SUBMISSIONS OF THE ATHABASCA CHIPEWYAN FIRST NATION ...

Page 7 April 28, 2009
Nations will be affected be such projects? The information contained in
the attached letters contains a number of information requirements which
are unique to First Nations. Inclusion of such requirements in terms of
reference would ensure that the Crown, industry and First Nations have
sufficient and credible information to assess impacts on our section 35
rights. A failure to include such information leaves EAs, and resulting
decisions, open to challenge.
3393259.1
We have a few additional concerns about EAs. First, we are often told
that the purpose of EAs is to focus on the potential impacts of a project on
“activities.” Our concern is not with “activities” but with potential
impacts on our section 35 rights. “Activities” sounds very much like
something engaged in for recreational purposes. Our rights are given
constitutional protection – calling them “activities” is demeaning.
Moreover, allowing an EA to focus on “activities” and not constitutional
rights allows companies to downplay or ignore project-related impacts.
A second concern is that CEEA, as written, does not require inclusion and
consideration of our traditional use information and our traditional
knowledge. It makes inclusion of this important information discretionary
and not mandatory. This also leads us to question the veracity of CEEA.
Failure to require consideration of this information makes us question the
legitimacy of EAs and the sincerity of the federal government in taking
steps to ensure that our rights are protected.
Recommendation:
CEEA needs to be amended to state, explicitly, that:
(a) First Nations must be consulted on terms of reference for EAs
(b) That the focus of such assessments cannot be on “activities”
but on impacts to our section 35 rights
(c) Our traditional use and traditional knowledge information
must form part of any assessment – this must be a mandatory
requirement
E. CONCLUSION
Our ability to exercise our section rights in a meaningful fashion is ever more
threatened. The threat comes from seeing more and more development on our
lands. But the threat also comes from what we see as the indifference on the part
of the Crown, including the federal government, to take practical steps to ensure
the protection of our section 35 rights. A proper and meaningful role for the