reported to potentially affected Aboriginal communities that Teck is regularly engaged with and that express an interest in the results of monitoring.” The MNAA R1 is interested in receiving the results of this monitoring and would welcome more engagement from Teck. However we would like further explanation on this point - specifically what measures will the company take to ensure information is disseminated to Métis community members in Northeastern Alberta?


5

ESRD and CEAA Responses ESRD and CEAA Response 1 The ESRD/CEAA asked Teck to provide an update on its consultation activities including a discussion about how Teck has addressed concerns identified by Aboriginal communities. In the response Teck explains that it has continued to engage with First Nations in the region. It has provided them with the capacity to respond to Teck’s replies to their Statements of Concern as well as Teck’s responses to the first round of Supplemental Information Requests. Unfortunately Teck has not directed that funding to the potentially affected Metis communities in the region (ML125, ML1935, ML1909, & MNAA R1). Furthermore Teck has not explained to the majority of Metis communities how it plans to consult with them to establish criteria to determine reclamation success. It has not entered into a meaningful conversation to develop detailed plans and policies to address barriers to education, employment and training and business development with the majority of Metis communities in Northeastern Alberta. Nor has Teck discussed monitoring with the majority of Metis communities in Northeastern Alberta. It is commendable that Teck has provided funding for a genealogy study with the Fort Chipewyan Metis Local. It is also notable that Teck has provided funding to the Fort McKay First Nation (which works closely with the Fort McKay Metis community) to complete project-specific studies. However in the interests of fairness, MNAA R1 would expect that Teck choose to offer similar opportunities to other potentially affected communities in the region in order to mitigate potential impacts of the proposed project. It should also be noted that the majority of Metis communities in Northeastern Alberta do not have the capacity to review bimonthly reports or engage in regular communication with the company. The majority of Métis Locals in the region are grass-roots organizations run by volunteers. If Teck wishes consultation with Metis communities to be meaningful it should commit to funding those consultation activities. This is something the proponent seems to have done with First Nations in the region. We would like to know why Métis groups are not extended the same level of engagement. ESRD and CEAA Response 30 Teck states that it is committed to “participating in multi-stakeholder monitoring and research activities for the oil sands region and will participate in a regional study supported by regulators, Aboriginal communities and stakeholders to further the understanding of potential cumulative effects associated with development of the MOSA.” Nevertheless, the company has chosen not to join one of the most important regional groups in the region, CEMA. CEMA’s mission is to be “a multi-stakeholder society that is a key advisor to the provincial and federal governments committed to respectful, inclusive dialogue to make recommendations to manage the cumulative environmental effects of regional development on air, land, water and biodiversity.”2 If Teck legitimately wants to address issues related to cumulative impacts of industrial development with other stakeholders in the region we would strongly encourage the company to join CEMA. ESRD and CEAA Response 43 (g)

2 The Cumulative Environmental Management Association Mission Statement which can be accessed at: Metis.cemaonline.ca (16 December 2013).


6

In response to ESRD and CEAA Question 43 (g) Teck states that it has included information provided by “Fort Chipewyan members” and “Fort McKay.” The proponent further commits to consult with “potentially affected Aboriginal communities about the FHCL, and it is Teck’s understanding that DFO will also consult with affected Aboriginal communities about the FHCL.” The MNAA R1 would like to know specifically what is meant by “Fort Chipewyan members.” Are these members of Fort Chipewyan Métis Local? We would also like to know when other Metis communities can expect Teck to consult with them about this project. To date Teck has not provided this capacity to most of the other Metis communities in Northeastern Alberta. As such we have no way to evaluate how this project will impact us, nor have we any means to engage in consultation with Teck as no steps have been taken to initiate this consultation. Furthermore, Metis communities in Northeastern Alberta would like to know when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans plans to consult with them on this project. ESRD and CEAA Response 43 (i) The MNAA R1 is curious how Teck has made the determination that the Fish Habitat Compensation Lake will support traditional use fisheries given that they have not completed project-specific baseline traditional land-use studies with the majority of Metis communities potentially affected by the project. Before the Fish Habitat Compensation Lake concept is finalized the MNAA R1 would ask that a baseline traditional land-use and environmental knowledge study be completed with ML125, ML1935, ML1909 and the MNAA R1. This would reveal the extent of existing traditional fish harvesting practices and provide much needed Aboriginal environmental knowledge to the FHCL process. We also ask that exploratory traditional land-use studies be initiated with other Metis communities who may potentially be affected by the project. This latter project could be led by MNAA R1. ESRD and CEAA Response 56 (a) The MNAA R1 would like to see Teck clearly define what it means by “potentially affected Aboriginal communities” and explain how it makes the determination about who is potentially affected and who is not. To date it seems that Teck chooses to treat some Aboriginal communities unequally by providing capacity and increased engagement opportunities to some and not engaging at all with others. ESRD and CEAA Response 57 In its response Teck states that it will “continue to work with regulators and potentially affected Aboriginal communities on the location and design of the FHCL.” To date Teck has not approached the MNAA R1 about this or any other project and has had only limited engagement with some Metis Locals in the region. MNAA R1 asks that Teck engage with the Metis community in the region. This will involve Teck providing us with the resources so that we can produce and obtain the necessary information for consultation to be meaningful, productive and mutually beneficial for community and proponent. ESRD and CEAA Response 60 (a) The MNAA R1 is increasingly concerned about wildlife and riparian habitat fragmentation. We would have appreciated being consulted on this project so that we might understand how the Frontier project might contribute to this growing problem. Had our members been consulted they would have been able to provide meaningful input on the choice of location of river water intakes. This is one example of how consultation with Métis environmental knowledge holders would contribute to impact mitigation. Furthermore, the current location planned for river water


7

intake RWI may potentially impact a Metis member’s trapline across the Athabasca River. The MNAA R1 are concerned about the potential impact of the RWI on their members’ use of the area for traditional harvesting and trapping. Had Teck initiated consultation on this project they would have been aware of this potential concern and would have been in a position to potentially mitigate it. ESRD and CEAA Response 61 (a) In regard to access management to aerodromes in the region, Teck explains that it is “engaged in integrated land use planning discussions as a member of the Oil Sands Developers Group (OSDG) Transportation committee and COSIA.” The MNAA R1 is concerned that neither of these groups is a multi-stakeholder organization and do not have a wide membership base which would be representative of civil society in the region. MNAA R1 asks that Teck make efforts to engage with the Metis community so they might be able to incorporate our considerations into their final analysis of land-use planning, access management and transportation. ESRD and CEAA Table 62 (b-1) In this table Teck provides both the positive and negative factors associated with using open camps for construction. MNAA R1 would like to know the methodology which was used to determine these positive and negative factors and also how Metis input was incorporated into this analysis. Were Métis people interviewed about their views on the pros and cons of camp construction? ESRD and CEAA Response 65 (a & c) A member of both the MNAA R1 and ML1935 has the RFMA directly across from the proposed RWI. The MNAA R1 requests that it be consulted on this matter so it can be determined if the positioning of the RWI and/or road access will impact this member’s aboriginal rights. ESRD and CEAA Response 68 The MNAA R1 would like to know if any Metis traditional knowledge was incorporated into the analysis of potential impacts to Dalkin Island and whether that location would be suitable for the RWI. Had a baseline Metis traditional knowledge study been completed Teck would be able to determine whether Metis community members have any specific interests in the area. Currently, based on our own research, Métis traditional use of this island seems likely, but this needs to be confirmed through a project specific traditional land-use study. ESRD and CEAA Response 87 It is unfortunate that traditional knowledge input from a wide variety of Métis community members was not incorporated in the analysis of how Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones will be impacted by the project. MNAA R1 requests that Métis traditional land-use studies be completed so that the proponent and the provincial and federal governments have a greater understanding of the potential impacts of the project on Aboriginal rights in the area. While the MNAA R1 is pleased that Teck is working through COSIA to help mitigate the potentially negative cumulative impacts of resource development, we would be encouraged if Teck also chose to join CEMA. CEMA is a true multi-stakeholder organization that works collaboratively with industry proponents and Aboriginal stakeholders to develop policies to mitigate the negative effects of oilsands development.


8

ESRD and CEAA Response 90 Metis land-users have complained that nocturnal amphibians in the Athabasca River basin are not as abundant as they once were. The MNAA R1 would encourage Teck to undertake a project specific Metis traditional land-use and environmental knowledge study so that issues such as this could be better understood and mitigated through collaborative research methods connecting scientists with traditional knowledge holders. ESRD and CEAA Response 91 Metis land-users have made a number of observations about the movement of caribou through the region. Caribou habitat is being fragmented and the population is in decline. Caribou are now being seen more regularly in sub-prime habitat. Our Métis community members would welcome the opportunity to work with Teck to communicate this traditional knowledge so that the company can make informed decisions regarding its Caribou impact mitigation strategies. Furthermore, while the MNAA R1 is pleased to see that Teck is working through COSIA to protect Caribou habitat, they would also like to see Teck join truly multi-stakeholder organizations such as CEMA. Through this forum Teck would have the opportunity to collaborate with a wide range of stakeholders to develop mitigation strategies. ESRD and CEAA Response 92 Research carried out between 2011 and 2013 by the MNAA R1 indicates that habitat fragmentation is one of the key factors in local caribou population decline.3 The MNAA R1 would like to know whether Traditional Land-Use Information and Traditional Environmental Knowledge Teck relied upon for its impact assessment suggested similar results. MNAA R1 is eager to work with industry stakeholders to address regional problems such as caribou population decline and habitat loss through collaborative research and multi-sector stakeholder engagement. ESRD and CEAA Response 137 While it is probably true that Teck has not received additional traditional land use information since responding to Round 1 SIRs, this is likely because the proponent has not consulted effectively with the Métis community. Had the MNAA R1 been provided with funding to conduct a Frontier Mine Project-specific land use and environmental knowledge study, the proponent would have been provided with information in a timely manner. Again, the MNAA R1 requests that Teck meet with affected Metis communities to develop a strategy so that Metis traditional land use information can be incorporated into project impact assessment and mitigation. ESRD and CEAA Response 138 (General) Throughout the regulatory process for Teck’s Frontier Mine project, the MNAA R1’s primary request has been for the capacity to undertake a third-party technical review of the project’s application and environmental assessment report. The other key request has been for funds to complete a project specific traditional land-use study to determine exactly how the proposed project will impact members’ Aboriginal rights. Similar requests have been made by other Métis Locals who are members of the MNAA R1. With the exception of the Métis community in Fort

3 Métis Nation of Alberta Association Region 1, 2013, “Contributions by Métis Environmental Knowledge Practitioners to Woodland Caribou Recovery in Northeastern Alberta”. AFSAR/MNAA R1: Lac La Biche, AB


9

McKay which has chosen to work with the Fort McKay First Nation in its consultation with Teck, the proponent has refused to provide this type of capacity funding. As a result MNAA R1 would like to state that any and all statements made in the SIR document referring to mitigation of Métis concerns as expresses through the SOC or SIR process are not valid since the proponent has not made an effort to understand these concerns. ESRD and CEAA Response 138 (a) MNAA R1 rejects the claim that Teck understands Métis community concerns given that the proponent’s consultation with Metis communities has been limited. Further, without having agreed to fund a technical review of the project and in the absence of a project-specific traditional land-use study, Teck has no clear grounds upon which to base these claims.4 Without completing these baseline studies Teck cannot claim to understand Métis-specific concerns let alone mitigate them. Once again we ask Teck to engage in a meaningful consultation process. Teck’s commitment to this process would be signalled if the proponent were willing to agree to work with MNAA R1 and member Métis Locals to complete the technical reviews from a Métis perspective and to produce Frontier project-specific Métis land use studies. ESRD and CEAA Response 138 (c) Concerns specific to ML125: Issue 1 – Right to carry out traditional livelihoods and practice Aboriginal Rights. Teck states that it will involve “Aboriginal community input” to “develop a conceptual closure, conservation and reclamation plan that will establish equivalent land use after mining.” While this is a commendable goal, one would hope that it would include baseline project specific traditional land-use studies and a technical review from ML125 that would provide input prior to the finalization of closure, conservation and reclamation plans. To date Teck has not provided such capacity to the Metis Local. Issue 2 – Potential effects on traditional land uses. Teck states that: “Input from potentially affected Aboriginal communities gathered during consultation provided direction on species of traditional importance to include in the assessment.” Once again, Teck has not provided ML125 the capacity funds necessary to undertake a project-specific traditional land-use study and therefore any information Teck references from the Fort Chipewyan Metis community should be deemed incomplete. Issue 3 – Right to hunt, fish and trap with regards to RFMA #1275. Aboriginal rights differ from commercial rights. While Teck has reached an agreement with the legal holder of the RFMA #1275 the company has not reached an agreement with the Fort Chipewyan Metis community which considers the area in and around RFMA 1275 to be vital to their continued right to hunt, fish and trap in the region. The use of this area is detailed in Barb Hermansen’s book which was provided to Teck and the Panel.5 The project will likely impact ML125 members use of this culturally important area but without completing a project-specific traditional land-use study

4 With the exception of Fort McKay. 5 Sherri Labour & Barb Hermansen, 2011, Barb Hermansen: Her Story. The Last Woman to Raise Children on the Athabasca River. Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125.


10

with ML125 it is difficult for either the community or the company to adequately assess the extent of the impact. Issue 4 – Potential effects on access to traditional lands. To date Teck has entered into only preliminary a conversation with ML125 to discuss the potential impacts that the project will have on access to traditional harvesting areas. Furthermore unlike ML125, Teck is not a member of CEMA and therefore has yet to participate in multi-stakeholder discussions about developing an access management plan with the community. Again MNAA R1 and member Locals would ask Teck to meaningfully engage with the Metis community in Northeastern Alberta so that these discussions can take place and Metis information can be collected and utilized to develop a better project with fewer negative impacts. Concerns specific to MNAA R1: Issue 1 – Potential effects on fish harvesting and the river. MNAA R1 is pleased that ML125 and 63 were involved in the development of the conceptual fish habitat compensation plan and fish habitat compensation lake. Nevertheless, a number of Metis communities that have expressed an interest in FHCL were not involved including ML1935 & ML1909 as well as MNAA R1 members who are not affiliated with a Métis Local. Furthermore, project-specific traditional land-use studies and technical reviews were not completed on behalf of Métis communities in Northeastern Alberta (with the exception of ML63). It should also be noted that MNAA R1 had a number of other concerns identified in the first round of SIRs. These include project impacts to traditional land use, access management, cultural retention, hunting and harvesting, socioeconomic development, biodiversity, air pollution, water pollution, reclamation, and community development. Unfortunately, these are not mentioned in the Round 2 SIR Response. This is a further indication that Teck has failed to consult with the Métis community to identify, discuss, assess and if needs be, mitigate these concerns. Concerns specific to Métis Local 1935: Issue 1 – Right to access land to hunt, trap, fish and harvest resources & impact to use of River and surrounding lands. While it is commendable that the company has committed to consulting with ML1935 through Good Neighbour Agreements, Memorandum of Understanding, Advisory Committees, and the funding of an Oral History project, very little (if any) of this funding has been directed to fully understanding the potential impacts of this proposed project. Further, the provision of funds has been insufficient to complete a project specific traditional land-use study or technical review of the project. Furthermore, the MNAA R1 is pleased that local trappers have been consulted and compensated since 2008. However, Teck cannot claim that this compensation was for Aboriginal rights since Aboriginal rights are collective in nature. Compensation for infringement upon Aboriginal rights must be compensated by working with the representatives of the community which holds these rights. Compensation to individuals for the project impacts on commercial trapping should not be considered as adequate compensation to Aboriginal communities for infringement on collective Aboriginal rights. Concerns specific to Metis Local 1909: Issue 1 – Potential Cumulative effects to wildlife and fish. Teck states that they “would welcome the opportunity to better understand potential effects to Local 1909 and address specific concerns.” However to date the company has not met with representatives of the Local nor has it committed to providing the funds necessary to understand those effects i.e. by completing a


11

project-specific Metis traditional land-use study or technical review of the project. ML1909 would welcome a further conversation about the project and invites Teck to facilitate a meeting early in 2014. ESRD and CEAA Response 142 (a) MNAA R1 is pleased that Teck has identified access management as a key issue going forward that could limit Aboriginal community members’ access to traditional land use. They are further pleased that Teck has agreed to provide funds to ACFN and MCFN to conduct traditional land use studies that will help inform the development of their access management plan. MNAA R1 expects that similar funds would be provided to other potentially affected communities including MNAA R1, ML125, ML1935, and ML1909 so that they too can provide input into the development of an access management plan. ESRD and CEAA Response 143 (b) MNAA R1 would like to know whether Teck has provided funding to Metis groups for technical review and traditional land use studies of the Frontier Project Site in order to identify burial grounds in the Project Area. If not, these studies should be undertaken as soon as possible so that any potential impacts can be identified and then mitigated. ESRD and CEAA Response 147 Teck again states that it has “consulted with all potentially affected Aboriginal communities and in the course of these consultations, has been made aware of concerns relating to the ability to experience remoteness and solitude, and feelings of safety and security.” MNAA R1 would like to know when this discussion occurred and how that conclusion was reached. To date, since Teck has not funded a project specific Metis traditional land-use study or a Metis technical review of the project, MNAA R1 objects to the claim that Teck has “consulted with all potentially affected Aboriginal communities”. The majority of the Metis Locals in MNAA R1 would agree that Teck has yet to provide the capacity necessary to understand project specific impacts. ESRD and CEAA Response 147 While the MNAA R1 can appreciate it is difficult to assess the project’s potential impacts on Aboriginal rights, Teck’s decision to omit additional information regarding their methodology seems inadequate. The MNAA R1 is pleased to hear that Teck remains open to considering additional information about impacts to Aboriginal rights. MNAA R1 welcomes Teck’s intention to find opportunities to mitigate those effects. We reiterate that an important first step would be for the company to provide the capacity necessary for MNAA R1 and other potentially affected Métis Locals to assess how environmental impacts of the project may infringe upon Aboriginal rights. ESRD and CEAA Response 155 It is important that the panel understand that Teck has chosen not to provide funds to Métis communities (with the exception of Fort McKay ML63 which has chosen to work with the Fort McKay First Nation) to complete project-specific studies. The Panel should therefore consider the application incomplete until that information is provided for consideration. The MNAA R1 is still hopeful that Teck will provide such funding to other potentially affected Métis


12

communities in the region so that their traditional land use information can be considered as part of the application. ESRD and CEAA Response 176 (c) While it is probably true that potentially affected Aboriginal communities did not provide additional Traditional land use data on fish distribution in the project area; it is also true that Teck did not provide funds to MNAA R1 and 9 out of 11 of its member Métis Locals to complete such work. If Teck wishes to include such information in their application they should provide capacity to MNAA R1 and member Locals so such work can be completed. Had the MNAA R1 been provided with funds to complete such a study, the proponent would have been provided with information within a reasonable amount of time which it could use to improve its assessment of baseline fish habitats prior to Frontier Mine Operation. ESRD and CEAA Response 181 (c) The MNAA R1 is pleased to see Teck has been able to access publically available material regarding boat access in the Integrated Application. We would like to note that this study was completed in partnership with ACFN and MCFN and did not include Métis Traditional Knowledge. Again, MNAA R1 encourages Teck to provide the capacity necessary to the community to complete project specific studies so their information could be included in the Integrated Application as well. ESRD and CEAA Response 184 (c) The MNAA R1 and the majority of its member Locals have not yet had the opportunity to complete project specific studies and therefore challenged to provide detailed information regarding key wildlife indicators and potential effects of concern. Additionally Teck has chosen not to join CEMA which is currently undertaking a multi-stakeholder Traditional Resource Indicator Species Assessment project which could shed light on this question. MNAA R1 again would ask Teck to reconsider their decision not to join CEMA and participate in such truly multi-stakeholder processes. ESRD and CEAA Response 187 (c) Teck has yet to provide the MNAA R1 the necessary capacity to meaningfully engage in consultation or provide traditional knowledge for the project. The MNAA R1 remains hopeful that Teck will choose change this practice and provide the MNAA R1 the capacity necessary to engage in the project specific consultation required by the law. ESRD and CEAA Response 188 Teck has yet to provide capacity to the MNAA R1 the capacity necessary to provide traditional knowledge information regarding the Ronald Lake Bison herd. The MNAA R1 is hopeful that Teck will provide the capacity necessary to complete such studies in the future. In sum, in response to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s invitation for public comments the Métis Nation of Alberta, Region 1 would like to express its disappointment with the Teck project’s SIR Second Round Responses, just as it maintains its disappointment with Teck’s SIR first round responses and the EIA Report (reference no. 12-05-65505). Our analysis of the SIRs, just as our analysis of the EIA report suggests Teck has made minimal effort to engage with MNAA R1 representatives in a manner that would effectively identify any Métis community-specific concerns about the Frontier Mine’s potential impacts on the ability of Métis


13

people to use the land in the area. In addition to our concerns about the impacts of the project on our ability to practice Métis harvesting, the lack of reliable and up-to-date information about Métis land use in the EIA report is a point of contention. One positive step forward would be for Teck to sponsor the MNAA R1 to conduct its own project-specific Métis environmental knowledge study for the potentially impacted areas. Additionally, the MNAA R1 would welcome a Métis specific third party review of the project so it can better understand how the Frontier Mine might affect the Metis community. So far no original project-specific information on Métis land-use in the proposed project area has been collected and made public by Teck besides that provided to the Fort McKay Métis community which has partnered with the Fort McKay First Nation. Funding the MNAA R1 to conduct its own Métis community-specific and community-based studies of the project areas would provide reliable and verifiable information upon which meaningful engagement could take place between the MNAA R1 and TECK . This engagement would be motivated by the need to cooperate in order to mitigate the potentially harmful impacts of the project. Please consider the MNAA R1 position carefully in your contemplation of the TECK Frontier Mines project. Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED William Landstrom President MNA R1

CC Métis Nation of Albera, Region 1 Regional Council Janais Turuk, Manager, Community Relations, Teck Resources Ltd. Ian MacKenzie, Director of External Affairs, Teck Resources Ltd. Corinne Kristensen, Acting Team Leader, AESRD Andrea Larson, Manager Oil Sands and Coal Mining, AER Debbie Bishop, K2B Law Group

métis nation of alberta – region 1alberta association region 1 (mnaa r1) is the association which...

Documents