imc 2010-11 final imc annual report for printer final sept08 11
TRANSCRIPT
1997 Manitoba Framework Agreement Treaty Land Entitlement
2010 - 2011 Implementation Monitoring Committee
Annual Report
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On behalf of the Implementation Monitoring Committee (IMC), the Chairperson of the IMC is to provide an Annual Report to the President of the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for Canada and the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs for Manitoba for each year of implementation of the Manitoba Framework Agreement on Treaty Land Entitlement, 1997 (MFA). This Report is intended to inform the Parties of the progress made with implementation of the MFA, the issues faced by the Parties during the past fiscal year, the areas for improvement that have been identified, and the steps being taken to build on opportunities for improvement. This Annual Report pertains to the fiscal year 2010/2011 which ended March 31, 2011.
During the 2010-2011 fiscal year 100,604.7 acres were set apart as reserve (22.2% of the total amount of land set apart as reserve under the MFA). In total 453,338.39 acres of land have been set apart as reserve pursuant to the provisions of the MFA, which represents 47% of the total land amount committed to the 15 Entitlement First Nations with Treaty Entitlement Agreements. 90% of the land that has been set apart, has been set apart since August, 2006. The amount of land that has been set apart as reserve in Manitoba since August, 2006 far exceeds that set apart during any other comparable time period in Manitoba’s history. The Parties are to be commended on this achievement.
While the MFA assigns individual roles to each Party to the MFA, they are interdependent and this implies that MFA implementation depends on the working relationships established amongst the Parties, and requires the on-going commitment and cooperation of all Parties in order to succeed.
Currently each Party has committed staff with more experience setting apart reserve land than ever before. The rate of MFA implementation accomplished since August, 2006 could not have been achieved without effective working relationships between the Parties. Everything possible should be done by all Parties to retain and support this base of knowledgeable and experienced people, as they are the greatest resource of the Parties.
Fourteen years have passed since the MFA was signed in May, 1997, and there is little doubt that pressure to do more, or at minimum to keep up the recent pace of reserve creation will continue. The parcels remaining to be transferred are generally smaller and often the most complex selections and acquisitions confirmed by the Entitlement First Nations, and therefore this will not be achieved easily. Certainly all Parties and Entitlement First Nations have their own plans on how each will continue to implement the MFA. The Parties have recognized the beneficial results of working together to overcome the challenges to reserve creation that continue, and to define and adopt a three Party Strategic implementation Plan. The Parties are on the verge of finalizing their three Party Strategic implementation Plan and circulating it to the Entitlement First Nations during 2011-2012.
The IMC is generally responsible for facilitating the implementation of the MFA and is tasked with providing the Senior Advisory Committee with recommendations for the improvement of the implementation of the MFA and any Treaty Entitlement Agreements. The IMC is assigned tasks by the Parties within an IMC Annual Work Plan, and the findings of IMC in relation to its work plan lead to IMC recommendations.
The IMC also addresses issues and matters in dispute referred by the Parties or First Nations. Each of the nine referrals currently before IMC are of great importance to the referring Party. The majority are specific to one selection and affect the transfer of that selection. Two issues referred in 2007 however, (pertaining to Hydro Easements (65,000 acres) and Crown reservations – Portages (35,000 acres)) have consequences affecting the transfer of 90,000 acres of selections, and all Parties as well as the IMC have prioritized their resolution to facilitate MFA implementation.
It is difficult to complete a consensus Report, the Parties often interpreting recommendations to improve MFA implementation as a critique of the status quo, and being disinclined to accept the comments, often to the extent of potential misrepresentation of the reality. The fact is all three Parties to the MFA can be recognized for progress in implementation, but in addition, to varying degrees, each Party must accept responsibility (often shared) for difficulties experienced.
The key principles that were kept in mind while preparing this Annual Report were to present a balanced but forthright view of MFA implementation, and to ensure the Report is sufficient to illustrate the overall state of implementation for the purposes of the Parties.
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT ii
The IMC is pleased to offer the following recommendations to improve and facilitate the implementation of the MFA:
1.0 Strategic Planning: The MFA Parties should finalize their three Party Strategic Plan and release the 2011-2012 Annual Plan to the Entitlement First Nations early in 2011 in order to facilitate all Parties and the EFNs proceeding forward with MFA implementation with a common Annual Work Plan.
2.0 Acquisition Rates and Time Periods:
In light of the very low acquisition rate (6.45% of Other Land Entitlement confirmed to date), and the unlikelihood of the Schedule “B” EFNs confirming the balance of their “Other Land” within their 15 year land acquisition period(s) set out in the MFA, the MFA Parties should continue dialogue with the Schedule “B” EFNS to better understand the challenges these EFNs face and determine how the Parties and EFNs collectively wish to proceed when these time periods expire in 2013-2014.
3.0 Survey Budget: More parcels have advanced to the survey stage, than the current survey budget can accommodate. Canada should secure funding to survey as many parcels as the certified survey firms can manage to survey in each year, rather than not advancing parcels that are otherwise ready to be surveyed.
4.0 Third Party Interests:
The MFA Parties should continue to advance the third party interest (TPI) discussion from general mechanisms to address each general type of TPI, to specific consensual options for each specific TPI on each specific parcel, and to recommend these to the EFNs to assist the EFNs with informed decision making.
5.0 Agreements with the Six Unsigned First Nations:
The MFA Parties should develop a proactive action plan specific to each EFN currently without a Treaty Entitlement Agreement, to facilitate these EFNs resolving their outstanding Treaty Land Entitlement.
6.0 Issue/Matter in Dispute Referral Management by IMC:
IMC should continue to manage the referred issues/matters in dispute in a structured and transparent manner that steadily advances the referral towards resolution by consensus, and upon determining that consensus is not forthcoming the issue/matter in dispute should be advanced through the progressive dispute resolution mechanisms described in the MFA.
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 MANITOBA FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT ON TREATY LAND ENTITLEMENT (MFA) ..................................................................... 1
1.2 IMC STRUCTURE AND WORK PLAN FOR 2010/2011 .................................................................................................................. 4
2.0 PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MFA ................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 STATISTICAL MONITORING AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................. 6
(a) TRELES (Treaty Land Entitlement System): ............................................................................................................................ 6
(b) TLEC Information Management System (Proposed): ............................................................................................................. 7
(c) NATS: ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
(d) Land Transfer and Reserve Creation Process Manual (LTRCPM): .......................................................................................... 7
(e) Summary: ............................................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 RATE OF CROWN LAND SELECTION AND PRIVATE LAND ACQUISITION ..................................................................................... 9
a) Crown Land: ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11
b) Other Land: .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12
2.3 RESERVE CREATION AS A PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT ..................................................................................................... 14
(a) Total Acres Set Apart as Reserve under the MFA: ............................................................................................................... 14
(b) Acres Set Apart as Reserve for each Entitlement First Nation: ............................................................................................ 15
(c) Reserve Creation – Total Crown Land Acres versus Other Land Acres Set Apart as Reserve under the MFA: .................... 30
(d) Other Land Acres Set Apart as Reserve – Six Schedule “B” Entitlement First Nations: ....................................................... 30
(e) Priority Parcels of the Entitlement First Nations: ................................................................................................................ 33
2.4 COORDINATION AND STRATEGIC PLANNING ........................................................................................................................... 34
(a) Coordination and Communication: ...................................................................................................................................... 34
(b) Strategic Planning Background: ........................................................................................................................................... 34
(c) Current Status Of Strategic Planning: .................................................................................................................................. 35
(d) Dashboards 5, 6, 7, and 8: ................................................................................................................................................... 35
(e) Annual Plan: ......................................................................................................................................................................... 36
(f) Summary of Strategic Planning Initiative by 2010‐2011 Fiscal Year End: ............................................................................ 37
2.5 OTHER IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES ........................................................................................................................................... 37
(a) Third Party Interests and Encumbrances: ............................................................................................................................ 37
(b) Agreements with Six Unsigned First Nations: ...................................................................................................................... 38
(c) Hydro Easement Line Determination Process: .................................................................................................................... 40
(d) Reindeer Lake: ..................................................................................................................................................................... 41
3.0 IMPROVEMENTS IN IMC ADMINISTRATION AND PRACTICES ........................................................................................... 41
3.1 STRUCTURED APPROACH TO PROBLEM SOLVING ................................................................................................................... 42
3.2 ISSUANCE OF EXPLANATORY BULLETINS .................................................................................................................................. 43
(a) Concept of Eligibility of Selections or Acquisitions: ............................................................................................................. 43
(b) Selections Under 1,000 Acres in Area: ................................................................................................................................. 43
3.3 AGREEMENT ON HISTORIC AND CURRENT LISTS OF ISSUES OR MATTERS IN DISPUTE ........................................................... 43
4.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES OR MATTERS IN DISPUTE RESOLVED AND REFERRAL MANAGEMENT .................................. 44
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT iv
4.1 REFERRALS RESOLVED .............................................................................................................................................................. 44
4.2 CURRENT REFERRAL MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 44
5.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES OR MATTERS IN DISPUTE NOT RESOLVED ................................................................................. 44
(a) 1999‐BPFN‐001 .................................................................................................................................................................... 45
(b) 1999‐NCN‐003 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 45
(c) 2003‐BON‐001 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 45
(d) 2004‐BLFN/TLEC‐002 ........................................................................................................................................................... 46
(e) 2006‐MANITOBA‐001 .......................................................................................................................................................... 46
(f) 2006‐BCN/TLEC‐003 ............................................................................................................................................................. 47
(f‐1) 2006‐Manitoba‐005 ............................................................................................................................................................. 47
(f‐2) 2007‐TLEC‐005 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 47
(g) 2007‐BPFN‐001 .................................................................................................................................................................... 48
(h) 2007‐TLEC‐002 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 48
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................. 49
6.1 IMC ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY ............................................................................................................................................... 49
6.2 CLOSING OBSERVATIONS AND NEXT STEPS: ............................................................................................................................ 50
(a) General ................................................................................................................................................................................ 50
(b) Statistical Monitoring and Information Management (discussed in Section 2.1) ............................................................... 51
(c) Reserve Creation as a Process Measurement (discussed in Section 2.3) ............................................................................ 51
(d) Coordination and Strategic Planning (discussed in Section 2.4) .......................................................................................... 51
(e) Rate of Selection of Crown Land (discussed in Section 2.2) ................................................................................................ 52
(f) Rate of Other Land Acquisition (discussed in Section 2.2)................................................................................................... 52
(g) Surveys ................................................................................................................................................................................. 53
(h) EFN Priority Parcels (discussed in Section 2.3(e)) ................................................................................................................ 53
(i) Third Party Interests (TPIs) (discussed in Section 2.5(a)) ..................................................................................................... 53
(j) Agreements with the Six Unsigned First Nations (discussed in Section 2.5(b)) ................................................................... 54
(k) Reindeer Lake Regulation (discussed in Section 2.5(d)) ...................................................................................................... 54
(l) IMC Referral Resolution of Issues/Matters in Dispute (discussed in Sections 3.0 & 4.0) .................................................... 54
(m) Involvement of Representatives on the Senior Advisory Committee .................................................................................. 55
7.0 SUMMARY COMMENTS OF THE IMC CHAIRPERSON ......................................................................................................... 55
8.0 SUMMARY OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................. 56
Appendix A Location of Entitlement First Nations Map Appendix B MFA Implementation: Reserve Land Creation by Fiscal Year Appendix C Draft List of Historic Issues or Matters in Dispute Appendix D Draft List of Current Issues or Matters in Dispute Appendix E Definitions used in the 2010/2011 IMC Annual Report Appendix F 2010/2011 IMC Work Plan Appendix G Draft Reserve Creation Process Flow Chart for TLE with Water Power Easements
1 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 MANITOBA FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT ON TREATY LAND ENTITLEMENT (MFA)
Fourteen years ago, on May 29, 1997, the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba, Inc. (referred to in this Report as the “TLEC”), as the organization established by 19 First Nations in Manitoba with entitlement to land under Treaties 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10, entered into an agreement with Canada and Manitoba to secure outstanding Reserve land owed to those First Nations under Treaties with Canada called the Manitoba Framework Agreement on Treaty Land Entitlement (referred to in this Report as either the “Framework Agreement” or “MFA”). Canada had long recognized that many Manitoba First Nations had not received the amount of land to be set aside as “Reserve” under the various Treaties in Manitoba. As Canada had administration and control of the Crown land within Manitoba after the confederation of Canada was formed in 1867, Canada was free to set apart land as reserve as it was selected by First Nations entitled to land for that purpose under Treaties. The numbered Treaties and adhesions to these Treaties were negotiated in Manitoba between 1871 and 1910 when the last adhesions to Treaty 5 were signed in the northern part of the Province. Accordingly, Canada was aware of its outstanding Treaty obligations when it was decided by Canada that it would transfer administration and control of virtually all Crown land within the province to the Crown in right of Manitoba in 1930. In fact, at the time of the transfer of administration and control of the land and resources from Canada to Manitoba under the Manitoba Natural Resources Transfer Agreement signed on December 14, 1929, which became effective July 15, 1930 (now Schedule 1 of the Constitution Act, 1930) (more commonly referred to as the “MNRTA” in this Report), Canada formally advised Manitoba of its estimates of outstanding Treaty Land Entitlement or “TLE”. Further, in paragraph 11 of that agreement, Canada reserved the right to select Crown land to be transferred back to Canada to enable it to fulfill its Treaty obligations. Significant progress in addressing the outstanding Treaty Land Entitlement obligations of the Crown was not made until after the Supreme Court of Canada issued its judgment in an Aboriginal title case advanced by the Nisga’a of British Columbia in 1969 in Calder v. Attorney-General of B.C., [1973] S.C.R. 313. Shortly after the Calder decision, Canada established its first claims policy and an Office of Native Claims. Canada also began to provide funding assistance to First Nations or First Nation organizations to research and examine claims, including TLE. In Manitoba, this work was initially done within the organization then known as the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood and ultimately, as it is today, by the Treaty and Aboriginal Rights Research Centre of Manitoba, Inc. or by First Nations directly. Claims to outstanding TLE were first prepared and submitted to Canada in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. After the recognition by Canada of most of the TLE claims submitted by Manitoba First Nations, negotiations took place which resulted in a comprehensive “agreement in principle” (AIP) in 1984. However, for various reasons, Canada, Manitoba and the First Nations decided not to proceed with the 1984 AIP shortly after its execution. It was not until early 1991 that the First Nations and Canada agreed to renew TLE negotiations on a comprehensive basis, at which time 19 of the then 26 First Nations in Manitoba with recognized outstanding TLE rights agreed to a coordinated approach to negotiations via their corporate body, the TLEC. The negotiations were undertaken on a dual bi-lateral basis; that is:
(a) the TLEC negotiated TLE with Canada in recognition of the basis of the Crown/First Nation Treaty
relationship, and
(b) Canada negotiated with Manitoba on the basis of the Crown/Crown relationship reflected in paragraph 11 of the MNRTA.
The Framework Agreement was the result of the dual bi-lateral negotiations conducted over a five year period ending in May 1997. All of the 19 First Nations comprising the membership of the TLEC were entitled to individually choose to accept the terms of the MFA and, if so, enter into a specific Treaty Entitlement Agreement (referred to as a “TEA”) with Canada and Manitoba. After the MFA, two of the original 19 First Nations decided to split into two additional First Nations, with the result that there are now 21 First Nations entitled to sign agreements under the
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 2
Framework Agreement located throughout Manitoba1. Please refer to the map illustrating the location of the First Nations entitled to enter into TEAs under the MFA. (Appendix A)
Under the terms of the MFA, the combined 19 (now 21) Entitlement First Nations secured entitlement to an additional 1,100,626 acres (approximately 1,720 square miles) of Reserve land. Circumstances encountered during the negotiations led to the distinction between the selection of Crown land as anticipated by the Treaties, and the purchase or “acquisition” of private land on the open market as set out in Chart 1. Although all of the First Nations secured entitlement to select Crown Land, six of the First Nations in southern and western Manitoba were also provided funds to purchase a portion of the TLE for these six First Nations on the open market due to the lack of sufficient unoccupied Crown Land available in the vicinity of their existing Reserves. Accordingly, if all 21 First Nations entered into agreements, the 21 EFNs would collectively be entitled to select a total of 985,949 acres of provincial Crown Land for Reserve. In addition, six of those First Nations - the Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, Buffalo Point First Nation, Opaskwayak Cree Nation, Rolling River First Nation, Sapotaweyak Cree Nation, and Wuskwi Sipihk First Nation - are entitled to purchase or otherwise acquire the balance of 114,677 acres of land for Reserve. Chart 1: Amount of Crown Land and Other Land for Entitlement First Nations under the Manitoba
Framework Agreement
Entitlement First Nations Treaty Number
Crown Land (Acres)
Other Land (Acres)
Total (Acres)
BARREN LANDS 10 66,420 66,420
BROKENHEAD 1 4,344 10,137 14,481
BUFFALO POINT 3 3,432 607 4,039
BUNIBONIBEE 5 35,434 35,434
FOX LAKE 5 26, 391 26,391
GOD’S LAKE 5 42,600 42,600
MANTO SIPI 5 8,725 8,725
MARCEL COLOMB 6 17,007 17,007
MATHIAS COLOMB 6 217,364 217,364
NISICHAWAYASIHIK 5 61,761 61,761
NORTHLANDS 10 94,084 94,084
NORWAY HOUSE 5 104,784 104,784
OPASKWAYAK 5 47,658 8,410 56,068
O-PIPON-NA-PIWIN 5 17,674 17,674
ROLLING RIVER 4 2,356 44,756 47,112
SAPOTAWEYAK 4 108,134 36,045 144,179
SAYISI DENE 5 22,372 22,372
SHAMATTAWA 5 24,912 24,912
WAR LAKE 5 7,156 7,156
WUSKWI SIPIHK 4 44,168 14,722 58,890
YORK FACTORY 5 29,173 29,173
TOTAL 985,949 114,677 1,100,626
The First Nations anticipated significant social, cultural and economic opportunities associated with the ability to secure land for Reserve in the present day. Many First Nations have embarked on a considered and decidedly specific process of land selection to secure reserve for social, cultural and economic reasons including residential development, economic development, protection of cultural and historical land, tourism purposes and traditional uses considered of importance to each First Nation community.
1 Canada declared divisions of the Mathias Colomb Cree Nation and Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation after the MFA settlement, accordingly, adding the Marcel Colomb Cree
Nation (as of March 30, 1999) and the O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation (as of November 25, 2005) to the list of MFA Entitlement First Nations. As of March 31, 2011, these two
“new” First Nations had not executed TEAs under the MFA.
3 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
As of March 31, 2011, 15 of the 21 First Nations entitled to enter into TEAs (these First Nations are referred to as “Entitlement First Nations” or “EFNs”) have entered into a TEA. For various reasons, six First Nations have chosen not to enter into TEAs to date. For more detailed information on the six First Nations that have chosen not to enter into TEAs to date, please refer to Section 2.5b), on page 38.
Chart 2: Entitlement First Nations that have signed TEAs
ENTITLEMENT FIRST NATION DATE TREATY ENTITLEMENT AGREEMENT (TEA) SIGNED
BARREN LANDS FIRST NATION June 23, 1999
BROKENHEAD OJIBWAY NATION September 9, 1998
BUFFALO POINT FIRST NATION March 24, 1998
BUNIBONIBEE CREE NATION (formerly known as Oxford House Cree Nation)
February 17, 1999
GOD'S LAKE FIRST NATION May 28, 1999
MANTO SIPI CREE NATION (formerly known as God's River Cree Nation)
May 19, 1999
MATHIAS COLOMB CREE NATION October 1, 2003
NISICHAWAYASIHK CREE NATION (NCN) (formerly known as Nelson House Cree Nation)
September 1, 1998**
NORTHLANDS FIRST NATION November 9, 1999
NORWAY HOUSE CREE NATION November 12, 1998
OPASKWAYAK CREE NATION January 22, 1999
ROLLING RIVER FIRST NATION March 6, 1998
SAPOTAWEYAK CREE NATION September 1, 1998
WAR LAKE FIRST NATION May 28, 1999
WUSKWI SIPIHK CREE NATION June 9, 1998 ** The effective date of the NCN TEA is an issue that has been referred to IMC by NCN. File: 1999-NCN-003
The First Nations that have not signed TEAs continue to have outstanding TLE rights. As recently as the IMC meeting held March 25, 2011, both Canada and Manitoba affirmed that they remain prepared to enter into agreements with the six First Nations, if the First Nations are prepared to confirm in writing a willingness to proceed with the Community Approval Process (CAP) required by the MFA. In addition, the TLEC has affirmed it is ready and willing to assist these First Nations by ensuring their understanding of the MFA, in conjunction with the EFN’s independent legal counsel, and planning for a Community Approval Process. During the MFA negotiations, Canada had estimated that the average period of time from the date of Selection or Acquisition of a parcel of land to the date the land was set apart as Reserve by Order in Council took, on average, 2.97 years. It appears that this estimated time period has, among other things, been impacted by the volume of TLE settlements and parcels of land going through the process of Reserve creation in Manitoba and elsewhere in Canada. Volume affects the rate of processing because staff complements do not proportionately increase as settlement agreements increase. (e.g. There were no additions to Manitoba and Canada staff levels when the Peguis First Nation TLE Settlement Agreement was signed in 2006.) The Chairperson has completed a general review and analysis of the approximate time required to process a parcel from the date confirmation is received to the date it is set apart as reserve. This general analysis found that acquisitions have taken approximately 8 years on average, and selections have taken approximately 6.4 years on average. All Parties have at times expressed concern that as the majority of land selections were confirmed shortly after a TEA was executed by an EFN with Manitoba, Canada, and the TLEC, the average time period required to set the selections apart as reserve is growing longer, rather than shorter.
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 4
After 14 years of implementation, the Parties to the MFA have succeeded in setting apart 453,338.83 acres of land as Reserve. This total is comprised of 117 separate selections and 20 acquisitions of land. This represents approximately 47 % of the overall TLE of the 15 Entitlement First Nations that have signed their respective TEAs. Of the total amount of land set apart as Reserve to date, some 100,604.7 acres (comprised of 12 separate selections) were set apart as Reserve during the 2010/2011 fiscal year (about 22.2% of the total acreage set apart to date). Between May 1997 and August, 2006, only 41,404.36 acres were set apart as reserve. On August 22, 2006 the Minister of Indian Affairs for Canada supported by the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, publicly announced and committed to a 4 year plan of action on TLE, directing their respective administrations to set apart a target 150,000 acres as Reserve each year. This supplementary standing Ministerial direction to improve and accelerate the Reserve creation process for land claim settlements in Manitoba has resulted in an improved rate of implementation. August 21, 2010 was the end of the Ministerial 4 year plan of action on TLE. During that time (August 22, 2006 – August 21, 2010) 385,509.02 MFA acres were set apart as reserve. While this fell well short of the 600,000 acre 4 year Ministerial target, it represents 85.5% of all land set apart since the MFA signing on May 29, 1997. When it became apparent that the 600,000 acre target was not achievable under the original 4 year time frame, the Federal Minister extended the commitment to 5 years, and the Parties anticipate that approximately 436,454 acres will transfer within this 5 year period which ends on August 22, 2011. The MFA provided detailed guidelines in the form of Principles for Land Selection and Acquisition to provide direction for the First Nations with respect to Crown Land selection and purchase of private land. Canada and Manitoba agreed that land selected or acquired in accordance with the Principles would be eligible to be set apart as Reserve provided the requirements of the MFA were satisfied. If and when issues or matters in dispute arose, the MFA also provided a detailed process for resolution of any issues or matters in dispute, a structure for doing so, guidelines for means and methods for doing so, suggested timelines and procedures, as well as a formal body – the Implementation Monitoring Committee (referred to as the “IMC”). The IMC is generally responsible for facilitating the implementation of the MFA, including; making recommendations to the Parties for the resolution of any issue or matter in dispute, and monitoring and reporting on the progress of implementation. The IMC was to be and has been assisted by an independent Chairperson appointed by the Parties. On behalf of the IMC, the Chairperson of the IMC must provide an Annual Report to the President of the TLEC, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for Canada and the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs for Manitoba by June 30th each year during MFA implementation. This Report is intended to inform the Parties of the progress in implementation of the MFA, the issues faced by the Parties during the past fiscal year, the areas for improvement that have been identified, and the steps being taken to build on opportunities for improvement. This Annual Report pertains to the fiscal year 2010/2011 which ended March 31, 2011.
1.2 IMC STRUCTURE AND WORK PLAN FOR 2010/2011
Under the terms of the MFA, the IMC is comprised of five members, two representatives appointed by the TLEC, one representative appointed by each of Canada and Manitoba and an independent Chairperson. The Chairperson is appointed by the consensus of the President of the TLEC (First Nations), the Deputy Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs (Manitoba) and either of the Regional Director General of INAC Manitoba or the Assistant Deputy Minister of INAC (Canada). In early 2007, after an increasing level of First Nation frustration with the pace of implementation of land claim settlements and TLE in Manitoba, within the context of the Ministerial mandates and following upon the report of the implementation of the MFA issued by the federal Auditor General in November 2005, the Parties agreed upon a special initiative to assist them in improving the MFA implementation process – the establishment of a separate office of the independent Chairperson of the IMC. This initiative proved to be a positive step in ensuring a more effective IMC as anticipated by the MFA. Although significant challenges to implementation continue to exist and will exist throughout the special initiative, the IMC Representatives worked on several areas identified for improvement in the various interrelated elements of implementation, including information management, communications, working relationships, a range of implementation procedures and guidelines, monitoring of Reserve creation and dispute resolution. This initiative was delayed when the then IMC Chairperson’s term ended at the end of February, 2009, he departed on June 30, 2009, and the IMC was without a quorum as defined in the MFA, and could not conduct business until a new IMC Chairperson was appointed. On May 1, 2010, Lloyd
5 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
Grahame was appointed Chairperson of the IMC. Between May 1, 2010 and March 31, 2011 of the 2010-2011 fiscal year, the IMC has had a quorum and has been fully functional. Between the time of the former IMC Chairperson’s departure in June, 2009 and the appointment the current Chairperson on May 1, 2010, the Parties had decided to modify the special initiative and revamp and refine the structure and operations of the IMC. In summary the main revisions were that an IMC Work Plan was developed by the Parties (and attached to the Chairperson’s Service Agreement), an Assistant Chairperson position would no longer be utilized, and the Chairperson would retain and employ executive assistance as deemed necessary by the Chairperson subject to the allocations provided in the IMC annual budget. Within the 2010/2011 IMC Work Plan (Please refer to Appendix F) the Parties assigned the lead role for the various IMC Work Plan Tasks to either a Party representative serving on IMC, or the Independent Chairperson. Each Work Plan task set out a statement of the issue, the IMC required actions within the scope of its role, and the targeted results that the Parties felt were important to attain by agreed due dates. At the first IMC meeting of 2010/2011, held on May 20, 2010, the Chairperson asked the Party representatives for the methodology and sub steps to be employed by the Party representative assigned the lead role on each IMC Work Plan Task, and the methodologies subsequently submitted by the representatives and the Chairperson guided the IMC approach to addressing each Work Plan task during the 2010/2011 fiscal year. As of March 31, 2011, the IMC Representatives, alternate Representatives and Chairperson were as follows:
Lloyd Grahame Independent Chairperson Merrell-Ann Phare TLEC representative Paul Chief TLEC representative Chris Henderson TLEC alternate representative Rick Kosmick Manitoba representative Dave Hicks Manitoba alternate representative Winona Embuldeniya Canada representative Mark Saranchuk Canada alternate representative
2.0 PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MFA
It would be fair to say that in the earlier stages of implementation all Parties struggled with understanding the scope and range of each Party’s duties and responsibilities, the meaning of “Best Efforts of the Parties,” and the role that the IMC and Chairperson respectively had in the overall process. Working relationships were tested as the demands associated with implementation and in particular, the steps leading to Reserve creation required to satisfy the MFA and federal Additions to Reserve Policy became evident, as affirmed by the Reports of the federal Office of the Auditor General of November 2005 and March 2009. Implementation has improved remarkably since August 2006, which coincides with the four-year plan of action committed by the Ministers. While only 41,404.36 acres were set apart as reserve between the May 1997 MFA signing and August, 2006, 90.8 % of the 453,338.39 acres which have been set apart to date have been set apart since August 2006.
Likewise the IMC struggled with its role in relation to the resolution of disputes, and indeed, several of the issues or matters in dispute referred to the IMC Representatives shortly after the MFA was signed in 1997 remain unresolved. While nine referrals are current and unresolved at the end of this fiscal year, the IMC has closed 25 referral files to date. (The majority related to Crown Land Selection time periods) One of the primary objectives of the IMC during 2010-2011 has been to determine the status of the current referrals, ensure all Parties are aware of the course of action to be taken and the responsibility for completing the next steps to advance each referral towards resolution. This referral file management is important and demonstrates that the Parties are making a concerted effort to determine status, next steps, and complete a thorough analysis on each referral. This structured approach to problem solving, and the fiscal year end status of the 9 current referrals is elaborated upon in Section 3 of this Annual Report, and in Appendix D.
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 6
2.1 STATISTICAL MONITORING AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Statistical Monitoring and Information Management has three primary goals.
The first is to manage the information to be able to quickly and easily be able to determine and communicate
the status of a parcel in the land transfer process, including; next steps, primary responsibility, issues outstanding that require attention, and milestone goals to be achieved annually to advance the parcel towards reserve status.
Second, to manage the parcel-by-parcel specific data, and roll up the data to produce a variety of
comprehensive implementation summaries of practical use to the Parties and EFNs. These could include the identification of parcels which; have advanced to a common stage of the land transfer process, have outstanding TPIs (by specific type), require MDSAs, require ATR submissions to be completed, require ESAs to be completed, require RSMs to be prepared, require a survey, etc. Together these identified “next steps” for each parcel will comprise the Annual Work Plan of the Parties.
Third, to document the parcels which have been successfully set apart as reserve, in accordance with specific
measurements of interest to the Parties and EFNs including; EFN total reserves and acres (distinguishing Crown land reserves/acres from Other Land reserves/acres), if the reserve was a priority parcel of the EFN, the official reserve name for the selected or acquired parcel, the dates of the Order in Council/Ministerial Order that set the land apart as reserve, and roll ups by EFN and for overall MFA implementation.
All MFA Parties have developed, or strived to develop, computer software for purposes of tracking and monitoring the progress of MFA land selections/acquisitions through the multi step land transfer process. The MFA Parties identified Implementation Task # 2.1 within the IMC Work Plan, and the objective of this task was for IMC to assess the effectiveness of various systems developed to monitor and track MFA implementation.
(a) TRELES (Treaty Land Entitlement System):
Shortly after the signing of the MFA, Manitoba’s Crown Lands Branch developed an information management system it called “TRELES” (a short form of “Treaty Land Entitlement System”) that has been relied upon by all three Parties in tracking parcels of land through the provincial system leading up to transfer of the parcels to Canada. Prior to the end of the 2008/2009 fiscal year, Manitoba agreed it could, based on information to be provided to Manitoba by Canada, add data fields to TRELES to track key information including the status of the Environmental Site Audit, the status of the site survey, and the date of approval in principle pursuant to the Additions to Reserves Policy. With the agreement amongst the Parties to track these dates on the three Party EFN Selection/Acquisition Tracking Charts however, it now appears redundant to also track these steps within TRELES. While TRELES does not attempt to detail the land transfer process steps in the same detail as the Land Transfer and Reserve Creation Process Manual (LTRCPM), it is a great tool for tracking and monitoring different aspects of the land transfer process, that the LTRCPM does not monitor or track, especially in relation to overall implementation statistics, acreage, and encumbrances. (For example; initial acreage, acreage of Third Party Interests, final acreages set apart, encumbrances affecting the parcel, etc.) Manitoba circulates a number of reports from its TRELES system to the other MFA parties quarterly. The following reports are circulated: Quarterly Issue Summary Reports for the Schedule A and B EFNs; TLE Acreage and Status Report; TLE Site Report by Process Step – FA – Schedule A (signed and unsigned EFNs separated); and TLE Site Report by Process Step – FA – Schedule B.
TRELES has been the primary computer software system utilized to track and monitor MFA implementation TRELES is characterized by its quality data control and accuracy, and Manitoba should be commended on the development, maintenance, and the quality control inherent within this MFA tracking and monitoring system. It is also an effective communication tool as it is shared with the Parties quarterly, and utilized by all Parties.
7 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
(b) TLEC Information Management System (Proposed):
On July 16, 2010 the IMC Chairperson met with TLEC’s Executive Director, Finance Officer, and an Implementation Officer at TLEC to discuss the status of the TLEC Information Management system. TLEC advised that currently the proposed TLEC system is not operational and needs financial support to be rebuilt. The TLEC monitoring system was based on “Hummingbird” and was to be constructed and hosted by a company then known as “Adapsys”, and now known as “Critical Control”. Initiated a number of years ago TLEC’s files have since been scanned and digitized into PDF format. Since 1997, each year of EFN data files have been digitized except 2005-2006. TLEC houses this data on a server that all staff can access. The files have been organized according to correspondence “by EFN by year” and saved with corresponding file names. Despite this progress, the project was never completed. Numerous problems plagued the project and the host presently owns the “project” and would charge $30,000 annually to host it. There remains no means for TLEC to use this system to track the status of each parcel of land through the land transfer process.
(c) NATS:
Canada’s National ATR monitoring system. Many years in development, this National system to track and monitor Additions To Reserves submissions came on line in July/August, 2010. The Manitoba Regional Office is currently loading their Regional ATR data into the NATS system, and anticipates that this will be completed by fiscal year end. The INAC Manitoba Region will now be tracking and monitoring the MFA ATR submissions through the LTRCPM Tracking Chart process, as well as through NATS. The effort required to maintain two systems is as yet unknown, and will be monitored. The NATS system has not been shared with the Parties or the IMC, but it is understood to be generic, in order to apply to all Additions to Reserves Policy submissions across Canada. For this reason, it is anticipated that TRELES and the LTRCPM Tracking Charts (which are MFA specific) tracking and monitoring systems, may provide greater benefits to the Parties. It is recommended that Canada share NATS capabilities and specifics with the Parties to maximize its usefulness.
(d) Land Transfer and Reserve Creation Process Manual (LTRCPM):
The MFA Parties agreed on June 17 & 18, 2009 during the three Party Strategic Planning initiative to review and refine the land transfer processes described in the Land Transfer and Reserve Creation Process Manual (LTRCPM) dated November 1999. This Manual was initially adopted in November 1999 by the Senior Advisory Committee (SAC) pursuant to Section 6.04 of the Manitoba Framework Agreement. The Parties worked on the review and refinement of the Land Transfer and Reserve Creation Process Manual, over the second half of the 2009/2010 fiscal year and the first half of the 2010/2011. On August 10, 2010 the IMC, as part of its responsibilities to facilitate implementation of the MFA, recommended an amended updated version of the LTRCPM to the Senior Advisory Committee (SAC) for approval. The SAC approved the amended LTRCPM on August 31, 2010. On September 15, 2010 a copy was forwarded to all EFN Chiefs and Councils as well as to the EFN TLE Coordinators. The IMC has encouraged EFN use of this LTRCPM during parcel review meetings to discuss; process, next steps, primary responsibility, and time frames, for each of the EFN’s TLE parcels. Through their Strategic Planning initiative the Parties agreed that reviewing and refining the LTRCPM would ensure all Parties and EFNs held a common understanding of the land transfer process steps, that this may facilitate parcel review meetings, that this is fundamental to facilitating MFA – TLE implementation, and that this would enable the following benefits;
TLE Parcel Tracking Charts can be developed from the Land Transfer and Reserve Creation Process Manual steps, and the completion dates for all steps completed can be recorded to track the progress of each parcel through the multi step land transfer process,
Clear identification of the next steps to be undertaken with respect to each parcel, and the
Party/EFN responsible for completing that step, Development of an Annual Work Plan for MFA - TLE implementation, comprised of the next specific
steps to be completed for each parcel, Improved communications and coordination, by sharing and reviewing this EFN and parcel specific
Work Plan with each EFN,
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 8
Improved monitoring and analysis of impediments to implementation, (by parcel and by EFN), so
that the Parties and EFNs can then direct their resources to address specific parcel by parcel impediments.
The Parties have completed these Tracking Charts for each land selection of each EFN, to monitor and record progress (steps completed and when), and to identify next steps and primary responsibility. Utilizing the Tracking Charts at Parcel Review Meetings will; guide the discussion, improve communications, and ensure the EFNs are fully aware of what portion of the process the Parties hope to accomplish with respect to each of the EFN selections/acquisitions over the current and future fiscal years. The Parties agreed to provide TLE Parcel Tracking Chart updates to the EFNs regularly, and these updates will illustrate progress and include dates for recently completed steps. The Parties agreed that these updates will be circulated to the EFNs by INAC on behalf of the Parties to the MFA. In the September 15, 2010 letter transmitting the revised LTRCPM, the EFNs were strongly encouraged to utilize the LTRCPM, and the TLE Parcel Tracking Charts, during all parcel review meetings, and during the development of the EFN’s Annual Work Plan. The Parties have committed to biannual circulation and use of the Tracking Charts during the parcel review meetings
The Parties have been successful in working together and refining and amending the 1999 LTRCPM, and recommending the refined LTRCPM to the SAC, and having it adopted by the SAC on August 31, 2010. With adoption of the LTRCPM, the Parties are back on track with respect to completing the land transfer steps in an orderly fashion, (i.e. in accordance with the order presented in Canada’s Additions To Reserve Policy and the SAC adopted Land Transfer and Reserve Creation Process Manual), and this enables all parties and the EFNs to understand what is next to do, and who is primarily responsible for ensuring it is done. One of the major benefits of this will be improving communication between the Parties and the EFNs. The time required to add dates for the steps completed for EFN land selections and acquisitions took longer than anticipated. Clearly this was not information that all Parties kept available on hand. It is noteworthy that a comprehensive understanding of steps completed, steps outstanding, responsibility, and the relative order of steps could not be completed in short order and communicated between the Parties and with the EFNs. This situation has been partially addressed over the past fiscal year, and updates and circulation to the EFNs are now committed biannually. Each update is anticipated to take less time to produce, and the information contained therein is anticipated to be more succinct, as the Parties become more accustomed to using these jointly developed tracking charts. The LTRCPM details the common road map, identifies next steps in the process for each selection/acquisition, identifies areas that need to be initiated early in the process so as to be ready to action later in the process, improves communications with the EFNs, and serves to orient new MFA Party staff and EFN personnel when there is staff turnover. The Parties should be commended for their coordinated effort to work together, to assemble and share this information. Establishing this common electronic database, on when each land transfer process step was completed for each existing parcel, is now confirmed for each Party and EFN. The progress of entering the step completion dates for the acquisition Tracking Charts is running behind entering the step completion dates for the selection Tracking Charts, and by year-end had not been completed or forwarded to the EFNs. These have been committed by the Parties for early 2011. The LTRCPM and associated Tracking Charts are the only monitoring system in use by the Parties that reflects the SAC adopted land transfer process, and for which updating is shared by the Parties. It reflects primary responsibility for each step, and is intended to facilitate the development of common Annual Work Plans, so that all MFA Parties and EFNs work towards common goals each year, and so that their efforts are synchronized and result in optimal land transfer progress.
9 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
(e) Summary:
While the benefits of an effective tracking/monitoring system are beyond question when managing approximately 400 selections and acquisitions through a multi-step, multi-party, multi-year process; the time and resources required to develop and maintain such a system is a key criteria when evaluating effectiveness. Care should be taken to ensure that duplicate systems are not developed unless the system provides value added benefits worthy of this investment. A second criterion when evaluating the effective use of monitoring and tracking systems is quality control, and the need to ensure the data input is correct. The TRELES has been an effective and reliable tool in this regard, and the results are relied upon by all Parties. The recently developed process of updating the complimentary LTRCPM Tracking Charts biannually and including all Parties in this updating process incorporates a quality control review by the three parties and ensures an accurate data base is maintained. Since the Strategic Planning initiative to update the LTRCPM over the past year has now resulted in refined, more up to date, steps for the Land Transfer Process, the TLEC system would need to revise their steps to match. It is not clear what added value, if any, would be provided beyond what the all party LTRCPM Tracking Charts will provide once completed. While each Party will and does determine the information they need to track and monitor to effectively implement the MFA, it is not anticipated that additional land transfer process/ MFA implementation tracking and monitoring systems need to be developed at this time. The LTRCPM Tracking Charts and TRELES systems are not available on line. It is easily possible however, for any of the Parties to e-mail electronic versions of the LTRCPM Tracking Charts or TRELES reports to each EFN as required. The LTRCPM Selection Tracking Charts are structured on the common process, reflect the common data base and their use is anticipated to be a powerful and effective planning and communication tool for the EFNs and the MFA Parties. By the end of the 2010/2011 fiscal year Canada, Manitoba, and the TLEC had developed a comprehensive, functional system of internal monitoring of Reserve creation for selections under the MFA through which the Parties can advise and inform the EFNs of progress in implementation against the commonly understood process. While not completed in 2010-2011, the system for tracking acquisitions is anticipated and committed by the Parties for early in the 2011/2012 fiscal year. It was a recommendation of the federal Auditor General’s office in its report of November 2005 that Canada be able to advise and inform the Parties and EFNs on the progress of MFA implementation. The joint effort of the Parties in this regard has produced even more beneficial results than one Party doing this alone.
2.2 RATE OF CROWN LAND SELECTION AND PRIVATE LAND ACQUISITION In examining overall statistical performance under the MFA, this Report focuses on the efforts of the 15 EFNs that have signed TEAs to date as shown in Chart 3, rather than the entitlement of all of the EFNs under the MFA. By the end of the 2010-2011 fiscal year six EFNs entitled to enter into TEAs under the MFA had not executed an agreement to resolve their outstanding Treaty Land Entitlement.
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 10
Chart 3: Total amount of Crown Land and Other Land of the Fifteen Entitlement First Nations that have signed TEAs
Entitlement First Nations Crown Land (Acres)
Other Land (Acres)
Total Land (Acres)
BARREN LANDS 66,420 66,420
BROKENHEAD 4,344 10,137 14,481
BUFFALO POINT 3,432 607 4,039
BUNIBONIBEE 35,434 35,434
GOD’S LAKE 42,600 42,600
MANTO SIPI 8,725 8,725
MATHIAS COLOMB 217,364 217,364
NISICHAWAYASIHK 61,761 61,761
NORTHLANDS 94,084 94,084
NORWAY HOUSE 104,784 104,784
OPASKWAYAK 47,658 8,410 56,068
ROLLING RIVER 2,356 44,756 47,112
SAPOTAWEYAK 108,134 36,045 144,179
WAR LAKE 7,156 7,156
WUSKWI SIPIHK 44,168 14,722 58,890
TOTAL 848,420 114,677 963,097
In order to produce the following graphical illustrations of Reserve creation from both an MFA and First Nation perspective, the IMC relied heavily upon the TRELES developed and maintained by Manitoba. The overall rates of Crown Land selection and private land acquisition/purchase by the First Nations that have signed TEAs are shown in Charts 4 and 5a. Chart 4: Rate and Amount of Crown Land Selection - 1997 to 2011 by the Fifteen Entitlement First
Nations that have signed TEAs
11 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
By fiscal year end the 15 EFNs had Selected approximately 88.60% (or 751,670.10 acres) of the total Crown Land Amount committed to the 15 EFNs.
a) Crown Land: In accordance with the MFA, upon initiation of the Community Approval Process the EFNs
were provided funds to complete a community planning and land selection process. The MFA provides for a target 3 - 5 year period for the completion of Crown Land selections. However, only 5 of the 15 EFNs have completed the selection of the total amount of their Crown Land entitlement to date. As anticipated by Article 4, extensions of target time periods for certain EFNs were confirmed by the IMC in the earlier years of implementation, but as reported last year, there were no extensions of the time periods for Crown Land selection in place (except for EFNs affected by the Land in Severalty matter which is in arbitration) or confirmed plans for attending to the balance of Crown Land selections at present. In January 2009 the IMC had by consensus decided that the formal application for extensions was not required as in practice the principles were being applied by the Parties in any event, and all Parties agreed that this should continue. This has been viewed as a proactive practice which facilitates implementation of the MFA. TLEC requested that this informal practice be confirmed formally. At the request of the Parties therefore, the matter of extension of the Periods of Selection was reviewed by the IMC during the 2010-2011 fiscal year. While there is some concern that the EFNs have not selected their full entitlement, this situation should be viewed in context. The IMC determined that for five of the ten EFNs with outstanding Crown land acres to be selected, the amount to be selected was less than 1,000 acres. It is also significant to note that of the ten EFNs with outstanding Crown Land acres to select, three (Barren Lands, Northlands, and Mathias Colomb) constitute approximately 96% of the total outstanding acres to be selected (109,964 of the 114,652 acres outstanding). With respect to Barren Lands and Northlands, the IMC has already provided formal land selection extensions, in recognition of the unresolved issues concerning the right of certain members to take Land in Severalty. (While in discussions with Barren Lands on this matter, the complication posed by the regulation of Reindeer Lake was also identified as a barrier to advancing the existing selections as well as confirming the balance of the selections. This is described in more detail in Section 2.5(e)). The IMC representatives reported that many of the EFNs with outstanding selections have additional selections under consideration, and have been discussing these possible selections at parcel review meetings. It appears that the EFNs are taking a thoughtful and strategic approach with respect to selecting the balance of their Crown Land amount. At an IMC Meeting on January 26, 2011, the Parties discussed the Chairperson’s December 8, 2010 analysis of how the Parties could bring the land selection time periods into compliance with the MFA provisions as requested in the IMC Work Plan. All Parties confirmed their desire to have the EFNs complete their land selections. In addition, all Parties proactively agreed that the MFA principles should continue to apply, and agreed that there would be no requirement to utilize MFA Article 4 for time period extensions for additional Crown Land selections to fulfill entitlement acres of EFNs, subject to the EFN developing and submitting a plan for the selection of the balance of its Crown Land amount. The Parties agreed that the IMC should write to these EFNs with outstanding land to be selected, and advise these EFNs that the Parties have agreed that the MFA principles should continue to apply subject to the EFN developing and submitting a plan for the selection of the balance of its Crown land amount. The IMC attached a list of the information the IMC wishes to see included within the plan, and requested that a BCR and 1:50,000 map be included to confirm the selections and initiate processing. At year-end these letters were in draft and were mailed on April 27, 2011.
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 12
Chart 5a: Rate and Amount of Other Land Acquisition - 1997 to 2011 by the Six Entitlement First Nations Entitled to Purchase or Acquire Other Land that have signed TEAs
By fiscal year end the six EFNs entitled to purchase or acquire Other Land had acquired only 6.45% (or 7,402.19 acres) of the total private purchase/Other Land Amount committed to the six EFNs.
b) Other Land: It is readily apparent that the six Schedule “B” EFNs with Other Land Entitlement are unlikely to
complete the acquisition of private or Other Land within the target time period(s). The target period for completion of the purchase or Other Land acquisition process was 15 years from the date of each Schedule “B” EFN’s respective TEA. Accordingly, approximately 80% of that period has now passed for most of the EFNs. None of the Schedule “B” EFNs entitled to purchase TLE land, have acquired all of their Other Land to date. These EFNs have only confirmed 7,401.19 acres of Other Land, or 6.45% of their entitlement to have 114,677 acres of Other Land set apart as reserve pursuant to the MFA, and this includes the 781.77 acres acquired by the six Schedule B EFNs over the past year.
For the 6 EFNs listed on Schedule “B”; the Date of each TEA, the Acquisition Time Periods, the EFN’s Other Land Amount, and the Other Land Acquired to Date are as shown on Chart 5b: Chart 5b: Schedule “B” EFNS/ Other Land Particulars
EFN DATE OF TEA MFA 4.01 ACQUISITION TIME PERIOD
OTHER LAND AMOUNT (acres)
OTHER LAND ACQUIRED (acres)
Brokenhead Ojibway Nation September 9, 1998 September 9, 2013 10,137 7.46
Buffalo Point First Nation March 24, 1998 March 24, 2013 607 70.04
Opaskwayak Cree Nation January 22, 1999 January 22, 2014 8,410 185.27
Rolling River First Nation March 6, 1998 March 6, 2013 44,756 5,031.35
Sapotaweyak Cree Nation September 1, 1998 September 1, 2013 36,045 1.69 Wuskwi Sipihk Cree Nation June 9, 1998 September 9, 2013 14,722 2,106.38
TOTAL 114,677 7,402.19
13 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
During fiscal year 2010-2011, the IMC was asked by the Parties to determine the reasons underlying the low rate of acquisition of Other Land by the Schedule “B” EFNs. With a better understanding of the issues faced by the Schedule “B” EFNs while acquiring their Other Land amount, the IMC felt it would be in a better position to consider options and make recommendations for addressing the low rate of acquisition of Other Land by these EFNs. On January 28, 2011 the IMC wrote to each of the Schedule “B” EFNs and requested feedback to better understand their situation. Two EFNs (BPFN and RRFN) responded by year end, and in addition RRFN Chief Wilfred McKay attended the March 25, 2011 IMC meeting and made a presentation on the difficulties faced by Rolling River First Nation while acquiring its Other Land amount. BON also wrote to the IMC to advise of the difficulties it has experienced during the Other Land acquisition process.
In summary, the Schedule B EFNs who responded to IMC’s inquiry commented on two related but distinct matters that require specific individual attention;
a) the difficulties each faces with the acquisition of Other Land, and b) the difficulties each faces with having its Other Land set apart as reserve.
From the three Schedule B EFNs who replied to IMC’s January 28, 2011 inquiry into the reasons underlying the slow pace of acquisition of Other Land, some common trends can be observed: The price of land being sold in the EFN’s traditional territories is reported to be much higher on a per acre basis than the funding per acre provided through the Land Acquisition Payment. The reasons behind this are not completely understood, but may include; price increases over the past 14 years, belief amongst sellers that the EFNs have an endless supply of money to fulfill Treaty Land Entitlement which in turn leads to inflated prices, and the Land Acquisition Payment having been determined for undeveloped land while often the parcels that are acquired are developed. Regardless of the reason(s), the EFNs are finding that the Land Acquisition Payment is insufficient to purchase their full Other Land Amount. The EFNs are committed to purchasing their full entitlement of Other Land, and are looking for other sources of revenue to ensure that this is possible, but emphasized that additional time will be required for this to be realized. In order for an acquisition to proceed, it must be: a) for sale on the market, and preferably be in the EFN’s traditional territory, b) be the type of land that the EFN is interested in acquiring, and c) be listed at a reasonable and affordable price. It is often difficult for EFNs to locate land with these characteristics. The land acquisition process is complicated, and requires due diligence (e.g. environmental assessment) by the EFN prior to purchase. Vendors may not wait for this to be completed if other interested parties can complete the sale more quickly. With respect to the period of land acquisition, the IMC recommends that the Parties consider IMC granting time period extensions to the six Schedule “B” EFNs beyond the two 1 year extensions available via the MFA provisions, to enable these EFNs time to complete their land acquisitions with full application of the MFA principles. This would preclude the use of the time consuming (for all Parties) referral process, and extend the Parties “in practice treatment” of land selections confirmed beyond the MFA land selection time periods, to land acquisitions confirmed beyond the MFA land acquisition time periods. Canada confirmed on December 14, 2010 that the Parties have 36 acquisitions yet to be transferred. From the three Schedule B EFNs who replied to IMC’s January 28, 2011 inquiry into the reasons underlying the slow pace of setting Other Land apart as reserve, some common experiences/views were also noted. This perspective is exceptionally important when it is noted that there was no acquired Other Land set apart in 2009-2010, or 2010-2011.
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 14
Once purchased, the EFNs feel the process continues to be complicated, and is further complicated by:
a) Government staff turnover; b) municipalities intent on maintaining municipal control or jurisdiction through the negotiation of MDSAs; c) awaiting access to documents to address TPIs; and, d) finalization of submissions to Ottawa.
All of which leads to more EFN attention having to be paid to processing an acquisition, in lieu of dedicating that time to pursuing additional acquisitions. As well the EFNs noted that while the process proceeds, it is the EFNs who bear the taxation costs for the acquired property, which further erodes the EFNs financial resources. With respect to the time required to set apart acquisitions as reserve, the IMC feels that the acquisition tracking charts and the three Party Annual Plan which are to be completed and released to the EFNs early in 2011-2012 will improve the processing time associated with acquisition land transfers. In addition the IMC feels that a greater understanding of the difficulties faced by the Schedule B EFNs would enable the Parties to determine if the processes followed by the Parties could be refined to respond more favourably to the barriers faced, and improve the rate of land acquisition and the subsequent processing of land acquisitions. IMC was advised that BON and TLEC are currently preparing an Acquisition Strategy, and IMC agreed to review this Acquisition Strategy upon completion to better understand the difficulties faced by the Schedule B EFNs.
IMC RECOMMENDATION: In light of the very low acquisition rate (6.45% of Other Land Entitlement confirmed to date), and the unlikelihood of the Schedule “B” EFNs confirming the balance of their “Other Land” within their 15 year land acquisition period(s) set out in the MFA, the MFA Parties should continue dialogue with the Schedule “B” EFNS to better understand the challenges these EFNs face and determine how the Parties and EFNs collectively wish to proceed when these time periods expire in 2013-2014.
2.3 RESERVE CREATION AS A PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
(a) Total Acres Set Apart as Reserve under the MFA:
For the purposes of the MFA, the measurement of progress has historically been the overall number of acres set apart as Reserve. For a complete listing of selections and acquisitions which have been set apart to the end of the fiscal year pursuant to the MFA, their acreage, the date set apart, the official reserve name, and a confirmation of if each was an EFN priority parcel; please refer to Appendix B. Acceleration in the rate of Reserve creation has been recent as illustrated in Charts 4 - 6, and this acceleration coincides with the commitments of the responsible Federal and Provincial Ministers in August of 2006. It accelerated to a pace never before seen in Manitoba and the efforts of the Parties are commended as this reserve creation rate is without precedent in Manitoba. In 2008/2009 the Parties recognized that the degree of effort and administrative overhead required to transfer small parcels of land is comparable to that required to transfer large parcels of land, and with the largest parcels now transferred, the Parties recognized that it would be difficult to maintain the rate of implementation moving forward. (140,465.95 acres set apart in 2007-2008 and 126,445.68 acres set apart in 2008-2009) In 2009-2010 this forecast came to pass when the acreage set apart decreased to 38,757.65 acres (17 selections). During this past 2010/11 fiscal year 100,604.7 acres (22.2% of the total amount of land now set apart as Reserve under the MFA) was set apart. This was comprised of 12 parcels of selected Crown land, with 0 acres of acquired Other Land having been set apart as reserve during 2009/2010 or in 2010/2011. The acreage set apart jumped considerably because one large parcel for Mathias Colomb (Pachapesihk Wasahow Indian Reserve) was 72,199.00 acres. This was the last large selection, and the acreage forecast for transfer annually in upcoming years is now anticipated to decrease back to the 40,000 acre range.
15 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
Referring back to Charts 4 and 5, it can be seen that; 53.1% or 450,608.86 acres of the total Crown Land Amount for the 15 EFNs with signed TEAs has successfully been set apart as reserve, while only 2.4%, or 2,729.53 acres of the acquired Other Land Amount has been set apart for the six EFNs found on Schedule “B” of the MFA. The status of implementation with respect to Other Land has made developing a better understanding of the difficulties faced by the Schedule B EFNs while acquiring their Other Land, and the difficulties faced by Schedule B EFNs during the processing of their Other Land acquisitions, most important. An Annual Plan that reflects an understands of the issues and complications inherent with the remaining parcels, on a parcel by parcel basis, and identifies the steps and primary responsibilities required to advance parcels to reserve status over the next two years will be very helpful to the three Parties with implementation of the Other Land provisions of the MFA.
Chart 6: Rate of Reserve Creation - Total Land Amount - 1997 to 2011 by the Fifteen Entitlement
First Nations that have signed TEAs
(b) Acres Set Apart as Reserve for each Entitlement First Nation:
Progress under the MFA measured by way of total acres set apart as Reserve against the Total Amount of Land, as set out in Chart 6 above, is but one measure of performance. The IMC also recognizes that it is important to measure progress for each individual EFN and by observing the number of parcels set apart for each, as illustrated in the charts for the individual EFNs set out in Chart 7 on pages 16 through 29. Examination of the acres of land set apart as Reserve for each EFN as a measurement of performance over the last 14 years tells a more precise story for each EFN. For example, at one end of the spectrum, Barren Lands First Nation has not had any land set apart as Reserve to date, while at the other end of the spectrum, the Sapotaweyak Cree Nation has had some 99,701.73 acres or 69% of its Total Land Amount set apart as reserve and the Bunibonibee Cree Nation has had some 31,342 acres or 88.45% of its Total Land Amount set apart as Reserve. During 2010/2011, 5 EFNs benefited from the 12 parcels that were set apart. While it may not be realistic to achieve a new reserve for each EFN in each year, 10 of the 15 EFNs with TEAs did not have any land set apart as Reserve for their use and benefit during this fiscal year. It is positive and noteworthy that Northlands Dene First Nation had its first four new reserves (totalling 4,134 acres) set apart pursuant to the MFA during 2010-2011; and that Opaskwayak Cree Nation, which previously had only one parcel set apart pursuant to the MFA, had three new reserves (totalling 15,675.7 acres) set apart during 2010-2011.
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 16
Chart 7: Total Acres set apart as Reserve for each of the Fifteen Entitlement First Nations that have
signed TEAs
Brokenhead Ojibway Nation has selected 4,275.80 acres. (Source: March 25/11 TRELES)
YEAR DATE OCPC/MO
NO.
RESERVE NAME -
ADDITION
SELECTION ACREAGE
ACQUISITION ACREAGE
FORMER SELECTION /ACQUISITION NAME
2008 AUG. 27
MO-2008-032 Birch Landing Indian Reserve
510.58 Ironwood Point Phase 1
161.42 Ironwood Point Phase 2
2008 OCT.1 MO-2008-040 Nashakepenais Indian Reserve
- 7.46 East St. Paul acquisition
TOTAL 672.00 7.46
17 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
Buffalo Point First Nation has selected 2,627.96 acres. (Source: March 25/11 TRELES)
YEAR DATE OCPC/MO
NO.
RESERVE NAME -
ADDITION
SELECTION ACREAGE
ACQUISITION ACREAGE
FORMER SELECTION
/ACQUISITION NAME
2005 FEB.17 MO - 2005-001
Buffalo Point First Nation I.R. No. 1
92.40 PTH12 / International Boundary
2005 MAR.14 MO-2005-003 Buffalo Point First Nation I.R. No. 2
859.70 Poplar Point
2005 MAR. 14 MO-2005-003 Addition to Reed River I.R. No. 36A
39.93 Goulds Point 4A
283.17 Goulds Point 4B
868.20 Goulds Point 4C
2006 APR. 3 MO-2006-004
Buffalo Point First Nation Indian Reserve No. 3
226.30 Buffalo Point Access Road
TOTAL 2,369.70 0
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 18
Bunibonibee Cree Nation has selected 35,209.70 acres. (Source: March 25/11 TRELES)
YEAR DATE OCPC/MO NO. RESERVE NAME - ADDITION
SELECTION ACREAGE
FORMER SELECTION /ACQUISITION NAME
2006 NOV.23 OCPC-2006-1407
Oxford House Indian Reserve No. 24A
361.00 No. 24A - Carrot Bay
Oxford House Indian Reserve No. 24B
4,294.70 No. 24B - Colen Lakes
Oxford House Indian Reserve No. 24C
993.00 No. 24C - Bear Lake
Oxford House Indian Reserve No. 24D
11.34 No. 24D - Atikosis Lake
2007 JUL. 31 OCPC-2007-1170
Oxford Lake North Shore Indian Reserve
3,422.00 Oxford Lake North Shore
Wapisew Lake Indian Reserve,
176.00 Wapisew Lake
Whitemud Lake Indian Reserve
5,110.00 Whitemud Lake
2008 MAY. 29 OCPC-2008-991
Munro Lake Indian Reserve
3,684.00 Munro Lake Ridge
2008 AUG. 21 MO-2008-029 Notin Sakahekun Indian Reserve
6,974.30 Windy Lake
2009 AUG. 7 MO-009-025 High Hill Lake Indian Reserve
1,043.00 High Hill Lake /Silsby Lake
2009 AUG. 7 MO-009-025 Opischikunayak Nation Indian Reserve
630.00 Opischikunayak Narrows
2009 AUG. 7 MO-009-026 Kisipikamak Indian Reserve
4,643.00 Lynx Bay
TOTAL 31,342.34
19 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
God’s Lake First Nation has selected 41,077.28 acres. (Source: March 25/11 TRELES)
YEAR DATE OCPC/MO NO. RESERVE NAME - ADDITION
SELECTION ACREAGE
FORMER SELECTION /ACQUISITION NAME
2005 MAY 10 OCPC-2005-819 Andrew Bay Indian Reserve
168.50 Andrew Bay
2005 MAY 10 OCPC-2005-819 Chataway Lake/Knife Lake Indian Reserve
277.00 Chataway Lake/Knife Lake
2005 MAY 10 OCPC-2005-819 Vermilyea Lake Indian Reserve
8.35 Vermilyea Lake
2005 NOV.28 OCPC-2005-2237 North Prominent Ridge Indian Reserve
6,529.00 North Prominent Ridge
2006 JUN. 22 OCPC-2006-552
Red Cross Lake North Indian Reserve
313.30 Red Cross Lake North
Red Cross Lake East Indian Reserve
671.60 Red Cross Lake East
2007 JUL. 31 OCPC-2007-1172
Esker Ridge B Indian Reserve
264.00 Esker Ridge
Peter Burtons/Shorty Rapids Indian Reserve,
1,948.00 Peter Burtons/Shorty Rapids
Wapaminakoskak Narrows Indian Reserve
2,347.00 Wapaminakoskak Narrows
2008 MAY 1 OCPC-2008-825 Esker Ridge A Indian Reserve
1,189.00 Esker Ridge A
2008 AUG.21 MO-2008-028 God’s Lake Southeast of Community Indian Reserve
1,051.00 God’s Lake Southeast of Community
2008 AUG. 21 MO-2008-030 Kenyan Lake Indian Reserve
749.00 Kenyon Lake
2010 NOV.24 MO-2010-022 Hawkins Indian Reserve 674.00 Esker Ridge C
TOTAL 16,189.75
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 20
Manto Sipi Cree Nation has selected 9,964.68 acres. (Source: March 25/11 TRELES)
YEAR DATE OCPC/MO NO. RESERVE NAME - ADDITION
SELECTION ACREAGE
FORMER SELECTION /ACQUISITION NAME
2008 MAY 1 OCPC-2008-826
Chepi Lake Indian Reserve
264.00 Chepi Lake
Prominent Ridge Indian Reserve
2,780.00 Prominent Ridge
Hurley Island Indian Reserve
1,240.00 Hurley Island
TOTAL 4,284.00
21 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
Mathias Colomb First Nation has selected 183,048.74 acres. (Source: March 25/11 TRELES)
YEAR DATE OCPC/MO NO. RESERVE NAME -
ADDITION SELECTION ACREAGE
FORMER SELECTION /ACQUISITION NAME
2009 JAN.12 MO-2009-003 Wepuskow Ohnikahp Indian Reserve
76,688.00 Churchill River Area 30A
2009 JAN. 12
MO-2009-003 Napahkapihskow Sakhahigan Indian Reserve
4,520.00 Churchill River Area 30B
2009 JAN. 12
MO-2009-003 Kimosominahk Indian Reserve
1,366.00 Churchill River Area 30D
2009 AUG. 7 M0-2009-027
Sisipuk Sakahegan (A) Indian Reserve Sisipuk Sakahegan (B) Indian Reserve Sisipuk Sakahegan (C) Indian Reserve Mistiategameek Sipi Indian Reserve Ohpahahpiskow Sakahegan Indian Reserve Moosowhapihsk Sakagegan Indian Reserve Kamihkowapihskak Pawistik Indian Reserve Nihkik Ohnikapihs
5164.00
7.23
10.26
1809.00
3613.00
1992.00
4263.00 907.00
Sisipuk Lake Sisipuk Lake Addition West Sisipuk Lake Addition East Nelson Bay Highrock Lake Bonald Lake Bloodstone Falls McKnight Lake
2010 AUG. 13
MO-2010-012 Pachapesihk Wasahow Indian Reserve
72,199.00 Churchill River 30C
TOTAL 172,538.49
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 22
Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation has selected 72,735.93 acres. (Source: March 25/11 TRELES)
YEAR DATE OCPC/MO
NO. RESERVE NAME -
ADDITION SELECTION ACREAGE
FORMER SELECTION /ACQUISITION NAME
2006 JUN. 8 OCPC-2006-504
Kapawasihk IR 4,621.00 Pakwaw Lake
2006 JUN. 8 OCPC-2006-505
Monahawuhkan IR 986.00 Birch Tree Brook West
2006 JUN. 8 OCPC-2006-506
Opekunosakakanihk IR 1,747.62 Harding Lake
2006 JUN. 8 OCPC-2006-507
Wapasihk IR 3,586.50 Leftrook Lake
2006 JUN. 8 OCPC-2006-508
Wuskwi Sipi IR 1,984.12 Gauer River
2008 SEPT. 5
MO-2008-036 Opekanowi Sakaheykun IR 26.91 Apeganau Lake Addition
Numaykoos Sakaheykun IR
2,955.00 Baldock Lake Addition
2009 JUNE 17
MO-2009-017
Wuskwi Sakaheykun IR Addition to Opekanowi Sakaheykun IR Addition to Numaykoos Sakaheykun IR
2,270.22
1958.64
5758.00
Gauer Lake Apeganau Lake Baldock Lake
2010 NOV.30 MO-2010-025
Suwanee Lake IR Wapikunoo Bay IR Mile 20 Second Revision IR
1,663.00 4,438.00 1,821.00
Suwanee Lake Wapikunoo Bay Mile 20(Second Revision)
TOTAL 33,816.01
23 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
Barren Lands First Nation has selected 28,252.74 acres. (Source: March 25/11 TRELES)
Northlands Dene First Nation has selected 56,602.38 acres. (Source: March 25/11 TRELES)
YEAR DATE OCPC/MO
NO. RESERVE NAME -
ADDITION SELECTION ACREAGE
FORMER SELECTION /ACQUISITION NAME
2010 NOV.3 MO-2010-021 Sheth chok Indian Reserve 2,999.00
South of Northlands
2010 NOV.30 MO-2010-023
Thuy choleeni aze Indian Reserve Tthekale nu Indian Reserve Thuycholeeni Indian Reserve
497.00
521.00
117.00
Cochrane River Parcel B Cochrane River Parcel C Cochrane River Parcel D
TOTAL 4,134.00
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 24
Norway House Cree Nation has selected 106,035.80 acres. (Source: March 25/11 TRELES)
YEAR DATE OCPC/MO NO.
RESERVE NAME - ADDITION
SELECTION ACREAGE
FORMER SELECTION /ACQUISITION NAME
2003 DEC.3 OCPC 2003-1936
Ponask Lake Indian Reserve 3,898.95 Ponask Lake
2007 AUG. 10 MO-2007-018
Norway House Indian Reserve Nos. 17C1 to 17C-46
2,021.25 (i.e., numbered 1 to 46 inclusive) - Molson Lake Islands
2007 AUG.10 MO-2007-019
Norway House Indian Reserve Nos. 17D-2
2,916.00 Island River A & B
17D-3 (Costes Lake B), 219.00 17D-3 (Costes Lake B),
17D-4 (Beach Lake) 84.00 17D-4 (Beach Lake) 17D-5 (Little Bolton Lake A & C)
792.00 17D-5 (Little Bolton Lake A & C)
17D-6 (Echimamish River A and The High Rock)
1,357.00 17D-6 (Echimamish River A and The High Rock)
17D-7 (Echimamish River B) 35.00 17D-7 (Echimamish River B)
17D-8 (Nelson River East Channel B)
1,011.60 17D-8 (Nelson River East Channel B)
17D-9 (Lawford Lake) 724.30 17D-9 (Lawford Lake)
**N.B. There are 3,596 more acres to be transferred as per Prov. OIC No. 324/2006 dated Aug. 2/06.**
2007 AUG. 10 MO-2007-020
Norway House Indian Reserve No. 17D-1
3,598.00 North Molson Lake Phase 3
9,915.00 North Molson Lake Phase 1
**N.B. This reserve creation was taken from Prov. OIC Nos. 450/2004 dated Nov. 3/04 and 324/2006 dated Aug. 2/06. There are 8,881 more acres to be transferred as per Prov. OIC No. 450/2004 dated Nov. 3/04.*G53*
2008 DEC.19 MO-2008-043
Anderson Indian Reserve 3,105.40 Painted Stone Portage A
2008 DEC.19 MO-2008-043
Hart Indian Reserve 2,299.10 Painted Stone Portage C
2009 AUG. 7 MO-2009-024
Winnipekosihk Indian Reserve
1,188.00 Molson Lake Access Road
TOTAL 33,164.60
25 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
Opaskwayak Cree Nation has selected 46,906.60 acres. (Source: March 25/11 TRELES)
YEAR DATE OCPC/MO
NO.
RESERVE NAME -
ADDITION
SELECTION ACREAGE
ACQUISITION ACREAGE
FORMER SELECTION
/ACQUISITION NAME
2007 AUG.10 MO-2007-022
Root Lake Beach Ridge Site Indian Reserve
8,699.60 Root Lake Beach Ridge Site
2010 AUG.5 MO-2010-010
Opaskwayak Cree Nation 21A South Indian Reserve
123.00 21A South
2010 AUG.5 MO-2010-011
Opaskwayak Cree Nation Rocky Lake Indian Reserve No. 1
1,857.70 Rocky Lake and Rocky Lake Addition
2011 FEB.7 MO-2011-002 Egg Lake Indian Reserve No. 1
13,695.00 Egg Lake
TOTAL 24,375.30 0
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 26
Rolling River First Nation has selected 2,350.70 acres. (Source: March 25/11 TRELES)
YEAR DATE OCPC/ MO NO.
RESERVE NAME -
ADDITION
SELECTION ACREAGE
ACQUISITION ACREAGE
FORMER SELECTION /ACQUISITION NAME
2005 MAY 9 MO-2005-006
Rolling River Indian Reserve No. 67A
163.44 3b - Onanole WMA
163.62 3c - Onanole WMA
817.54 3d - Onanole WMA
971.52 4 Bald Hills
163.35 5 NE 12-19-18 WPM
20.13 RA1 - Interior Road Allowances
51.10 RA2 - Exterior Road Allowances
2006 MAY 29
MO-2006-009
Rolling River IR No. 67 B
- 158.14 Ronald Hill acquisition property
2009 FEB. 26
MO-2009-006
Addition to Rolling River Indian Reserve No. 67
1,823.90
E1/2 of SE 1/4 24-16-19 WPM (Site No. 3-01) - 80.00 NE 1/4 24-16-19 WPM (Site No. 2-01) - 157.92
NE 1/4 30-17-18 WPM (Site 2) - 155.00
NE 1/4 34-16-19 WPM (Site No. 11-01) - 160.00 NW 1/4 18-17-18 WPM (Site No. 3-02) - 156.00 NW 1/4 25-16-19 WPM (Site No. 8-01) - 160.00 S 1/2 36-16-19 WPM (Site No. 14-01) - 320.00 SE 1/4 34-16-19 WPM (Site No. 10-01) - 160.00 SW 1/4 25-16-19 WPM (Site No. 9-01) - 160.00 SW 1/4 26-16-19 WPM (Site No. 7.01) - 160.00 SW 1/4 31-17-18 WPM (Site 1) - 155.00
2009
FEB. 26
MO-2009-006
Addition to Rolling River Indian Reserve No. 67A
164.00
E1/2 of SW 1/4 13-19-18 WPM (SiteNo. 1-02) - 82.00 W 1/2 of SW 1/4 13-19-18 WPM (Site No. 2-02) - 82.00
2009 FEB. 26
MO-2009-006
Addition to Rolling River Indian Reserve No.67B
576.03 NE 1/4 27-17-18 WPM (Site 8) - 144.00 NW 1/4 26-17-18 WPM (Site 7) - 157.00
NW 1/4 27-17-18 (Site 10) - 101.00
SE 1/4 34-17-18 WPM (Site 9) - 19.00
SW 1/4 26-17-18 WPM (Site 6) - 155.03
TOTAL 2,350.70 2,722.07
27 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
War Lake First Nation has selected 5,452.24 acres. (Source: March 25/11 TRELES)
YEAR DATE OCPC/MO NO. RESERVE NAME
- ADDITION SELECTION ACREAGE
FORMER SELECTION /ACQUISITION NAME
2008 SEPT.4 MO-2008-035
Mooseocoot Indian Reserve No. 2
351.90 No. 2 - Rock Quarry
Mooseocoot Indian Reserve No. 3
128.50 No. 3 – Landing River
TOTAL 480.40
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 28
Sapotaweyak Cree Nation has selected 112,782.10 acres. (Source: March 25/11 TRELES)
YEAR DATE OCPC/MO NO.
RESERVE NAME - ADDITION
SELECTION ACREAGE
ACQUISI- TION ACREAGE
FORMER SELECTION /ACQUISITION NAME
2006 APR. 3
MO-2006-004
Sapotaweyak Cree Nation - Spruce Island Indian Reserve
4,566.00 Spruce Island
2007 JUL. 23
MO-2007-014
Sapotaweyak Cree Nation Indian Reserve
58,745.20
Dawson Bay **N.B. There are 6,719.6 more acres to be transferred as per Prov. OIC No.516/2006 dated Nov. 29/06.**
2007 AUG. 10
MO-2007-021
Pelican Rapids Access Road Phase 1 Indian Reserve
20,780.00 Pelican Rapids Access Road Phase 1
2008 JUN. 16
MO-208-017
Addition to Sapotaweyak Cree Nation Indian Reserve
6,719.60 Dawson Bay - Phase Two
2008 AUG. 27
MO-2008-031
Addition to Sapotaweyak Cree Nation Indian Reserve
4,230.73 Dawson Bay - Phase Three
2008 SEPT.4
MO-2008-034
Overflowing River Sapotaweyak Cree Indian Reserve
1,158.90 Overflowing River
2009 AUG.7 MO-2009-022
Channel Island Sapotaweyak Cree Nation Indian Reserve
3,358.00 Channel Island
2009 AUG. 7
MO-2009-023
PTH 10 Sapotaweyak Cree Nation Indian Reserve
143.30 PTH 10
TOTAL 99,701.73 0
29 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
Wuskwi Sipihk Cree Nation has selected 44,347.45 acres. (Source: March 25/11 TRELES)
YEAR DATE OCPC/MO
NO. RESERVE NAME
- ADDITION SELECTION ACREAGE
ACQUISTION ACREAGE
FORMER SELECTION /ACQUISITION NAME
2000 MAR. 23
OCPC 2000-378
Wuskwi Sipihk I.R. FN No. 1
1,049.00 Old Building Bay Phase
1
Wuskwi Sipihk I.R. No. 2
226.18
PTH No. 10
2003 DEC. 3 OCPC 2003-1938
Addition to Wuskwi Sipihk First Nation I.R. No. 1
995.80
Old Building Bay Phase Two
2004 APR. 22
OCPC-2004-442
Wuskwi Sipihk First Nation I.R. No. 4
472.00
Stone Ridge Point
2005 FEB. 1 OCPC-2005-66
Wuskwi Sipihk Indian Reserve No. 5
3,644.20
Bell River / PTH 10
2005 FEB.1 OCPC-2005-66
Wuskwi Sipihk Indian Reserve No. 6
270.30
Mafeking North
2005
MAR.22 OCPC-2005-416 Wuskwi Sipihk
Indian Reserve Nos. 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E and 3F
510.40
Swan Lake Islands (510.39)
DEC. 6 OCPC-2005-2297
regarding Amendment to P.C. 2005-416 due to correction in wording in OCPC
2007 MAY 10 OCPC-2007-726
Wuskwi Sipihk Indian Reserve No. 8
1,845.00
North Steeprock Lake
2007 JUL, 23 MO-2007-013
Wuskwi Sipihk Indian Reserve No. 7
14,456.00
Kettle Hills
2008 OCT. 1 MO-2008-039
Addition to Wuskwi Sipihk First Nation Indian Reserve No. 1
1,720.95
Various Crown/Leased agricultural lands
TOTAL 25,189.83 0
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 30
(c) Reserve Creation – Total Crown Land Acres versus Other Land Acres Set Apart as Reserve under the MFA:
When the total Crown Land set apart as reserve and the total acquired (Other Land) set apart as reserve are separated for comparison purposes as shown in Chart 8, it is quite evident that the amount of Other Land set apart as reserve is lagging far behind the Crown Land set apart as reserve. A contributing factor for this difference is that the EFNs have selected 88.6% of their Crown Land Amount (Please refer to Chart 4), while the EFNs have only acquired 6.45% of their Other Land amount. (Please refer to Chart 5) Therefore, there are far more confirmed selections in the land transfer process than acquired parcels in the land transfer process. While the acquisition of Other Land is to be initiated by the six EFNs which have a purchase/Other Land entitlement, this is clearly not occurring. There were only 781.77 additional acres acquired and confirmed by the EFNs during the 2010/2011 fiscal year. While an initial understanding of the reasons underlying the low rate of acquisition by the EFNs was discussed in Section 2.2(b), more dialogue with the Schedule B EFNs is required to determine how the Parties can best assist the Schedule B EFNs.
Chart 8: Rate of Reserve Creation - Crown Land versus Other Land - 1997 to 2011 by the Fifteen
Entitlement First Nations that have signed TEAs
IMC NOTE: In the above Chart 8, the amount of Other Land Set Apart as reserve is such a small percentage of the Total Land Amount, that it does not appear evident in this illustration.
(d) Other Land Acres Set Apart as Reserve – Six Schedule “B” Entitlement First Nations:
Separating the Crown Land acres from the Total Land amount, to focus solely on implementation of the acquisition (Other Land) provisions of the MFA for the six Schedule “B” EFNs with purchase rights; can assist in clarifying implementation of this aspect of the MFA The six EFNs are entitled to acquire up to 114,677 acres of land for reserve. Land acquisition, which is to be initiated by the six Schedule “B” EFNs, has been minimal to date. See Chart 9 below. Only 7,402.19 acres of land representing 6.45% of the total has been acquired and confirmed for Reserve by the six EFNs having this right to date. 36.9% of that amount representing twenty parcels of land consisting of 2,729.53 acres has been set apart as Reserve. These twenty acquired parcels were set apart as the Nashakepenais Indian Reserve for Brokenhead Ojibway Nation and as additions to Rolling River Indian Reserves #67, #67A, and #67B.
31 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
With respect to the rate of processing and setting apart confirmed parcels as reserve, the Chairperson completed a general analysis of the time between receipt of the parcel confirmation and setting the parcel apart as reserve, and found that on average it has taken approximately 8 years for an acquisition. The Parties have successfully set apart 36.9% of the Other Land that has been acquired. In Section 2.2(b), the EFN perspective on the challenges they face with processing acquired Other Land is discussed. In general, the EFN selections were confirmed many years earlier than the acquisitions the acquisition of Other land represents a distinct and unique challenge that requires specific attention by the Parties and the six involved EFNs in the next fiscal year and beyond. The challenges can be divided into two categories. (i) Difficulties experienced by the EFNs in actually acquiring the Other Land, and (ii) the pace and difficulty of addressing the land transfer requirements for the Other Land after the acquisition is confirmed. There has not been any land acquisitions set apart during the past two fiscal years. Four of the six Schedule B EFNs have not had any Other Land set apart as reserve. While Brokenhead Ojibway Nation has had one 7.46 acre parcel set apart as reserve, it is the only parcel BON has acquired. Sapotaweyak has only acquired two parcels totalling 1.69 acres.
Chart 9: Other Land Amount, Other Land Acquired, and Other Land Set Apart as Reserve
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 32
33 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
(e) Priority Parcels of the Entitlement First Nations:
Over the past few years, TLEC has annually submitted listings to Canada and Manitoba identifying the selections and acquisitions deemed by the EFNs to be their Priority Parcels. A listing dated “Revised as of June 2, 2010” was submitted by TLEC to IMC on June 15, 2010 and discussed at the IMC meeting of June 23, 2010. This listing contains 141 priority parcels, 120 of them are selections and 21 of them are acquisitions. (21 of the 37 acquisitions of Other Land listed in TRELES are also EFN priority parcels) The IMC discussion on June 23, 2010 highlighted a communication gap with respect to “priorities”. With 141 parcels to be treated as priorities, it is not clear how the Parties and the EFNs can focus on so many at once and achieve the results the EFNs are seeking. The IMC feels that, in response to a determination by an EFN that particular parcels are a priority, the Parties can: commit to making steady forward progress on the transfer of those parcels, identify the milestone land transfer steps that can be realistically accomplished over the current year, include these milestone goals in the three Party Annual Plan, identify primary responsibility for completion of these milestone steps, and advise the EFN of the expectations of the Parties with respect to forward progress on its priority parcel each year (through circulation and discussion of the three Party Annual Plan). It should not matter that an EFN priority parcel is a complex parcel to transfer, because if this was the case, it would imply that only the easier parcels advance through the land transfer process. What is important is that the process of land transfer steps for that priority parcel is not ambiguous, but is clear and known to all Parties and EFNs, and the primary responsibility for completing the next steps is not ambiguous but clear and known to all Parties and EFNs, and that the agreed upon priority parcels make steady progress towards reserve status. Upon the three Parties confirming and communicating their Annual Plan in early 2011-2012, the Parties and the EFNs will be clear on completed steps, next steps, and what needs to be done by who to advance the EFN priority parcels towards reserve status. The importance of the Parties completing and circulating their three Party Annual Plan to the EFNs early in 2011- 2012 cannot be overstated. Completion of the Annual Plan will improve this important aspect of the working relationship between the Parties and the EFNs, and ensure that the anticipated progress to be made on the EFN priority parcels and the acquisitions is transparent and accountable. Without meaningful targets being set, the goals are unknown and it is difficult to determine if progress is being made with the transfer of the EFN priority parcels.
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 34
2.4 COORDINATION AND STRATEGIC PLANNING
(a) Coordination and Communication:
Overall coordination and communications continued to improve this past year, in part through the three party Strategic Planning initiative. The improvements in coordination and communications that were made were again the direct result of the considerable efforts of staff responsible within Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), Aboriginal and Northern Affairs for Manitoba, Crown Lands Branch (Conservation) for Manitoba, the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee (TLEC) and the individual EFNs. During 2010/2011 however, internal planning and coordination efforts by the Parties continued to be focused on Reserve creation proposals that have the greatest likelihood of resolution each year and were able to be set apart by the August, 2010 anniversary date of the Ministerial commitments. While the Parties agree that a focus on parcels of land identified as priorities by each EFN should be an important element of their Annual Work Plan; milestone targets (the land transfer steps identified for completion during the reporting period) for the priority parcels identified by the EFNs, were not developed during 2010-2011. The Parties recognize (and confirmed during Strategic Planning sessions) that their 2010-2011 Annual (fiscal year) Plan needed to include at a minimum the work/tasks required to advance:
the parcels on the “Dashboard” plan which were targeted for transfer by August (i.e. August 2010); the parcels on the subsequent “Dashboard” plan which are targeted for transfer by the following
August (note: now March 31, 2012 rather than August 21, 2011); and, the EFN priority parcels (which can be more complex parcels and are anticipated to take more than
two years to transfer - or they would be on one of the above referenced dashboards). The Parties remain committed to completing these milestones, and ensuring all Parties and the EFNs share common expectations on next steps, primary responsibility, and milestone targets for each EFN priority parcel during 2011/2012.
(b) Strategic Planning Background:
At an IMC Strategic Planning Focus Meeting convened on March 3, 2009 the representatives of the Parties began a three Party Strategic Planning initiative. The Parties asked the then IMC Assistant Chairperson to assist the Parties with their initiative by facilitating the Strategic Planning sessions. On June 17 and 18, 2009, the first of the three Party Strategic Planning sessions was held and at that meeting the participants began to build a foundation for the sessions to follow. Development of a Strategic implementation Plan will coordinate the efforts of all Parties, and assist each Party with implementation of its MFA responsibilities. The Strategic Planning initiative continued throughout the 2010-2011 fiscal year, with meetings being held on July 13 and 14, 2010, September 23, 2010, February 4, 2011, and March 14, 2011. From the outset, one of the key objectives of the Strategic Planning initiative has been to reach consensus on a 3 Party land transfer plan, and share it with the EFNs, so that the EFNs can understand and anticipate the timeframes targeted for land transfers to be completed. The overall Strategic Plan would be comprised of a series of Annual Plans that would be reviewed and updated each year. The role of the IMC Office with respect to the Strategic Planning initiative was confirmed by the Parties in the 2010-2011 IMC Work Plan. Task 1.8 asked the IMC to review and report on the effectiveness of the three Party Strategic Planning process, and specifically identified the need for the Parties to fulfill the commitments each makes towards completing the Strategic Planning initiative as a measure of effectiveness. Task 2.3 asked the IMC to assess and monitor the progress of the Parties in completing and implementing the multi-year Strategic Plan. The IMC has monitored the progress of the three Party Strategic Planning process and submitted commentary and recommendations periodically throughout the fiscal year. Ultimately the success of the Strategic Planning process is measured by the number of parcels attaining reserve status during each reporting period. Given the multi-year nature of the land transfer process
35 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
however, it is also important to assess the interim achievements of the Parties – specifically the realization of the three Party goals and principles, initially confirmed during Strategic Planning meetings in 2009-2010.
(c) Current Status Of Strategic Planning:
The Parties have made substantial progress in establishing a three Party Strategic Plan (both short and longer term) over the past two years. Confirmation of this Plan, which can be used in performance measurement and to facilitate implementation, is now required to coordinate the future efforts of all three Parties with that of the EFNs. During the 2010-2011 fiscal year the Parties worked cooperatively together and were able to recommend a refined Land Transfer and Reserve Creation Process Manual to SAC. By August 31, 2010 SAC had approved the refined Land Transfer and Reserve Creation Process Manual (LTRCPM) recommended by the Parties, and the Parties had certainty and agreement on the land transfer process for selections of Crown Land and acquisitions of Other Land. The Parties then worked cooperatively together to develop complimentary Tracking Charts that were based on the LTRCPM processes in order to track the progress of each selection through the land transfer process. These tracking charts confirmed the sequence of steps required to transfer the land, the Party responsible for completion of each step, the steps completed (and when), and the sequence of next steps to be completed. The Parties committed to circulating the Tracking Charts to the EFNS quarterly (later revised to bi-annually) and to utilizing them at Parcel Review meetings to; continually share the progress being made with the EFNs, reinforce the common land transfer process the Parties were following, and clearly identify the primary responsibility for each remaining step. The Selection Tracking Charts were finalized and circulated by the Parties to the EFNs on November 5, 2010. The Parties accepted undertakings at 2010-2011 Strategic Planning meetings to have the acquisition tracking charts date populated and transmitted to the EFNs, but despite the high priority and the best efforts of the Parties the Acquisition Tracking Charts have not been completed by fiscal year end. The milestone progress goals for the 2010-2011 fiscal year for each parcel (Dashboard 4, Dashboard 5, and the EFN priority parcels) (i.e. the 2010-2011 Annual Work Plan) were only partially developed by way of the creation of the Dashboards. Parcel review meetings held between the Parties and the EFNs has remained the avenue through which this information has been communicated. Throughout 2010-2011 the Parties proceeded with a “draft Annual Plan” that did not identify the EFN priority parcel steps the Parties were targeting for completion during the year. The lack of progress and/or a plan for advancing the EFN priority parcels has been a major concern of TLEC’s since the initiation of the Strategic Planning initiative, and in response the Parties identified targeted progress on priority parcels as a key component of their Annual Plan. By 2010-2011 fiscal year end, the transfer steps to be completed for each of the EFN priority parcels during 2010-2011 had not been defined or communicated to the EFNs however the Parties anticipate that the transfer steps to be completed for the EFN priority parcels during 2011-2012 will be included within the Annual Plan and circulated to the EFNs early in 2011-2012. The EFNs need to be formally informed of the Parties milestone goals/objectives that have been set for each year for each of the EFN priority parcels. Without joint goal setting and adoption of common work plan objectives, it is difficult to assess if the Parties have achieved what they set out to achieve with respect to advancing the EFN Priority parcels through the land transfer process. While the Strategic Planning process has improved the level and degree of coordination and cooperation between the Parties, the IMC was specifically asked to monitor the fulfillment of the commitments each Party makes towards completing the Strategic Planning goals, as the measure of effectiveness. The three Party commitment to complete and circulate the Acquisition Tracking Charts, and complete and circulate the Annual Plan, were not completed by the Parties during 2010-2011.
(d) Dashboards 5, 6, 7, and 8:
At an IMC meeting on June 23, 2010, TLEC indicated that the EFNs are frustrated when their priority parcels are not included on the “dashboards.” This discussion confirmed and highlighted a communication gap between the Parties and the EFNs with respect to the characteristics that a parcel must have to be included on a Dashboard. A three Party parcel-by-parcel assessment of land transfer steps completed or considered as “can be completed” by set interim time frames leads to the determination by the Parties that a particular
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 36
parcel can meet the dates for transfer coinciding with a Dashboard list. If the assessment determines that the interim steps cannot be completed and transferred by the date coinciding with that particular “Dashboard”, it cannot be included with the parcels that can transfer by the date. It is very important that the Parties and EFNs develop a common understanding of the characteristics that determine if a parcel can be included on a particular “Dashboard”. The Dashboard plans are comprised of the parcels the Parties are targeting for transfer to reserve status within a defined reporting period. Dashboard 4 was specific to the August, 2009 – August, 2010 time period. In order to adjust from the August to August time periods to fiscal year time periods, the Parties have agreed to define Dashboard 5 as the parcels targeted for transfer to reserve status between August 22, 2010 and March 31, 2012. Thereafter, Dashboards 6, 7, and 8 will coincide with fiscal years (April 1 – March 31). In response to a February 25, 2011 SAC request for copies of the three Party Yearly (Annual) Plans for Dashboards 5, 6, 7, and 8, the Chairperson requested these of the Parties and draft Dashboards 5, 6, 7, and 8 were submitted in March, 2011. The Parties also reported at that time that the development of the Annual Work Plan through the three Party Strategic Planning process was currently underway, and would result in further refinements to the draft Dashboards. The Parties consider Dashboards 5, 6 and 7 to comprise the main components of what will ultimately be the Annual Work Plan for fiscal year 2011/12. Dashboard 5 reflecting what will transfer prior to March 31, 2012. Dashboard 6 reflecting the work that is currently underway (particularly with respect to surveys) to position parcels for transfer prior to March 31, 2013. Survey estimates for Dashboard 7 parcels (which are those parcels targeted for reserve status by March 31, 2014), had not been completed for all parcels by March, 2011, however those parcels for which survey costs estimates had been prepared were estimated to consume the entire available survey budget. Therefore this financial constraint alone will prevent all of the parcels listed on the March 2011 draft of Dashboard 7 from being transferred by March 31, 2014. The Dashboard 7 parcels will therefore need to be reviewed and prioritized by the Parties, and the anticipated transfer of the remaining (non-surveyed) parcels postponed until Dashboard 8, unless additional survey resources are secured by INAC, Manitoba Region. While there has been some discussion on if certified survey firms can complete additional survey work, IMC feels the goal should be to secure funding to survey as many parcels as the certified survey firms can survey in any given year, rather than not advancing parcels that are otherwise ready to be surveyed.
IMC RECOMMENDATION: More parcels have advanced to the survey stage, than the current survey budget can accommodate. Canada should secure funding to survey as many parcels as the certified survey firms can manage to survey in each year, rather than not advancing parcels that are otherwise ready to be surveyed.
(e) Annual Plan:
The Parties determined during Strategic Planning meetings in 2009-2010 that each Annual Plan would be a combination of:
(a) work required to transfer parcels targeted for reserve status during the current fiscal year; (b) work required to position targeted parcels for reserve status during the subsequent fiscal year; and, (c) work required to steadily advance parcels identified as priorities by each EFN.
While the Parties committed to preparing LTRCPM based tracking charts and circulating them to the EFNs, by year end the Parties had completed the Selection tracking charts but had yet to do the same with the Acquisitions. Since so many of the EFN Acquisitions are priority parcels (21/37 or 57%), this also delayed development of Milestone Goals for the EFN Priority Parcels, which the Parties agreed to include in the Annual Plan. Since 2009-2010 the Parties have agreed that their Annual Plan should include the work required to advance parcels identified as priorities by each EFN, and that the work anticipated to be completed for each should be communicated to each EFN. The Acquisition Tracking Charts and the 2011-2012 Annual Plan that the Parties now anticipate in early 2011-2012 will enhance coordination and communications among the Parties and between the Parties and the EFNs.
37 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
The Chairperson met with SAC on March 17, 2011 and recommended that SAC request the 2011- 2012 Annual Plan from the Parties by April 30, 2011 and that SAC circulate the 2011- 2012 Annual Plan of the Parties to the EFNs to ensure it is confirmed for all Parties and the EFNs early in the 2011- 2012 fiscal year.
(f) Summary of Strategic Planning Initiative by 2010-2011 Fiscal Year End:
The revised Land Transfer and Reserve Creation Process Manual had been approved by SAC on August
31, 2010, and the refined selection and acquisition processes were confirmed by year end;
Land Transfer and Reserve Creation Process Manual Tracking Charts were in place and completed steps had been dated for Selections, and circulated to the EFNs. The Acquisition Tracking Charts were under development for circulation to the EFNs.
The common three Party Strategic Plan and the Annual Plan were works in progress and soon to be
shared with the EFNs in early 2011. As a result the next steps and milestone goals for EFN priority parcels had not yet been communicated to the EFNs or included in their Annual Work Plans.
Three Party parcel specific Annual Plans were draft works in progress; and, Options for specific TPI resolution on specific parcels had not been completed and reviewed with the
EFNs.
IMC RECOMMENDATION: The MFA Parties should finalize their three Party Strategic Plan and release the 2011-2012 Annual Plan to the Entitlement First Nations early in 2011 in order to facilitate all Parties and the EFNs proceeding forward with MFA implementation with a common Annual Work Plan.
2.5 OTHER IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
(a) Third Party Interests and Encumbrances:
The task of resolving the long list of Third Party Interests (TPIs) and encumbrances affecting confirmed selections and acquisitions has been identified as one of the key issues delaying Reserve creation for some time. An IMC analysis of Crown land selections found that: 72 require hydro easements, 11 include land required by Manitoba Hydro, 22 require accommodation of a hydro distribution line, 5 require accommodation of a hydro transmission line, 10 require accommodation of a MTS distribution line, 8 include roads, 2 include winter roads, 8 are affected by Wildlife Management Areas, 17 are affected by access issues, 13 are less than 1,000 acres and have competing considerations, 20 are encumbered by mineral claims, 13 are impacted by tourist lodges and out camps, 11 require accommodation of a portage, 6 are affected by the regulation of Reindeer Lake by Sask Power, and 46 selections are affected by assorted registered third party interests. Many selections are encumbered by more than one of these matters. Other Land acquisitions are most often encumbered by hydro distribution lines, MTS distribution lines, and issues relating to the parcel’s location within a municipality. Manitoba has developed a TPI impact report from TRELES which can be a useful tool in analyzing the impact of each type of TPI, and developing a plan for the resolution of specific Third Party Interests in 2011/2012. The 2010-2011 TLEC/INAC Work Plan targeted the resolution of all TPIs for all parcels by March 31, 2011. This was discussed at the December 16 and 17, 2010 IMC meeting, and the consensus reached was that resolution of all TPIs by the end of the fiscal year was not going to occur because of the sheer volume, and the effort that is required to negotiate and confirm agreement with a TPI holder. The Parties developed a Third Party Interest Working Group that produced an options paper during 2010-2011 on means of addressing each type of TPI and encumbrance. During the Strategic Planning initiative, this Third Party Interest Working Group options paper was discussed, and the Parties agreed to develop specific consensual options for each specific TPI on a parcel-by-parcel basis for discussion with each EFN. The next step of identifying consensual options for each specific TPI on each parcel and recommending the
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 38
options to each EFN to facilitate informed decision making by the EFNs is to be completed in early 2011-2012. Resolution of TPIs would be facilitated if specific recommendations for each TPI on each parcel were made by the Parties to the EFNs. The Parties have agreed to establish a subset of parcels for specific TPI resolution during 2011-2012. Upon completion of the 2011-2012 Annual Plan, and incorporation of milestone dates for each parcel, the Parties can determine which of these milestone steps includes the resolution of TPIs, and these can become the subset of TPIs for which consensual options can be developed by the three Parties for presentation to the EFNs.
IMC RECOMMENDATION: The MFA Parties should continue to advance the third party interest (TPI) discussion from general mechanisms to address each general type of TPI, to specific consensual options for each specific TPI on each specific parcel, and to recommend these to the EFNs to assist the EFNs with informed decision making.
(b) Agreements with Six Unsigned First Nations:
Six First Nations are still eligible to ratify and enter into a Treaty Entitlement Agreement. These are; Shamattawa First Nation (SFN), Fox Lake Cree Nation (FLCN), Sayisi Dene First Nation (SDFN), York Factory First Nation (YFFN), Marcel Colomb First Nation (MCFN), and O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation (OPCN). At the beginning of the 2010-2011 fiscal year, IMC was advised that Marcel Colomb First Nation and Shamattawa First Nation were most likely to enter into a TEA during the 2010-2011 fiscal year. This did not occur, and no additional TEAs were entered into during 2010/2011. During fiscal year 2010-2011, the IMC was asked by the Parties to determine key barriers or problems faced by the six EFNs who are eligible to ratify and enter into a Treaty Entitlement Agreement, and identified the TLEC and Canada representatives to lead this initiative. A methodology was developed and the EFNs were canvassed to determine the reasons underlying their hesitation to enter into a Treaty Entitlement Agreement. In addition, the Party representatives reviewed their respective files for past correspondence exchanged with the EFNs, to better understand the views of the EFNs on this matter, and with that understanding to develop options on how best to address those EFN views and perspectives. The IMC found that no Party had a strategy in place for addressing the hesitation of any of the EFNs to move forward with their respective TEAs (with the exception of MCFN). It appears that there is no initiative in place by the Parties to address this, or any consensus on how long the opportunity to participate in the MFA remains available to these EFNs. Manitoba is proactively registering selections confirmed by these six EFNs in the Crown Land Registry and applying the Article 5 Community Interest Zone provisions of the MFA to these communities, which actions will facilitate implementation of the MFA once these communities have entered into Treaty Entitlement Agreements with the MFA Parties. By the end of the year, the IMC had obtained information from a variety of sources. The following summary should be confirmed with the EFNs to ensure that the issues identified are in fact still current because the IMC was not able to obtain or review copies of any recent correspondence between the Parties and the EFNs on this matter. The IMC feels that the Parties to the MFA should have a clear up to date understanding of the factors underlying the hesitation of these six EFNs moving forward with consideration of their respective TEAs. The IMC also feels that the Parties to the MFA should have an Action Plan to address the factors creating this hesitation if possible. While all six EFNs have initiated their Community approval Process by submission of a BCR to Canada in accordance with MFA Article 29, it is not clear if the opportunity to participate in the MFA will be open ended indefinitely.
39 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
Specifically, with respect to each of the EFNs with outstanding TEAs, IMC found:
Marcel Colomb First Nation (MCFN):
INAC has been in the process of coordinating the required signatures and documents required to execute the Marcel Colomb First Nation’s TEA for some time. A Trustee election was required in the Spring of 2011 before the documents could be executed. The IMC has been advised that the execution of MCFN’s TEA has been imminent for a year, and is now anticipated in 2011-2012.
O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation (OPCN):
In 2008, OPCN retained legal counsel to advise OPCN on a concern it had with respect to moving forward with its TEA. The potential concern is in respect of the relationship between the prescribed form of Release contained in Section 25 of the Framework Agreement as “X.01 Release to Canada” and certain releases which have been provided by OPCN to Canada pursuant to Section 9 of an Umbrella Agreement dated November 25, 2005 between Canada, Manitoba and OPCN. Federal DOJ confirmed that it did not see a relationship between the two releases., Canada also confirmed that it would be prepared to confirm this in writing for OPCN. The Chairperson reviewed this matter with OPCN Chief Jack Dysart, and the Chief indicated that OPCN was willing to move forward on this basis, but needed assistance from Canada, and confirmation of the steps OPCN is to follow to enter into its TEA. It is understood that there will be some variation from the norm, as OPCN was recognized as an independent EFN after NCN ratified and executed its TEA.
Fox Lake Cree Nation (FLCN):
Councillor Conway Arthurson explained at the TLEC AGM in June, 2010, that Fox Lake Cree Nation is focused on resolving their specific claim against Canada and Manitoba Hydro before it will consider signing its Treaty Entitlement Agreement under the MFA. The IMC also reviewed a July 20, 1999 letter from Canada’s RDG, Manitoba Region to Chief and Council. While dated, Canada remarks in this letter that there has been a full and frank discussion between Canada and FLCN, and that FLCN now has as complete an appreciation of Canada’s position on these issues as Canada has of FLCN’s position. FLCN remains concerned about the MFA “Release and Indemnity” Clause (Article 25) affecting their hydro development impact claim against Canada. TLEC advised IMC on June 23, 2010, that FLCN would like the release clauses amended in the FLCN TEA, and Canada confirmed that it was reviewing this option with their Department of Justice. IMC feels that if Canada could confirm the status of negotiations on this claim, and the status of its review of the FLCN proposal to confirm that the release clauses would not negatively impact its claim, it would facilitate FLCN’s consideration of the MFA.
York Factory First Nation (YFFN):
During 2010, TLEC contacted Councillor Jim Beardy, and was informed that YFFN is not prepared to sign their TEA until it resolves YFFN’s “re-location claim” with Canada. It is understood that this relocation claim has not yet been accepted by Canada for negotiation, so this could take some time. The IMC reviewed a July 20, 1999 letter from Canada’s RDG, Manitoba Region to Chief and Council. While dated, it is noted in this letter that while YFFN initiated and completed its Community Approval Process, and the members thereby “authorized and directed” the Council to execute a TEA, Council subsequently determined not to execute the agreement until certain concerns were addressed. YFFN is in the unique situation of having already held a ratification vote, whereat the membership approved the TEA. Following this however, the Chief and Council determined that moving forward was not in the best interests of YFFN. YFFN, like Fox Lake Cree Nation, remains concerned about the MFA “Release and Indemnity” Clause (Article 25) affecting their claim against Canada.
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 40
IMC feels that if Canada could confirm the status of negotiations on this relocation claim, and confirm that the release clauses would not negatively impact this claim, it would facilitate YFFN’s consideration of the MFA. Canada also needs to confirm if another ratification vote will be required prior to executing the YFFN TEA, so that all Parties are aware of the process to be followed once YFFN is of the mind to proceed.
Sayisi Dene First Nation (SDFN):
TLEC advised IMC that it is aware that the Sayisi Dene, along with Northlands Dene First Nations, are focusing on resolving their “North of 60” claims with Manitoba, the Nunavut Territory and Canada, before giving the TEA further consideration. TLEC advised IMC on June 23, 2010 that SDFN would like the release clauses amended in the SDFN TEA, and Canada confirmed that it was reviewing this option with their Department of Justice. IMC feels that if Canada and Manitoba could confirm the status of negotiations on this “North of 60” claim, and confirm that the release clauses would not negatively impact this claim, it would facilitate SDFN’s consideration of the MFA.
Shamattawa First Nation:
On December 16&17, 2010 IMC discussed this matter, and the Party representatives on IMC are not aware of any remaining Shamattawa concerns with proceeding with its TEA. IMC feels that given the time that has lapsed since the MFA was signed in 1997, the Parties will need to meet with Shamattawa and provide background and assistance with all of the requirements leading to an executed TEA. In summary, the IMC gathered information from a variety of sources during 2010-2011 to determine the status of the issues underlying the hesitation of six EFNs to proceed with their respective Treaty Entitlement Agreements. There is consensus amongst the Party representatives on IMC that the lead role should not be assumed by IMC, but rather it is a function of the Parties to drive this initiative. It appears that MCFN is close to executing its TEA, and that OPCN is willing to move forward but needs a clear Work Plan from Canada outlining the steps required. The IMC was not able to find evidence of a three Party strategy, or a unilateral strategy by any of the Parties, to address this situation. In the IMC Work Plan for 2011-2012, it was agreed that IMC should encourage the Parties to develop a proactive Action Plan specific to each EFN currently without a TEA, to address this situation.
IMC RECOMMENDATION: The MFA Parties should develop a proactive action plan specific to each EFN currently without a Treaty Entitlement Agreement, to facilitate these EFNs resolving their outstanding Treaty Land Entitlement.
(c) Hydro Easement Line Determination Process:
At a Strategic Planning meeting on June 18, 2009 the Manitoba Department of Conservation delivered a power point presentation on Manitoba’s proposed process for dealing with selections on a developed waterway which are subject to a Hydro Easement. A draft process, a cross referenced flow chart, and a discussion paper dealing with the “Additional Land“ provisions from MFA Article 12 were presented and distributed. It was clarified that the process would tie into the Land Transfer and Reserve Creation Process Manual, but that it would not be replicated. Instead, for selections so impacted, the Land Transfer and Reserve Creation Process Manual would identify where the two processes link together. The Parties had agreed at a Hydro Easement Focus Meeting in 2009 to address these MFA provisions and reach consensus on the details of the process, while the Parties continued to review the proposed Hydro
41 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
Easement Agreement itself in relation to TLEC’s Referral on this matter (IMC File # 2007-TLEC-002, see Section 5.0(h) for further detail on this matter) The MFA Parties identified Implementation Task #1.7 within the 2010-2011 IMC Work Plan, and the objective of this task was to facilitate the Parties reaching agreement on the process for determining “Hydro Easements” to enable the process to be consistently implemented. The Parties reviewed and refined this proposed process between June 18, 2009 and December 16 and 17, 2010, when consensus was confirmed between the Parties at an IMC meeting. The final draft process for dealing with selections on a developed waterway which will be subject to a Hydro Easement is appended as Appendix G. The Parties are to be commended for their success in working cooperatively together, reviewing the draft proposed by Manitoba, and reaching agreement on this very important aspect of MFA implementation. Manitoba has already been determining the easement lines in accordance with this process, and provided a status report to the Parties on the Easement Line Determination Reports (ELDR) for selections on developed waterways in January 2011.
(d) Reindeer Lake:
At a July 27, 2010 IMC meeting, TLEC suggested that a briefing note be prepared for the Senior Advisory Committee (SAC) relating to the regulation of Reindeer Lake and the resulting negative effects on implementation of the Barren Lands First Nation (BLFN) TEA, as the Parties were not making any progress with this matter. After discussion IMC agreed that the Parties have not been able to resolve this matter, and that the involvement of SAC should be requested. The development of a draft briefing note by the Chairperson, and request of the Parties for their views, input, and options led to a reengagement by the Parties. A number of meetings between the Parties and BLFN were held and facilitated by the IMC Chairperson. Through this process, the Parties agreed that an easement in favour of SaskPower (which regulates Reindeer Lake), and of benefit to the BLFN would be an appropriate manner of addressing this matter. On December 21, 2010 a letter was sent from Canada/Manitoba/ BLFN to SaskPower with the intent to initiate these discussions. SAC was provided with a status report on the effect of the Reindeer Lake regulation on BLFN TEA implementation on January 25, 2011. While the meeting with SaskPower had not occurred by March 31, 2011, the Parties had reengaged, exchanged perspectives, and reached agreement on the appropriate manner of proceeding with this outstanding impediment to BLFN TEA implementation. The Parties and BLFN assigned the role of facilitating discussions with SaskPower to the IMC Chairperson, and thereby IMC will be well positioned to monitor progress of this ongoing implementation matter during 2011-2012.
3.0 IMPROVEMENTS IN IMC ADMINISTRATION AND PRACTICES
A renewal of the IMC was initiated in 2008-2009 by former Chairperson Rod McLeod and the IMC. During 2010-2011, the Parties continued to review, refine, and streamline existing practices and processes involving the IMC. One of the IMC’s primary tasks is to make recommendations to the Parties for the resolution of any issue or matter in dispute referred to it by any Party or EFN. In previous years (2008-2009 and 2009-2010) the IMC representatives determined that the IMC had evolved into an administrative bottleneck arising from the premature referral of issues or matters in dispute without sufficient discussion among the Parties, in particular including communications with the affected EFN(s) on the resolution of issues and implementation procedure. Unfortunately, at times it appeared that the practice was to frame any issue or difficulty that arose as “an issue or matter in dispute” and refer it to the IMC, before all Parties had exhausted reasonable efforts to deal with the issue or difficulty. In addition, the Parties had shown a tendency to act on an issue or matter in dispute only upon and at IMC meetings once the matter was referred to the IMC, thereby greatly delaying attempts at resolution. As a result, IMC agreed upon a format for referral issue definition and resolution which was called the “Protocol for the Referral and Review of an Issue or Matter in Dispute”, or for short, the “I/M Referral Protocol” to ensure that adequate discussions had first occurred between the Parties and EFNs, and to ensure that adequate background was included with the referral. Essentially this is a standardized form for the submission of a referral which can initially be used to define and later to track the review of the referral over time by the IMC.
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 42
The IMC reviewed its processes during 2010-2011 and clarified and confirmed the referral process as required, and drafted an appendix for the IMC Policies and Procedures Manual on this specific matter entitled, “Process that IMC Follows Upon Submission of a Referral”. The IMC approved this amendment to the IMC Policies and Procedures Manual, at the March 25, 2011 meeting. A referral can be made to the IMC based on any aspect of the MFA, however, the MFA anticipates that each Party will have fully determined the issue and made best efforts to resolve the issue or matter in dispute prior to referral. The IMC office is now adhering to the I/M Referral Protocol format, resulting in a more structured review of an issue or matter in dispute. The Chairperson and IMC representatives have and will continue to encourage the Parties to make every effort to resolve implementation matters before making a referral to the IMC and when doing so, will expect the referral detail to reflect the fullest extent of that effort. There have not been any new referrals to the IMC for over three full fiscal years (2008-2009 through 2010-2011), although the reason for this is uncertain.
3.1 STRUCTURED APPROACH TO PROBLEM SOLVING
With respect to the unresolved issues/matters in dispute referred to the IMC as identified on the Current List (see Appendix D), the Parties continued to refine and develop a more structured approach to determination of the issue, assembly of the relevant facts, assessment/interpretation of the applicable provisions of the MFA, the identification of options or alternatives for resolution of the issue, and consideration of the recommendations of the Chairperson. These became the “Process that IMC Follows Upon Submission of a Referral” appendix to the IMC Policies and Procedures Manual. In the event the IMC is unable to resolve an issue/matter in dispute (I/M), the IMC or Chairperson is obliged to provide the Senior Advisory Committee (SAC) with an overall summary statement containing the above stated information/review. Accordingly, the IMC office prepared the agreed format for the referral and review of an I/M in dispute so that it can also serve as the overall I/M summary statement for SAC in the event that the IMC cannot reach consensus on a means to resolve the I/M. By fiscal year end, all referral files had been scoped by the Chairperson, and recommendations made to the IMC on how the referrals should proceed. Consensus had been reached on the majority of these matters. In those cases where the “I/M Referral Protocol” needed to be drafted/updated/completed, the representatives were each asked by the Chairperson to provide any information they felt to be important to complete the “I/M Referral Protocol” to ensure a full consideration of each referral by IMC. In accordance with the I/M Referral Protocol, once the representatives feel that the I/M and each Party/EFN’s views and position are reflected accurately and comprehensively, the IMC goal is to resolve the I/M by consensus. Depending on if the I/M is broad based in nature or specific to an individual parcel of land, and the nature of the views submitted by the Parties to the I/M, the Chairperson may recommend that: (i) a discussion paper be developed to analyze the situation and clarify linkages to the MFA provisions, or (ii) a Focus Group meeting be convened to discuss the matter in detail, clarify misunderstandings if any, and arrive at a consensus. If the exchange of discussion paper drafts, or Focus Group meetings, lead to a common understanding on matters upon which the Parties previously held divergent perspectives and opinions, the Parties will have reached consensus on the referral and will advise the referring Party. It may also be deemed appropriate and beneficial to issue an IMC Bulletin on the topic. In these focus meetings, the Party representatives are encouraged to build upon, rather than defend past approaches, to take a constructive, rather than positional approach to problem solving, and to come to the table open to new perspectives and solutions in the spirit of cooperation as reflected in the MFA. This has proven difficult in practice and positional perspectives continue to be defended at IMC and Focus Group meetings. If the IMC discussions of the Chairperson’s summary document, and/or discussion paper and/or Focus Group discussions do not result in a consensus; the Chairperson may update his/her summary document, as per the IMC and Focus Group discussions, and add two additional sections, (i) The Proposed Interpretation of the MFA by the Chairperson, and (ii) Chairperson’s Proposed Resolution 34.09(5)(e), and circulate this updated summary document to the IMC with a time frame for comments.
43 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
If the updated Chairperson’s summary document does not result in a consensus, the Chairperson’s summary document serves as the information required pursuant to MFA 34.09(7)&(9) for a referral of the I/M to SAC. ( i.e. the I/M summary, any means recommended by the Chairperson for resolving the I/M for consideration of the members of the IMC and any direction to the members to consider the recommendation within a specified time period, any response of the IMC members provided to a recommendation of the Chairperson, and the Chairperson’s recommendation on the proposed time period within which the SAC should attempt to resolve the I/M.)
IMC RECOMMENDATION: IMC should continue to manage the referred issues/matters in dispute in a structured and transparent manner that steadily advances the referral towards resolution by consensus, and upon determining that consensus is not forthcoming the issue/matter in dispute should be advanced through the progressive dispute resolution mechanisms described in the MFA.
3.2 ISSUANCE OF EXPLANATORY BULLETINS
It is important that all Parties clearly agree upon the means or methods for resolution of disputes under the MFA. Equally important, the staff and officials involved in implementation on a day-to-day basis must be informed about the means or methods for resolution to be able to appreciate the implications of clarifications of the MFA and put them into practice for the overall betterment of the process of implementation. At its March 2008 meeting, the IMC discussed the shortcomings in records and communications practice, directing the IMC office to establish a form of information bulletin and begin the practice of drafting bulletins dealing with issue resolution. Two bulletins have been released to date. These are: a) Concept of Eligibility of Selections or Acquisitions, and b) Selections Under 1,000 Acres in Area. Copies can be found on the IMC web site (www.tleimc.ca) No further bulletins have been developed by the parties. As issues arise, the Parties may find that the development and release of additional explanatory bulletins will be of assistance.
(a) Concept of Eligibility of Selections or Acquisitions:
The first bulletin was issued in the 2008/2009 fiscal year and dealt with the clarification of the concept of “eligibility” of a Selection or Acquisition to be set apart as Reserve under the MFA and practices associated with the review of Selections and Acquisitions of land in light of that concept found in the MFA.
(b) Selections Under 1,000 Acres in Area:
The second topic identified for clarification by the IMC pertained to the size of land Selections, in particular parcels estimated to be less than 1,000 acres in area. Disagreement among Manitoba, TLEC and certain EFNs about the eligibility of and treatment of these smaller land Selections was identified as an impediment to the processing of the Selections. During the course of discussions on this topic, Manitoba completed at least two overall internal reviews to categorize and assess individual parcels resulting in the clearing of many smaller parcels through the system. After several versions of a discussion paper developed by the IMC Office were considered, the IMC representatives approved the issuance of a formal bulletin on this matter. The second informational bulletin was issued during June 2009.
3.3 AGREEMENT ON HISTORIC AND CURRENT LISTS OF ISSUES OR MATTERS IN DISPUTE
During 2010-2011 the IMC finalized the historic and current Lists of Issues or Matters in Dispute. This is the first year since the renewal of the IMC initiative that the lists of Issues/Matters in dispute and their status have not been labelled “draft” (for further detail, please refer to Section 4.0 and 5.0 of this report and to Appendix C for the List of Historic Issues or Matters in Dispute, and Appendix D for the List of Current Issues or Matters in Dispute, as confirmed by the IMC Representatives). In addition, the IMC reviewed the status of each current referral and ensured that each was being dealt with appropriately. In summary, at the beginning of 2010-2011, IMC had ten matters included on the draft List of Current Issues or Matters in Dispute. After a concerted effort to review, scope, and manage resolution of each referral the IMC has nine issues or matters in dispute on the Current List of Referrals at fiscal year end.
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 44
4.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES OR MATTERS IN DISPUTE RESOLVED AND REFERRAL MANAGEMENT
4.1 REFERRALS RESOLVED
(a) 2003-SCN-004: UNREGISTERED THIRD PARTY INTERESTS:
The IMC resolved one referral during the past fiscal year. This referral was resolved by way of SCN and Canada entering into “An Agreement Respecting Pre-Transfer Uses of Crown Lands” on December 15, 2006. The IMC Chairperson received a copy of this Agreement from Canada on June 23, 2009, and upon an IMC quorum being re established on May 1, 2010, this referral was closed.
4.2 CURRENT REFERRAL MANAGEMENT
The IMC reviewed the current referral files, determined the status for each, and developed an action plan to address each in a structured manner in accordance with the IMC Policies and Procedures Manual. In summary, the IMC:
(a) Closed a file (2003-SCN-004) by way of the Parties reaching consensus on an Informational Bulletin;
(b) Closed a second file (2003-TLEC-002) by determining it had been absorbed into another referral on the Land
In Severalty matter;
(c) Closed a third file (2006-BCN/TLEC-003) in order to separate two distinct issues, and simultaneously opened two separate files (2006-Manitoba-005 & 2007-TLEC-005) on each of those issues;
(d) Chairperson completed MFA analysis of referral file (2006-Manitoba-005); reached IMC consensus that
matter should proceed to binding arbitration, and awaiting response/input from EFN in order to proceed;
(e) Initiated a Focus Group to address the (2007-TLEC-005) matter, which Focus Group is currently underway and ongoing;
(f) Placed one file (2003-BON-001) in abeyance given ongoing litigation;
(g) Sought direction from BLFN on proceeding with its referral (2004-BLFN/TLEC-002) which has been in
abeyance pending direction from BLFN for four years;
(h) Monitored TLEC/EFN review of Hydro Easement, which is a necessary prerequisite to proceeding with consideration of the referral (2007-TLEC-002);
(i) Chairperson completed MFA analysis of referral file (2006-Manitoba-001), and recommended plan of action. (Currently awaiting final review by IMC representatives and consensus with plan of action); and,
(j) Drafted three referrals in the Form of the IMC Protocol, and requested any additional information and each
Party’s MFA interpretation and proposed resolution and options.
5.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES OR MATTERS IN DISPUTE NOT RESOLVED
A list of the Current Issues or Matters in Dispute not resolved at March 31, 2011, is attached as Appendix D. The Representatives of the Parties have asked the Chairperson to update this list quarterly. The current status of the 9 issues/matters in dispute on the Current List is found below. For additional information on these referrals, please refer to Appendix D.
45 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
(a) 1999-BPFN-001 – LAND IN A PROVINCIAL PARK, ECOLOGICAL RESERVE, WILDLIFE REFUGE OR PROPOSED NATIONAL PARK (SUBSECTION 3.30(6))
This referral is selection specific. Buffalo Point First Nation (BPFN) referred this issue to the IMC when its Selection of approximately 105 acres that included Birch Point Provincial Park was determined ineligible by Manitoba. The portion of the BPFN selection that overlaps Birch Point Park is approximately 40 acres. The IMC undertook in its 2010/2011 Work Plan to determine the updated status on this referral and make a decision on action required. The Chairperson scoped the IMC file, determined which information and updates were outstanding, requested the missing information from the Parties and drafted the Referral in the Form of the Referral Protocol for discussion by the IMC. The Chairperson circulated the Referral in the Form of the Protocol on January 19, 2011, and formally requested comments from the Parties, as well as copies of any additional documents/ information that each Party believes to be relevant to a full consideration of this referral. In response the Parties have provided the relevant documents, and the Chairperson is preparing an augmented draft for circulation. In addition, on January 19/11 the Chairperson requested that the sections entitled “Interpretation of the Relevant Provisions of the MFA” and “Proposed Resolution and Options Considered” be submitted by TLEC and Canada, and these are due in April, 2011.
(b) 1999-NCN-003 –EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT (SECTION 30.01)
The Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation (NCN) referred this issue to the IMC when it disagreed with Canada on the Date of Execution of the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation’s (NCN) Treaty Entitlement Agreement (TEA). The issue is to determine the effective date of the NCN TEA, as the NCN and Manitoba signed the TEA on July 30, 1998, but the Federal Minister of DIAND did not sign the TEA until September 1, 1998. While this referral is very significant to NCN, it does not negatively affect the transfer of and selections to reserve status. The IMC undertook in its 2010/2011 Work Plan to determine the updated status on this referral and make a decision on action required. The Chairperson scoped the IMC file, determined which information and updates were outstanding, requested the missing information from the Parties, and drafted the Referral in the Form of the Referral Protocol for discussion by the IMC. On January 18, 2011, the Chairperson circulated the Referral in the Form of the Protocol and formally requested comments from the Parties as well as copies of any additional documents/ information that each Party believes to be relevant to a full consideration of this referral. In response, the Parties have provided documents, and the Chairperson is preparing an augmented draft for circulation. In addition, the Chairperson requested that the section entitled “Interpretation of the Relevant Provisions of the MFA” be submitted by Manitoba and TLEC, and the section entitled “Proposed Resolution and Options Considered” be submitted by all Parties, and these are due in April, 2011. There are no land selections affected by or awaiting resolution of this referral.
(c) 2003-BON-001 – SURPLUS FEDERAL LAND (SECTION 3.10)
This referral is selection specific. Brokenhead Ojibway Nation (BON) selected a parcel of approximately 160 acres of surplus federal Crown land (Kapyong Barracks in Winnipeg, Manitoba), however Canada designated this land as a “strategic disposal”, and BON referred this classification to the IMC. Although this remains an open I/M Referral, on January 25, 2008, the Treaty 1 First Nations, including Brokenhead Ojibway Nation (an EFN) filed a lawsuit against Canada in relation to the designation of this Surplus Federal Crown Land. Due to the ongoing litigation, the IMC decided at the IMC meeting dated December 16&17, 2010 to formally place this matter in abeyance while the litigation is ongoing and to advise BON Chief and Council. This decision is in accordance with the IMC Policies and Procedures Manual. The Chairperson wrote to the BON Chief and Council on January 13, 2011 and advised that the 2003-BON-001 referral has been formally placed in abeyance given the ongoing litigation of this matter.
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 46
(d) 2004-BLFN/TLEC-002 – LAND IN SEVERALTY (SECTION 9.01)
In correspondence dated May 5, 2004 the Barren Lands First Nation (BLFN) alleged that Canada had committed a material failure to comply with a fundamental term or condition of the MFA by not engaging in the discussions with members of the BLFN that were to occur in accordance with sections 9.01 and 9.02. In correspondence dated June 14, 2004, the TLEC made the allegation that Canada materially failed to comply with its obligations set out in the land in severalty provisions of the MFA. Terms of reference for a binding arbitration under section 36.01 of the MFA to address the issue were agreed upon in February, 2005. The terms of reference for that binding arbitration were narrowly focused upon the procedural matter concerning the discussions contemplated under section 9.01 between Canada and the members of the BLFN who had asserted a right to land in severalty. The BLFN and the TLEC agreed to hold the arbitration proceedings in abeyance upon the commitment by Canada to undertake the contemplated discussions on the nature and extent of Land in Severalty with members of the BLFN between the dates of April 1, 2005 and June 30, 2005. Those discussions with members occurred on May 14 and May 16 through May 19, 2005 in Winnipeg, Brochet, and Thompson. Efforts to resolve the severalty matter were re-initiated in April 2006 when legal counsel for the BLFN and the TLEC requested that the arbitrator resume proceedings to address the question of the continued availability of the option to elect Land in Severalty in law. After further discussion among the Parties, including discussions with the arbitrator on the question related to the continued existence of the Treaty right of a member to elect to take Land in Severalty, the Parties opted to undertake a “representative case study of the issue focusing on an individual member”, but this step was postponed by the BLFN and the TLEC on July 19, 2006 pending their appointment of new legal counsel to address the proceeding. Since that time, no further advice has been received from the BLFN or the TLEC as to the further conduct of the arbitration proceeding. As a result, the arbitration action remains active but on hold pending further directions to the arbitrator by the Parties. The IMC undertook in its 2010-2011 Work Plan to determine the updated status on this referral and make a decision on action required. The Parties and the Chairperson met with the BLFN Council on July 20, 2010 to discuss the status of the arbitration, and the Chairperson wrote to the Chief and Council on July 21, 2010 to provide a status report/summary of the LIS matter. The Chairperson met again with the Chief and Council and their legal Counsel on September 16, 2010. BLFN is currently considering how they would like to proceed. The Chairperson is in contact with the BLFN legal counsel on this matter monthly. Currently, BLFN is prioritizing resolution of the effect that the regulation of Reindeer Lake is having on its selections.
(e) 2006-MANITOBA-001 – PROCESS FOR LAND SELECTION AND ACQUISITION (SECTION 6.02(6))
This referral is selection specific. This referral deals with Manitoba’s referral (February 3, 2006) of the January 13, 2006, Bunibonibee Cree Nation (BCN) allegation that Manitoba materially failed to comply with a fundamental term or condition of the MFA by breaching its MFA obligations contained in MFA Subsection 6.02(6) by not registering a BCN selection of approximately 1,511 acres known as the “Knee Lake Lodge”, in the Crown Lands Registry. This enabled several registrations to be made against the lease (Third Party Interest) that currently encumbers the property, including an Assignment for collateral purposes that created the authority for a creditor to transfer the leasehold interest to an interested purchaser pursuant to a receivership of the assignee. The IMC undertook in its 2010-2011 Work Plan to determine the status of this referral and make a decision on action required. On December 17, 2010, the Chairperson scoped the IMC file, determined which information and updates were outstanding, requested missing information from the Parties and drafted the referral in the form of the Referral Protocol for discussion by IMC. The Chairperson circulated the Referral in the Form of the Protocol on January 11, 2011. At that time the Chairperson formally requested comments on the Referral in the Form of the Protocol from the Parties, as well as copies of any pertinent documents that each Party believes to be relevant to a full consideration of this referral. In addition, given his findings on the file, the Chairperson completed an assessment of the MFA provisions relating to material failure in relation to this referral, and on January 11, 2011 forwarded a recommendation
47 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
on a plan of action to the Parties for consideration and comments. Canada and Manitoba have concurred and TLEC was undertaking its review at year end, with comments due in April 2011.
(f) 2006-BCN/TLEC-003 – CLOSED and separated into:
2006-MANITOBA-005 – MATERIAL FAILURE RESPECTING CROWN RESERVATIONS- PORTAGES; and
2007-TLEC-005 – CROWN RESERVATIONS – PORTAGES
Between May and August, 2010 the IMC reviewed the Portage referral. (IMC referral file 2006-BCN/TLEC-003) The Chairperson presented and circulated an analysis of his findings dated June 30, 2010 which was subsequently agreed to by consensus of the Parties. It was agreed at an IMC meeting on July 27, 2010 to separate the IMC referral file 2006-BCN/TLEC-003 into two new files. The two new files are numbered; 2006-Manitoba-005, and 2007-TLEC-005.
(f-1) 2006-Manitoba-005 MATERIAL FAILURE RESPECTING CROWN RESERVATIONS - PORTAGES
This referral is specific to two selections. This referral file deals with Manitoba’s referral (March 22, 2006) of the February, 2006, TLEC and Bunibonibee Cree Nation (BCN) allegations that Manitoba materially failed to comply with a fundamental term or condition of the Framework Agreement. The BCN and TLEC each asserted that Manitoba materially failed to comply with a fundamental term or condition of the MFA, specifically in characterizing portages as “reasonable competing considerations and thereby refusing to proceed with the transfer of the two BCN Selections, totalling 946.39 acres to Canada contrary to the requirement of Subsections 3.02(6) and 7.01(2) and the definition of Crown Reservations set out in Subsection 1.01(21). On March 22, 2006, Manitoba referred the allegations of material failure by BCN and TLEC to the IMC for review in accordance with Subsection 36.01(2). The IMC undertook in its 2010-2011 Work Plan to determine the updated status on this referral and make a decision on action required. The Chairperson completed his analysis of the MFA provisions relating to the BCN allegation of material failure and the subsequent referral by Manitoba. The Parties concurred unanimously with the analysis and recommendation that the referral proceed to binding arbitration. (MFA Article 36) On September 1, 2010 the Chairperson wrote to BCN and TLEC and provided an update and information to facilitate the arbitration. On February 4, 2011 TLEC wrote to IMC and asked that their allegation be placed in abeyance on a without prejudice basis. The IMC is awaiting BCN’s response to its September 1, 2010 letter.
(f-2) 2007-TLEC-005 CROWN RESERVATIONS – PORTAGES
This referral file deals with the July 18, 2007 TLEC referral related to “Crown Reservations – Portages”. On July 18, 2007, the TLEC submitted “Crown Reservations – Portages” to the IMC as a matter in dispute. TLEC asserted that a portage is defined as a Crown Reservation under Subsection 1.01(21) transferable to Canada in accordance with Subsection 7.01(2), and accordingly that Manitoba is not entitled to characterize a portage as a “reasonable competing consideration” as the basis upon which to refuse to confirm the eligibility of BCN’s Trout Falls and Wipanipanis Portage selections. After review Manitoba has confirmed that it no longer characterizes the portages as a competing consideration, but has asserted the need for continuation of public access to the portage areas, a matter of public policy that Manitoba asserted was not considered under the Principles in accordance with Sections 3.01(4) and (5) of the MFA, and referable to the IMC under Section 3.11. The IMC undertook in its 2010-2011 Work Plan to determine the updated status on this referral and make a decision on action required.
In the 2010-11 IMC Work Plan it was agreed to conduct a series of Focus Group Meetings on this topic. Four meetings have been held: September 14, 2010, October 28, 2010, December 13, 2010, and January 24, 2011. The meeting scheduled for March 18, 2011, was postponed until April 18, 2011. In conjunction with the Focus Group Meetings, Manitoba conducted site assessments of the selections containing portages. The need for a portage has now been removed from 11 of 22 selections affected. The remaining 11 selections total approximately 35,557 acres, and the area of the portages is approximately 65 acres. The
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 48
Parties have also explored alternatives for all of the other selections, and Manitoba wrote the EFNs in February 2011 with an update on the matter.
(g) 2007-BPFN-001 ROADS - EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN LAND – WIDTHS OF ROAD RIGHT OF WAY
(SECTION 13.01 and 13.03)
This referral is specific to one parcel of acquired land. The Buffalo Point First Nation (BPFN) acquired a 70.63 acre parcel along Provincial Trunk Highway #12. Section 13.01 provides that Manitoba is ordinarily entitled to a right of way that includes a controlled area, along provincial trunk highways. BPFN objected to excluding the controlled area from the land to be set apart as Reserve, asserting its future development needs should be given greater weight in considering the right of way requirement, or perhaps offset Manitoba’s right. In September 2008, the IMC office was informally advised by the BPFN that it preferred to defer any further discussions on the Referral pending internal discussions. The IMC office continued to monitor the situation. It was determined last year that Manitoba and BPFN had exchanged letters, offers, and counter offers respecting the sale of the controlled area to Manitoba. Discussions were continuing between the BPFN and Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation, but a final sales agreement had not been reached by year end. The IMC undertook in its 2010/2011 Work Plan to determine the updated status on this referral and make a decision on action required. On December 17, 2010, the Chairperson scoped the IMC file, determined which information and updates were outstanding, requested the missing information from the Parties and drafted the referral in the form of the Referral Protocol for discussion by the IMC. The Chairperson circulated the Referral in the Form of the Protocol on January 19, 2011. At that time the Chairperson formally requested comments on the Referral in the Form of the Protocol from the Parties as well as copies of any additional documents/ information that each Party believed to be relevant to a full consideration of this referral. In response the Parties have provided documents, and the Chairperson is preparing an augmented draft for circulation. On February 16, 2011 BPFN also wrote to IMC with additional information for IMC to consider. In addition, the Chairperson requested the sections entitled “Interpretation of the Relevant Provisions of the MFA” and “Proposed Resolution and Options Considered” to be submitted by TLEC and Canada, and these were due in April, 2011.
(h) 2007-TLEC-002 – HYDRO EASEMENT (SECTION 12.05)
This referral is broad based in nature and five EFNs have confirmed 72 selections totalling approximately 65,800 acres of land on developed waterways that are affected by this issue. The TLEC referred two issues within this referral: firstly, TLEC is asserting that Manitoba is not entitled to administration and control sufficient to support an easement required by Manitoba Hydro and secondly, that the Hydro Easement should set out a resolution process where the EFNs can address alleged impacts on any EFNs existing aboriginal and Treaty rights as well as any potential claim to compensation in respect to the easement area. The IMC prepared an issue analysis and draft recommendations to the IMC Representatives for consideration in September 2008. Several specific focus meetings were held on December 15, 2008, January 21, 2009, and March 24, 2009 to break out and discuss specific problematic aspects of this Referral upon which consensus has yet to be reached. Under the Treaties referred to in the MFA (except Treaties 1 and 2), land taken up for settlement purposes, such as hydro development, is expressly not available for Selection as Reserve. Section 12.05 confirms that an EFN may select land for Reserve on a Developed Waterway, but the selection will be subject to a Hydro Easement. Although there may remain outstanding issues related to the hydro development arising from the impact on aboriginal or Treaty rights even after the application of the various hydro/diversion arrangements, the Parties do agree that the Hydro Easement agreement should be legally neutral on those issues. The Parties need to reach consensus on the Hydro Easement agreement(s) for implementation to proceed and the transfer of these Selections of land to Canada in order for them to be set apart as reserve under the MFA. Further discussions and consideration of the means of resolution of this I/M have been on hold since January 2009 pending TLEC input after a detailed review of the matter with the affected EFNs. At that time TLEC anticipated receipt of directions from the EFNs in order to advance discussions respecting the provisions of a possible agreed form of Hydro Easement Agreement.
49 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
The IMC was asked by the Parties in its 2010/2011 Work Plan to reach consensus on a draft Agreed To Form of Hydro Easement Agreement, and assigned the lead role to the TLEC representatives. The target results are, a) to have TLEC work with the EFNs to determine and explain the main areas of concern, b) present options to resolve the general areas of concern, and c) reach agreement on the Hydro Easement document by March 31, 2011. TLEC requested that this be carried forward to July 31/11. The discussions between TLEC and the FNs should be completed by early 2011, and result in reengagement of the Parties on this matter. The Representatives also recognized that the resolution of the Referral and reaching agreement on the Hydro Easement terms and conditions would not necessarily result in the transfer of land affected to Canada for Reserve due to the existence of other related issues, and agreed that these other related issues should be addressed concurrently. These related issues include the associated process for determination of the easement lines, the physical and financial planning/setting of priorities for identifying easement lines, the process for selecting Additional Land, the costs of that process, and considerations respecting the lands physically required by Manitoba Hydro in relation to Selections on Developed Waterways. Manitoba is to be commended for preparing a draft document entitled “Reserve Creation Process subject to a Hydro Easement, Pursuant to the Treaty Land Entitlement Framework Agreement”. This draft was discussed and reviewed thoroughly during 2009 and 2010, and the Parties have been successful in reaching consensus on this process. (Please refer to Section 2.5(c) for more detail)
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN IMPLEMENTATION
Although the Parties are each fully responsible and liable for the due performance of each Party’s respective obligations under the MFA, the MFA prescribes a specific role and list of duties for the IMC and the IMC Chairperson distinct from the roles and responsibilities of the Parties (e.g. Sections 34.07 and 34.09 of the MFA).
6.1 IMC ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY
The IMC’s task is to:
(a) Generally facilitate the implementation of the MFA, by among other things;
monitoring of the progress in implementation;
making recommendations to the Parties for the resolution of an issue or matter in dispute
relating to the implementation of the MFA or any TEA referred to it by any Party or EFN; and
considering the appropriate method of resolution of an issue or matter in dispute; and
(b) Under the general direction of the independent Chairperson:
maintaining and distributing a record of decisions, awards and other pertinent information;
determining the sufficiency of information provided to the IMC in relation to implementation;
if necessary, requesting that appropriate steps be taken to provide information as may be deemed appropriate related to implementation;
in relation to the resolution of issues or matters in dispute, proposing time periods for
responding to referrals, directing the completion of reports, identifying strengths and weaknesses of proposed solutions; directing IMC members to assist in resolving issues or matters in dispute and proposing solutions;
retaining technical, special or legal advisors to provide advice, guidance and opinions to
assist in the proper discharge of the duties of the IMC, in dealing with implementation matters or handling of issues or matters in dispute, with or without the agreement of the IMC;
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 50
recording the means of resolution or inability of the IMC to determine a means of resolution of an issue or matter in dispute referred to the IMC;
referring any matter the IMC cannot resolve by consensus to the Senior Advisory
Committee along with a statement of the issue, means recommended for resolution by the Chairperson, summary of directions given and response of each IMC Party to the recommendation; and
preparing and tabling annual and other special reports to the Parties on the overall state of
implementation, including a summary of issues addressed and resolved and recommendations for improvement of any aspect of the MFA implementation process.
6.2 CLOSING OBSERVATIONS AND NEXT STEPS:
(a) General
The amount of land that has been set apart as reserve in Manitoba over the past four years far exceeds that set apart during any other comparable time period in history. Generally the land that is being selected and acquired for MFA implementation purposes is more complicated to transact than ever before. The Parties are to be commended on their successes since August, 2006.
The Parties now have more experience setting apart reserve land than any other previous generation, and everything possible should be done to retain this base of knowledgeable and experienced people.
It has been 14 years since the MFA was signed and there is little doubt that the pressure to do more, or at minimum keep up the recent pace of reserve creation will continue. All Parties agree that implementation challenges continue, and that the remaining parcels are smaller and generally more encumbered.
The IMC is generally responsible for facilitating the implementation of the MFA and is tasked with providing the Senior Advisory Committee with recommendations for the improvement of the implementation of the MFA and any TEA. As work is completed by IMC in response to the tasks assigned by the Parties in the IMC Annual Work Plan, it is appropriate that IMC make recommendations in relation to its findings, and they are intended as recommendations for improving implementation of the MFA. A clear strategy, clear land transfer processes supported by all three Parties, the ability to know at any given moment the status of a parcel – the land transfer steps completed and when, the next steps required for each, and who is primarily responsible for getting it done; will all assist the Parties in addressing the challenges. The Strategic Planning initiative is already assisting in this regard, and in early 2011 the three Parties will together finalize their annual implementation Plan, adopt that Plan, and circulate it to the EFNs..
while the Parties anticipated that they would have provided their Annual Plan to the EFNs by fiscal year end, that did not happen and the process of confirming and adopting the Annual Plan has been carried forward into 2011-2012. Once the point is reached, after which MFA implementation begins to follow the three Party Annual Plan, it is anticipated that:
the Tracking Chart updates will take little time to keep up to date (respectfully, few steps are
completed each year for the majority of parcels, and the project managers should be dating completion of these steps as the land transfer proceeds in any case);
the parcel status is commonly understood; milestone next steps are clear and the parties responsible can be held accountable; communications are improved; briefing notes are more efficient to write; working relationships are improved; the annual TLEC/INAC Work Plan is linked and easier to confirm earlier in the fiscal year; and, EFN understanding with the entire TLE MFA implementation process is improved.
It is recommended that the three Parties ensure the adoption of the Annual Plan is prioritized and confirmed in early 2011-2012.
51 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
(b) Statistical Monitoring and Information Management (discussed in Section 2.1) An assessment of the information management systems in use by the three Parties was completed by the Chairperson during 2010, and provided to the Parties. The Parties also updated and refined the Land Transfer and Reserve Creation Process Manual (LTRCPM) during 2010, and SAC adopted the land transfer process to be followed by the Parties. Collectively the Parties are committed to tracking progress of each parcel on “Tracking Charts” that mirror the land transfer steps confirmed in the LTRCPM. It is very advantageous for the three Parties to be committed to using the common tracking system, and circulating one common document to the EFNs to confirm the status of each parcel in the land transfer process. The LTRCPM and associated Tracking Charts are the only monitoring system in use by the Parties that reflects the SAC adopted land transfer process, and for which updating is shared by the Parties. The system reflects primary responsibility for each step, and is intended to facilitate the development of a common Annual Work Plan, so that all MFA Parties and EFNs can work towards common goals each year, and so that their efforts are synchronized and result in optimal land transfer progress. At the IMC meeting held on March 17, 2011 the IMC determined that in 2011-2012 the Chairperson should focus on monitoring the Parties ongoing capability to manage their information and effectively communicate it to the EFNs, to ensure all Parties and EFNs are clear on parcel status, next steps, and primary responsibility. (i.e. timely completion and circulation of the Tracking Charts) If any Party identifies an area of information management that is lacking or weak, the representatives of the Parties on IMC feel the Chairperson should facilitate discussion on this topic in 2011-2012 to determine options for addressing areas confirmed as in need of improvement by the Parties. In addition, the IMC determined that the Chairperson should monitor and report on interim measures of progress; the Parties achievement of their milestone goals set out in the three Party Annual Plan, which the Parties have committed to finalize in early 2011 and update biannually.
(c) Reserve Creation as a Process Measurement (discussed in Section 2.3)
The Parties recognize that moving forward it will be difficult to transfer the same volume of land (perhaps due to the fact that the remaining parcels are smaller, yet require the same program/administrative overhead to advance), or maintain an acceptable level of Reserve creation under the MFA without defining and adopting an Annual Implementation Plan. The Parties recognize this as fundamental and are on the verge of adopting their Annual Plan in 2011-2012. The Parties agree that their three Party Annual Work Plan will be comprised of not only transferring the “Dashboard” plan parcels to reserve status within the reporting period but will also include the requisite work necessary to position parcels for transfer by the following reporting period (the subsequent “Dashboard” plan parcels), as well as the work required to steadily advance the EFN priority parcels (complex or not) towards reserve status. The importance in a multi-year land transfer process of also targeting and tracking interim milestone progress, especially for EFN priority parcels, is recognized by the Parties. The Parties have also agreed that an essential component of the Strategic Planning initiative is to utilize every opportunity to communicate the plan to the EFNs, as a shared implementation plan will result in improved implementation of the MFA.
(d) Coordination and Strategic Planning (discussed in Section 2.4)
During 2010-2011 there was continual improvement in communication amongst the Parties and open discussion on all aspects of MFA implementation that are integral to developing a Strategic Implementation Plan under the auspice of Strategic Planning. The backbone of the Strategic Planning initiative is a commonly understood and consistently applied land transfer process. The Parties reviewed and refined the land transfer process as set out in the LTRCPM, and SAC adopted the refined version in 2010. The Parties have now utilized the land transfer process steps to produce tracking charts to confirm the progress of each land parcel towards reserve status.
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 52
The EFNs have expressed the view that EFN involvement seems to be of a limited nature and EFNs have minimal understanding of the general Reserve creation process. The Annual Plan will build on the information base prepared by the Parties and be used to inform the EFNs of next steps, and the annual goals set by the Parties in relation to each Parcel. The Parties agree that the land transfer process is a multi-year process, and the Annual Work Plan must include work on parcels targeted for transfer in subsequent years if that target is to be realized. The confirmation of parcel by parcel milestone steps, and clarification of primary responsibility for completion of these milestone steps, and how they fit together to form the Annual Implementation Plan will be extremely helpful in improving EFN understanding of the reserve creation process, and coordinating the efforts of the EFNs and the Parties.
At the March 17, 2011 IMC meeting, IMC agreed that a structured approach to Strategic Planning is important in order to focus the efforts of the Parties towards common objectives within a timeline. When the structure of confirmed meeting summaries, confirmation of meeting commitments of the Parties, and firm due dates decreased during 2010, progress towards the goals also decreased. The Parties have now tightened the Strategic Planning process structure, and are again proceeding towards completing two primary goals – the Annual Plan, and the Acquisition Tracking Charts in early 2011. IMC also agreed that during 2011-2012 the Chairperson’s role should be to monitor the Parties progress with implementation of the Strategic Planning Work Plan, and make suggestions as required to facilitate the successful implementation of the Strategic Planning initiative of the Parties. Specifically the Chairperson should monitor and ensure the continued use of the LTRCPM by the Parties, and the parcel by parcel tracking charts. As a priority, the IMC determined that the Chairperson should facilitate finalization of the Acquisition Tracking Charts by the Parties, and circulation of the Acquisition Tracking Charts to the EFNs in early 2011. The Parties have made substantial progress in establishing a tri-partite Strategic Plan (both short and longer term) over the past two years. Finalization of this Plan, which can be used in performance measurement and improve coordination and communication, is now anticipated in early 2011.
(e) Rate of Selection of Crown Land (discussed in Section 2.2)
The 15 EFNs with TEAs have selected 88.6% of their total Crown land amount. Of the 15 EFNs with TEAs; 5 EFNs have selected all of their Crown land, 5 EFNs have less than 1,000 acres remaining to be selected, 2 EFNs with unresolved Land In Severalty (LIS) issues have land selection extensions extending for 3 years after LIS is resolved, and 3 EFNs (Mathias Colomb Cree Nation, God’s Lake First Nation, and War Lake First Nation) require attention with respect to confirming their remaining selections. During 2010-2011 IMC agreed to write to these EFNs and confirm that the MFA principles would continue to apply subject to each EFN submitting a land selection plan. The representatives of the Parties felt that a template should be developed upon which the EFNs could summarize the information that the IMC wishes to know about each proposed selection. The general feeling is that many communities have plans to complete their land selections but have simply not written the plan down or communicated it. It was also agreed that IMC should recommend that the Parties assist the EFNs with development of their land selection plans at Parcel Review meetings. At year-end these letters were in draft and were mailed on April 27, 2011.
(f) Rate of Other Land Acquisition (discussed in Section 2.2)
The 6 Schedule “B” EFNs have acquired only 6.45% of their total Other Land amount. IMC wrote to the Schedule “B” EFNs inquiring into barriers they may be facing with respect to acquiring their “Other Land” within the timeframes set out in the MFA. The EFNs which have responded and identified the issues they face while acquiring “Other Land”, confirmed their need for a time period extension.
The second part of this 2010-2011 IMC Work Plan task was to identify barriers to setting apart parcels that the EFNs have already acquired. During 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 there were no acquired parcels set apart as reserve.
53 2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT
The completion of the Acquisition Tracking Charts will assist in identifying these barriers because each tracking chart will illustrate the steps completed and the next steps to be completed. A common understanding of these “next steps” can lead to discussion on how best to address the “next steps”. The Acquisition Tracking Charts are being prepared by the Parties through the Strategic Planning initiative and are now anticipated in early 2011.
At the March 17, 2011 IMC meeting, the IMC agreed that in 2011-2012 IMC should monitor this situation and facilitate resolution of specific issues as required. In general IMC agreed that the “monitoring and facilitation of specific issues” role for IMC should apply to; acquisition time periods, resolution of third party interests, EFN priority parcels, and completion and ongoing use of Tracking Charts (IMC 2010-2011 Work Plan Tasks 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6) as they all link directly to the Strategic Planning initiative of the Parties.
IMC was advised that BON and TLEC are currently preparing an Acquisition Strategy, and IMC agreed to review this Acquisition Strategy upon completion to better understand the difficulties faced by the Schedule B EFNs. With a better understanding IMC can determine if the processes followed by the Parties could be refined to respond more favourably to the barriers faced, and possibly improve the rate of land acquisition and the subsequent processing of land acquisitions.
In light of the very low acquisition rate (6.45% of Other Land Entitlement confirmed to date), and the unlikelihood of the Schedule “B” EFNs confirming the balance of their “Other Land” within their 15 year land acquisition period(s) set out in the MFA, the MFA Parties should continue dialogue with the Schedule “B” EFNS to better understand the challenges these EFNs face and determine how the Parties and EFNs collectively wish to proceed when these time periods expire in 2013-2014.
(g) Surveys
There are now more parcels identified in Dashboard 7 (which is comprised of those parcels whose next process step is to proceed to survey) than capacity to survey (i.e. capacity = survey budget funding). It is therefore recommended that the INAC, Manitoba Region survey budget be increased so that this situation does not delay land transfer processing, subject to confirmation by the qualified survey firms that they can complete this volume of survey work. IMC recommends that the goal be to secure funding to survey as many parcels as the certified survey firms can survey in any given year, rather than not advancing parcels that are otherwise ready to be surveyed.
(h) EFN Priority Parcels (discussed in Section 2.3(e))
The EFN Priority Parcels are an important component of the Annual Plan of the Parties which is being developed through the Strategic Planning initiative. While the priority parcels are known, the milestone steps to be targeted for completion for each priority parcel during 2010-2011 were not confirmed by the Parties during 2010-2011. Completion of the Annual Plan will ensure that the anticipated progress to be made on the EFN priority parcels and the acquisitions is clear for all Parties and EFNs. The tracking charts will clearly illustrate the “next steps” to be completed for each parcel, including the priority parcels. It is anticipated that the next steps for the EFN priority parcels will often be the resolution of TPIs, and to that extent resolution of third party interests and advancing priority parcels overlap. It is anticipated that these 2011-2012 milestones will be identified within the 2011-2012 Annual Plan of the Parties, which is now to be completed and circulated to the EFNs in early 2011.
At the March 17, 2011 IMC meeting the IMC determined that as continual advancement of the EFN priority parcels links directly to Strategic Planning, the EFN Priority Parcel initiatives should be led by the Parties. IMC’s role in 2011-2012 will therefore be to monitor this situation and facilitate resolution of specific issues as required.
(i) Third Party Interests (TPIs) (discussed in Section 2.5(a))
The Parties developed a consensus over the past year on general mechanisms to address each general type of third party interest. IMC observed and agreed on March 17, 2011 that TPI resolution needs to advance from identifying general means to address issues, to parcel specific options to resolve the specific TPIs affecting specific parcels, which can then be discussed directly with the EFNs as resolution of third party interests links directly to Strategic Planning, the IMC view is that TPI resolution initiatives should be led by the Parties.
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 54
During 2011-2012 IMC’s role will therefore be to monitor this situation and facilitate resolution of specific issues as required. IMC agreed that review of the tracking charts should identify those parcels that are at the stage of the land transfer process where resolution of third party interests is the “next step”, and the Parties should then work together towards developing consensual options to resolve each TPI. These can then be recommended to the EFNs. It is recommended that this begin with the TPIs affecting the parcels which are to be included on the Annual Plan. While it is primarily the responsibility of the EFNs with the assistance of TLEC to resolve the third party interests affecting selections and acquisitions, it is recommended that the Parties aid and assist each other wherever possible to implement the MFA and achieve the goal of setting apart as reserve the outstanding treaty land entitlement for the EFNs in order for implementation rates to be maintained. With respect to TPI resolution, at Strategic Planning meetings Manitoba and Canada have both confirmed their willingness to work with TLEC towards the development of consensual options for resolving each specific TPI, so that joint recommendations/options can be forwarded to the EFNs for their consideration.
(j) Agreements with the Six Unsigned First Nations (discussed in Section 2.5(b))
During 2010-2011 IMC found that information on barriers confronting EFNs was dated, and only known anecdotally rather than through systematic research. The IMC was not able to find evidence of a three Party strategy, or a unilateral strategy by any of the Parties to address this situation. It appears that MCFN is close to executing its TEA, and that OPCN is willing to move forward but needs a clear Work Plan outlining the steps required. IMC agreed that this topic was best addressed by the Parties, and on March 17, 2011 IMC confirmed its agreement to recommend that the Parties develop a proactive action plan specific to each EFN currently without a Treaty Entitlement Agreement, to facilitate these EFNs resolving their outstanding Treaty Land Entitlement.
(k) Reindeer Lake Regulation (discussed in Section 2.5(d))
During 2010-2011 IMC agreed that occasionally other specific issues are identified that affect MFA implementation, and that upon identification of specific issues that may be affecting implementation, IMC should conduct an analysis of the matter leading to a recommended strategy for facilitating resolution for the Parties. With respect to Reindeer Lake regulation that has been identified as such an issue, IMC agreed that the Chairperson should during 2011-2012 continue to facilitate the meetings of the Parties, BLFN, and SaskPower to reach consensus on the accommodation that is required to enable the BLFN TLE selections along Reindeer Lake to advance through the land transfer process. Manitoba, Canada, and BLFN Chief and Council previously requested the Chairperson to perform this role and confirmed it in a letter to SaskPower dated December 21, 2010.
(l) IMC Referral Resolution of Issues/Matters in Dispute (discussed in Sections 3.0 & 4.0)
There are nine current referrals before IMC. One is in abeyance while litigation is ongoing. BLFN’s severalty referral is in binding arbitration and awaiting direction from BLFN. (Chief and Council have confirmed that resolution of the Reindeer Lake regulation matter is a priority for BLFN at this time.) Two referrals filed by Manitoba in response to allegations of material failure have been recommended by the Chairperson for binding arbitration in accordance with MFA provisions. Two referrals are parcel specific and affecting 175 acres. and one is related to the effective date of a TEA and not affecting land transfers. Two of the nine referrals, the Hydro Easement referral and the Crown Reservations – Portage referral were both filed in 2007, and are together affecting selections totalling approximately 90,000 acres. During 2010-2011, the IMC Work Plan assigned by the Parties divided the lead role for each referral between the IMC representatives of the Parties and the Chairperson. Often the representative leading the referral was the representative of a Party entangled in the issue/ matter in dispute. At the IMC meeting of March 17, 2011 it was agreed that the lead role for all referrals during 2011-2012 should be the independent Chairperson. On March 17, 2011 IMC also confirmed that advancing resolution of the referrals should be IMC’s primary responsibility in 2011-2012. The IMC also confirmed that IMC representatives should continue to use best efforts to reach referral resolution by consensus, but in cases where this consensus is not forthcoming, that the referral should be advanced to SAC, and if necessary through the progressive dispute resolution processes described in the MFA.
2010/2011 IMC ANNUAL REPORT 56
8.0 SUMMARY OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Location of Entitlement First Nations Map Appendix B MFA Implementation: Reserve Land Creation by Fiscal Year Appendix C List of Historic Issues or Matters in Dispute Appendix D List of Current Issues or Matters in Dispute Appendix E Definitions used in the 2010-2011 IMC Annual Report Appendix F 2010-2011 IMC Work Plan Appendix G Draft Reserve Creation Process Flow Chart for TLE with Water Power Easements
Appendix A
Location of Entitlement First Nations Map
Lake
Winnipeg
LakeManitoba
Cedar Lake
Lake
Winnipegosis
Southern IndianLake
Gods
Lake
Northlands Sayisi Dene
Barren Lands
Marcel Colomb CreeFox Lake
Shamattawa
O-Pipon-Na-Piwin
Mathias Colomb Cree Nisichawayasihk CreeYork Factory
War Lake
God's Lake
Manto Sipi CreeBunibonibee Cree
Norway House CreeOpaskwayak Cree
Sapotaweyak Cree
Wuskwi Sipihk
Rolling River Brokenhead Ojibway
Buffalo Point
Adhesions to Treaty 5 1908-1910
Treaty 5 1875
Treaty 1 1871
Treaty 2 1871
Treaty 31873
Treaty 41874
Location of EntitlementFirst Nations1997 Manitoba Framework Agreement onTreaty Land Entitlement
50 0 50 100 150 20025 Kilometers
Entitlement First Nations that havesigned a Treaty Entitlement Agreement(shown in red text)Entitlement First Nations that have notsigned a Treaty Entitlement Agreement(shown in green text)
As of March 31, 2008
Appendix B
MFA Implementation: Reserve Land Creation by Fiscal Year
Upd
ated
as
of: M
arch
31,
201
1
YE
AR
DA
TE
OC
PC
/MO
NO
.R
ES
ER
VE
NA
ME
- A
DD
ITIO
NF
IRS
T N
AT
ION
SE
LE
CT
ION
A
CR
EA
GE
A
CQ
UIS
ITIO
N A
CR
EA
GE
FO
RM
ER
SE
LE
CT
ION
/ A
CQ
UIS
ITIO
N N
AM
E
*=E
FN P
RIO
RIT
Y
Wus
kwi S
ipih
k I.
R.
FN
No.
1
1,
049.
00
Old
Bui
ldin
g B
ay P
hase
1W
uskw
i Sip
ihk
I.R
. N
o. 2
2
26.1
8 P
TH
No.
10
2003
DE
CE
MB
ER
3O
CP
C 2
003-
1936
Pon
ask
Lake
Ind
ian
Res
erve
Nor
way
Hou
se C
ree
Nat
ion
3,89
8.95
P
onas
k La
ke20
03D
EC
EM
BE
R 3
OC
PC
200
3-19
38
Add
ition
to
Wus
kwi S
ipih
k F
irst
Nat
ion
I.R
. N
o. 1
W
uskw
i Sip
ihk
Firs
t N
atio
n
995
.80
Old
Bui
ldin
g B
ay P
hase
Tw
o20
04A
PR
IL 2
2O
CP
C-2
004-
442
Wus
kwi S
ipih
k F
irst
Nat
ion
I.R
. N
o. 4
W
uskw
i Sip
ihk
Firs
t N
atio
n
472
.00
Sto
ne R
idge
Poi
nt
2005
FE
BR
UA
RY
1O
CP
C-2
005-
66W
uskw
i Sip
ihk
Indi
an R
eser
ve N
o. 5
W
uskw
i Sip
ihk
Firs
t N
atio
n
3,
644.
20
Bel
l Riv
er /
PT
H 1
0 20
05F
EB
RU
AR
Y 1
OC
PC
-200
5-66
Wus
kwi S
ipih
k In
dian
Res
erve
No.
6
Wus
kwi S
ipih
k F
irst
Nat
ion
2
70.3
0 M
afek
ing
Nor
th
2005
FE
BR
UA
RY
17
MO
- 2
005-
001
Buf
falo
Poi
nt F
irst
Nat
ion
I.R
. N
o. 1
B
uffa
lo P
oint
Firs
t N
atio
n
9
2.40
P
TH
12 /
Int
erna
tiona
l Bou
ndar
y20
05M
AR
CH
14
MO
-200
5-00
3B
uffa
lo P
oint
Firs
t N
atio
n I.
R.
No.
2
Buf
falo
Poi
nt F
irst
Nat
ion
8
59.7
0 P
opla
r P
oint
3
9.93
G
ould
s P
oint
4A
283
.17
Gou
lds
Poi
nt 4
B
868
.20
Gou
lds
Poi
nt 4
C20
05M
AR
CH
22
OC
PC
-200
5-41
6D
EC
EM
BE
R 6
OC
PC
-200
5-22
97
2000
/200
5
13
,210
.23
020
00/2
005
To
tal:
13,
210.
23
13
,210
.23
0C
UM
UL
AT
IVE
TO
TA
L =
13,
210.
33
1
63.4
4 3
b -
Ona
nole
WM
A
163
.62
3c
Ona
nole
WM
A
817
.54
3d
Ona
nole
WM
A
971
.52
4 B
ald
Hill
s
163
.35
5 N
E 1
2-19
-18
WP
M
2
0.13
R
A1
- In
terio
r R
oad
Allo
wan
ces
51.
10
RA
2 -
Ext
erio
r R
oad
Allw
ance
s20
05M
AY
10
OC
PC
-200
5-81
9A
ndre
w B
ay I
ndia
n R
eser
ve
God
s La
ke F
irst
Nat
ion
1
68.5
0 A
ndre
w B
ay20
05M
AY
10
OC
PC
-200
5-81
9C
hata
way
Lak
e/K
nife
Lak
e In
dian
Res
erve
G
ods
Lake
Firs
t N
atio
n
277
.00
Cha
taw
ay L
ake/
Kni
fe L
ake
2005
MA
Y 1
0O
CP
C-2
005-
819
Ver
mily
ea L
ake
Indi
an R
eser
ve
God
s La
ke F
irst
Nat
ion
8
.35
Ver
mily
ea L
ake
2005
NO
VE
MB
ER
28
OC
PC
-200
5-22
37N
orth
Pro
min
ent
Rid
ge I
ndia
n R
eser
ve
God
s La
ke F
irst
Nat
ion
6,52
9.00
N
orth
Pro
min
ent
Rid
ge
2005
/200
6
9,
333.
55
020
05/2
006
To
tal:
9,3
33.5
5
TOTA
L
22,5
43.7
8 0
CU
MU
LA
TIV
E T
OT
AL
= 2
2,54
3.78
2006
AP
RIL
3M
O-2
006-
004
Buf
falo
Poi
nt F
irst
Nat
ion
Indi
an R
eser
ve N
o. 3
B
uffa
lo P
oint
Firs
t N
atio
n
226
.30
Buf
falo
Poi
nt A
cces
s R
oad
2006
AP
RIL
3M
O-2
006-
004
Sap
otaw
eyak
Cre
e N
atio
n -
Spr
uce
Isla
nd I
ndia
n R
eser
ve
Sap
otaw
eyak
Cre
e N
atio
n
4,
566.
00
Spr
uce
Isla
nd20
06M
AY
29
MO
-200
6-00
9R
ollin
g R
iver
Ind
ian
Res
erve
No.
67
B
Rol
ling
Riv
er F
irst
Nat
ion
-
15
8.14
Ron
ald
Hill
acq
uisi
tion
prop
erty
2006
JUN
E 8
OC
PC
-200
6-50
4K
apaw
asih
k In
dian
Res
erve
N
isic
haw
ayas
ihk
Cre
e N
atio
n
4,
621.
00
Pak
waw
Lak
e 20
06JU
NE
8O
CP
C-2
006-
505
Mon
ahaw
uhka
n In
dian
Res
erve
N
isic
haw
ayas
ihk
Cre
e N
atio
n
986
.00
Birc
h T
ree
Bro
ok W
est
2006
JUN
E 8
OC
PC
-200
6-50
6O
peku
nosa
kaka
nihk
Ind
ian
Res
erve
N
isic
haw
ayas
ihk
Cre
e N
atio
n
1,
747.
62
Har
ding
Lak
e 20
06JU
NE
8O
CP
C-2
006-
507
Wap
asih
k In
dian
Res
erve
N
isic
haw
ayas
ihk
Cre
e N
atio
n
3,
586.
50
Lef
troo
k La
ke
2006
JUN
E 8
OC
PC
-200
6-50
8W
uskw
i Sip
i Ind
ian
Res
erve
N
isic
haw
ayas
ihk
Cre
e N
atio
n
1,
984.
12
Gau
er R
iver
R
ed C
ross
Lak
e N
orth
Ind
ian
Res
erve
313
.30
Red
Cro
ss L
ake
Nor
th
Red
Cro
ss L
ake
Eas
t In
dian
Res
erve
6
71.6
0 R
ed C
ross
Lak
e E
ast
Oxf
ord
Hou
se I
ndia
n R
eser
ve N
o. 2
4A
361
.00
No.
24A
-
Car
rot
Bay
O
xfor
d H
ouse
Ind
ian
Res
erve
No.
24B
4,29
4.70
N
o. 2
4B -
C
olen
Lak
esO
xfor
d H
ouse
Ind
ian
Res
erve
No.
24C
9
93.0
0 N
o. 2
4C -
B
ear
Lake
Oxf
ord
Hou
se I
ndia
n R
eser
ve N
o. 2
4D
1
1.34
N
o. 2
4D -
A
tikos
is L
ake
2006
/200
7
24,3
62.4
8 15
8.14
2006
/200
7 T
ota
l: 2
4,52
0.62
TO
TA
L
46,9
06.2
6 15
8.14
CU
MU
LA
TIV
E T
OT
AL
= 4
7,06
4.40
5
10.4
0
2006
Wus
kwi S
ipih
k F
irst
Nat
ion
MF
A T
LE
EN
TIT
LE
ME
NT
FIR
ST
NA
TIO
NS
2005
MA
RC
H 1
4M
O-2
005-
003
Add
ition
to
Ree
d R
iver
I.R
. N
o. 3
6A
Buf
falo
Poi
nt F
irst
Nat
ion
IMP
LE
ME
NT
AT
ION
BY
FIS
CA
L Y
EA
R
JUN
E 2
2
2000
Wus
kwi S
ipih
k In
dian
Res
erve
Nos
. 3A
, 3B
, 3C
, 3D
, 3E
and
3F
MA
RC
H 2
3O
CP
C 2
000-
378
Wus
kwi S
ipih
k
OC
PC
-200
6-55
2G
ods
Lake
Firs
t N
atio
n
MA
Y 9
TO
TA
L
2005
2006
NO
VE
MB
ER
23
MO
-200
5-00
6R
ollin
g R
iver
Ind
ian
Res
erve
No.
67A
R
ollin
g R
iver
Firs
t N
atio
n
Bun
ibon
ibee
Cre
e N
atio
nO
CP
C-2
006-
1407
Sw
an L
ake
Isla
nds
(510
.39)
IMP
LE
ME
NT
AT
ION
MO
NIT
OR
ING
CO
MM
ITT
EE
Page 1 of 4
Upd
ated
as
of: M
arch
31,
201
1
YE
AR
DA
TE
OC
PC
/MO
NO
.R
ES
ER
VE
NA
ME
- A
DD
ITIO
NF
IRS
T N
AT
ION
SE
LE
CT
ION
A
CR
EA
GE
A
CQ
UIS
ITIO
N A
CR
EA
GE
FO
RM
ER
SE
LE
CT
ION
/ A
CQ
UIS
ITIO
N N
AM
E
*=E
FN P
RIO
RIT
Y
MF
A T
LE
EN
TIT
LE
ME
NT
FIR
ST
NA
TIO
NS
IM
PL
EM
EN
TA
TIO
N B
Y F
ISC
AL
YE
AR
IMP
LE
ME
NT
AT
ION
MO
NIT
OR
ING
CO
MM
ITT
EE
2007
MA
Y 1
0O
CP
C-2
007-
726
Wus
kwi S
ipih
k In
dian
Res
erve
No.
8
Wus
kwi S
ipih
k F
irst
Nat
ion
1,84
5.00
N
orth
Ste
epro
ck L
ake
2007
JULY
23
MO
-200
7-01
3W
uskw
i Sip
ihk
Indi
an R
eser
ve N
o. 7
W
uskw
i Sip
ihk
Firs
t N
atio
n
14,4
56.0
0 K
ettle
Hill
s 20
07JU
LY 2
3M
O-2
007-
014
Sap
otaw
eyak
Cre
e N
atio
n In
dian
Res
erve
S
apot
awey
ak C
ree
Nat
ion
58
,745
.20
Daw
son
Bay
**
N.B
. T
here
are
6,7
19.6
mor
e ac
res
to b
e tr
ansf
erre
d O
xfor
d La
ke N
orth
Sho
re I
ndia
n R
eser
ve
3,42
2.00
O
xfor
d La
ke N
orth
Sho
reW
apis
ew L
ake
Indi
an R
eser
ve,
1
76.0
0 W
apis
ew L
ake
Whi
tem
ud L
ake
Indi
an R
eser
ve
5,11
0.00
W
hite
mud
Lak
eE
sker
Rid
ge B
Ind
ian
Res
erve
2
64.0
0 E
sker
Rid
geP
eter
Bur
tons
/Sho
rty
Rap
ids
Indi
an R
eser
ve,
1,94
8.00
P
eter
Bur
tons
/Sho
rty
Rap
ids
Wap
amin
akos
kak
Nar
row
s In
dian
Res
erve
2,34
7.00
W
apam
inak
oska
k N
arro
ws
2007
AU
GU
ST
10
MO
-200
7-01
8N
orw
ay H
ouse
Ind
ian
Res
erve
Nos
. 17
C1
to 1
7C-4
6N
orw
ay H
ouse
Cre
e N
atio
n
2,
021.
25
(num
bere
d 1
to 4
6 in
clus
ive)
-
Mol
son
Lake
Isl
ands
Nor
way
Hou
se I
ndia
n R
eser
ve N
os.
17D
-2
2,
916.
00
Isl
and
Riv
er A
& B
17D
-3 (
Cos
tes
Lake
B),
2
19.0
0 17
D-3
C
oste
s La
ke B
17D
-4 (
Bea
ch L
ake)
84.
00
17D
-4
Bea
ch L
ake
17D
-5 (
Litt
le B
olto
n La
ke A
& C
)
792
.00
17D
-5
Litt
le B
olto
n La
ke A
& C
17D
-6 (
Ech
imam
ish
Riv
er A
and
The
Hig
h R
ock)
1,35
7.00
17
D-6
E
chim
amis
h R
iver
A a
nd T
he H
igh
Roc
k17
D-7
(E
chim
amis
h R
iver
B)
35.
00
17D
-7
Ech
imam
ish
Riv
er B
17D
-8 (
Nel
son
Riv
er E
ast
Cha
nnel
B)
1,01
1.60
17
D-8
N
elso
n R
iver
Eas
t C
hann
el B
17D
-9 (
Law
ford
Lak
e)
7
24.3
0 17
D-9
La
wfo
rd L
ake
**N
.B.
The
re a
re 3
,596
mor
e ac
res
to b
e tr
ansf
erre
d as
per
Pro
v.
OIC
No.
324
/200
6 da
ted
Aug
. 2/
06.*
*
3,59
8.00
N
orth
Mol
son
Lake
Pha
se 3
9,91
5.00
N
orth
Mol
son
Lake
Pha
se 1
**N
.B.
Thi
s re
serv
e cr
eatio
n w
as t
aken
20
07A
UG
US
T 1
0M
O-2
007-
021
Pel
ican
Rap
ids
Acc
ess
Roa
d P
hase
1 I
ndia
n R
eser
veS
apot
awey
ak C
ree
Nat
ion
20
,780
.00
Pel
ican
Rap
ids
Acc
ess
Roa
d P
hase
1
2007
AU
GU
ST
10
MO
-200
7-02
2R
oot
Lake
Bea
ch R
idge
Site
Ind
ian
Res
erve
O
pask
way
ak C
ree
Nat
ion
8,69
9.60
R
oot
Lake
Bea
ch R
idge
Site
2007
/200
8
14
0,46
5.95
0
2007
/200
8 T
ota
l: 1
40,4
65.9
5
TO
TA
L
18
7,37
2.21
15
8.14
CU
MU
LA
TIV
E T
OT
AL
= 1
87,5
30.3
5
2007
Nor
way
Hou
se I
ndia
n R
eser
ve N
o. 1
7D-1
N
orw
ay H
ouse
Cre
e N
atio
nA
UG
US
T 1
0M
O-2
007-
020
2007
2007
JULY
31
OC
PC
-200
7-11
70B
unib
onib
ee C
ree
Nat
ion
AU
GU
ST
10
MO
-200
7-01
9N
orw
ay H
ouse
Cre
e N
atio
n
JULY
31
OC
PC
-200
7-11
7220
07G
ods
Lake
Firs
t N
atio
n
Page 2 of 4
Upd
ated
as
of: M
arch
31,
201
1
YE
AR
DA
TE
OC
PC
/MO
NO
.R
ES
ER
VE
NA
ME
- A
DD
ITIO
NF
IRS
T N
AT
ION
SE
LE
CT
ION
A
CR
EA
GE
A
CQ
UIS
ITIO
N A
CR
EA
GE
FO
RM
ER
SE
LE
CT
ION
/ A
CQ
UIS
ITIO
N N
AM
E
*=E
FN P
RIO
RIT
Y
MF
A T
LE
EN
TIT
LE
ME
NT
FIR
ST
NA
TIO
NS
IM
PL
EM
EN
TA
TIO
N B
Y F
ISC
AL
YE
AR
IMP
LE
ME
NT
AT
ION
MO
NIT
OR
ING
CO
MM
ITT
EE
2008
MA
Y 1
OC
PC
-200
8-82
5E
sker
Rid
ge A
Ind
ian
Res
erve
G
od’s
Lak
e F
irst
Nat
ion
1,18
9.00
E
sker
Rid
ge A
C
hepi
Lak
e In
dian
Res
erve
2
64.0
0 C
hepi
Lak
eP
rom
inen
t R
idge
Ind
ian
Res
erve
2,78
0.00
P
rom
inen
t R
idge
Hur
ley
Isla
nd I
ndia
n R
eser
ve
1,
240.
00
Hur
ley
Isla
nd
2008
MA
Y 2
9O
CP
C-2
008-
991
Mun
ro L
ake
Indi
an R
eser
ve
Bun
ibon
ibee
Cre
e N
atio
n
3,
684.
00
Mun
ro L
ake
Rid
ge20
08JU
NE
16
MO
-208
-017
Add
ition
to
Sap
otaw
eyak
Cre
e N
atio
n In
dian
Res
erve
S
apot
awey
ak C
ree
Nat
ion
6,71
9.60
D
awso
n B
ay -
Pha
se T
wo
2008
AU
GU
ST
21
MO
-200
8-02
8G
od’s
Lak
e S
outh
east
of
Com
mun
ity I
ndia
n R
eser
veG
od’s
Lak
e F
irst
Nat
ion
1,05
1.00
G
od’s
Lak
e S
outh
east
of
Com
mun
ity (
*=E
FN
PR
IOR
ITY
)20
08A
UG
US
T 2
1M
O-2
008-
029
Not
in S
akah
ekun
Ind
ian
Res
erve
B
unib
onib
ee C
ree
Nat
ion
6,97
4.30
W
indy
Lak
e 20
08A
UG
US
T 2
1M
O-2
008-
030
Ken
yan
Lake
Ind
ian
Res
erve
G
od’s
Lak
e F
irst
Nat
ion
7
49.0
0 K
enyo
n La
ke
2008
AU
GU
ST
27
MO
-200
8-03
1A
dditi
on t
o S
apot
awey
ak C
ree
Nat
ion
Indi
an R
eser
ve
Sap
otaw
eyak
Cre
e N
atio
n
4,
230.
73
Daw
son
Bay
- P
hase
Thr
ee
5
10.5
8 I
ronw
ood
Poi
nt P
hase
1 (
*=E
FN
PR
IOR
ITY
)
161
.42
Iro
nwoo
d P
oint
Pha
se 2
(*=
EF
N P
RIO
RIT
Y)
2008
SE
PT
EM
BE
R 4
MO
-200
8-03
4O
verf
low
ing
Riv
er S
apot
awey
ak C
ree
Indi
an R
eser
veS
apot
awey
ak C
ree
Nat
ion
1,15
8.90
O
verf
low
ing
Riv
er
Moo
seoc
oot
Indi
an R
eser
ve N
o. 2
3
51.9
0 N
o. 2
-
Roc
k Q
uarr
yM
oose
ocoo
t In
dian
Res
erve
No.
3
128
.50
No.
3 –
La
ndin
g R
iver
Ope
kano
wi S
akah
eyku
n In
dian
Res
erve
26.
91
Ape
gana
u La
ke A
dditi
onN
umay
koos
Sak
ahey
kun
Indi
an R
eser
ve
2,
955.
00
Bal
dock
Lak
e A
dditi
on
320
.00
N1/
2 6-
41-2
4 W
PM
- 3
20
1
60.0
0 N
E1/
4 17
-41-
24 W
PM
- 1
60
310
.94
S 1
/2 3
1-41
-24
WP
M -
310
.94
3
12.0
5 N
W 1
/4 &
SE
1/4
1-4
1-25
WP
M -
312
.053
T
otal
: 17
20.9
5
157
.00
NE
1/4
1-4
1-25
WP
M -
157
1
57.0
0 S
E 1
/4 2
5-41
-25
WP
M -
157
3
03.9
6 S
1/2
36-
41-2
5 W
PM
- 3
03.9
5620
08O
CT
OB
ER
10
MO
-200
8-04
0N
asha
kepe
nais
Ind
ian
Res
erve
B
roke
nhea
d O
jibw
ay N
atio
n0
7.46
Eas
t S
t. P
aul a
cqui
sitio
n (
*=E
FN
PR
IOR
ITY
)20
08D
EC
EM
BE
R 1
9M
O-2
008-
043
And
erso
n In
dian
Res
erve
Nor
way
Hou
se C
ree
Nat
ion
3,10
5.40
P
aint
ed S
tone
Por
tage
A20
08D
EC
EM
BE
R 1
9M
O-2
008-
043
Har
t In
dian
Res
erve
Nor
way
Hou
se C
ree
Nat
ion
2,29
9.10
P
aint
ed S
tone
Por
tage
C20
09JA
NU
AR
Y 1
2M
O-2
009-
003
Wep
usko
w O
hnik
ahp
Indi
an R
eser
veM
athi
as C
olom
b C
ree
Nat
ion
76
,688
.00
Chu
rchi
ll R
iver
Are
a 30
A20
09JA
NU
AR
Y 1
2M
O-2
009-
003
Nap
ahka
pihs
kow
Sak
hahi
gan
Indi
an R
eser
veM
athi
as C
olom
b C
ree
Nat
ion
4,52
0.00
C
hurc
hill
Riv
er A
rea
30B
2009
JAN
UA
RY
12
MO
-200
9-00
3K
imos
omin
ahk
Indi
an R
eser
veM
athi
as C
olom
b C
ree
Nat
ion
1,36
6.00
C
hurc
hill
Riv
er A
rea
30D
E1/
2 of
SE
1/4
24-
16-1
9 W
PM
(S
ite N
o. 3
-01)
- 8
0.00
NE
1/4
24-
16-1
9 W
PM
(S
ite N
o. 2
-01)
- 1
57.9
2N
E 1
/4 3
0-17
-18
WP
M (
Site
2)
- 15
5.00
NE
1/4
34-
16-1
9 W
PM
(S
ite N
o. 1
1-01
) -
160.
00N
W 1
/4 1
8-17
-18
WP
M (
Site
No.
3-0
2) -
156
.00
NW
1/4
25-
16-1
9 W
PM
(S
ite N
o. 8
-01)
- 1
60.0
0S
1/2
36-
16-1
9 W
PM
(S
ite N
o. 1
4-01
) -
320.
00S
E 1
/4 3
4-16
-19
WP
M (
Site
No.
10-
01)
- 16
0.00
SW
1/4
25-
16-1
9 W
PM
(S
ite N
o. 9
-01)
- 1
60.0
0S
W 1
/4 2
6-16
-19
WP
M (
Site
No.
7.0
1) -
160
.00
SW
1/4
31-
17-1
8 W
PM
(S
ite 1
) -
155
.00
E1/
2 of
SW
1/4
13-
19-1
8 W
PM
(S
iteN
o. 1
-02)
- 8
2.00
W 1
/2 o
f S
W 1
/4 1
3-19
-18
WP
M (
Site
No.
2-0
2) -
82.
00
NE
1/4
27-
17-1
8 W
PM
(S
ite 8
) -
144.
00N
W 1
/4 2
6-17
-18
WP
M (
Site
7)
- 15
7.00
NW
1/4
27-
17-1
8 (S
ite 1
0) -
101
.00
SE
1/4
34-
17-1
8 W
PM
(S
ite 9
) -
19.0
0S
W 1
/4 2
6-17
-18
WP
M (
Site
6)
- 1
55.0
3
2008
/09
123,
874.
29
2,57
1.39
2008
/200
9 T
ota
l: 1
26,4
45.6
8
311,
246.
50
2,72
9.53
CU
MU
LA
TIV
E T
OT
AL
= 3
13,9
76.0
3T
OT
AL
AM
OU
NT
OF
LA
ND
SE
T A
PA
RT
AS
RE
SE
RV
E A
S O
F M
AR
CH
31,
200
9
MA
Y 1
OC
PC
-200
8-82
6
Bro
kenh
ead
Ojib
way
Nat
ion
2008
AU
GU
ST
27
2008
SE
PT
EM
BE
R 4
MO
-200
8-03
5W
ar L
ake
Firs
t N
atio
n
1823
.9
Man
to S
ipi C
ree
Nat
ion
SE
PT
EM
BE
R 5
MO
-200
8-03
6
MO
-200
8-03
2
2009
FE
BR
UA
RY
26
MO
-200
9-00
6A
dditi
on t
o R
ollin
g R
iver
Ind
ian
Res
erve
No.
67
Rol
ling
Riv
er F
irst
Nat
ion
2009
FE
BR
UA
RY
26
MO
-200
9-00
6R
ollin
g R
iver
Firs
t N
atio
n
Add
ition
to
Wus
kwi S
ipih
k F
irst
Nat
ion
Indi
an R
eser
ve N
o. 1
2008
Nis
icha
way
asih
k C
ree
Nat
ion
2008
Birc
h La
ndin
g In
dian
Res
erve
2009
FE
BR
UA
RY
26
164.
00
576.
03R
ollin
g R
iver
Firs
t N
atio
nA
dditi
on t
o R
ollin
g R
iver
Ind
ian
Res
erve
No.
67B
MO
-200
9-00
6
2008
OC
TO
BE
R 1
MO
-200
8-03
9W
uskw
i Sip
ihk
Firs
t N
atio
n
Add
ition
to
Rol
ling
Riv
er I
ndia
n R
eser
ve N
o. 6
7A
Page 3 of 4
Upd
ated
as
of: M
arch
31,
201
1
YE
AR
DA
TE
OC
PC
/MO
NO
.R
ES
ER
VE
NA
ME
- A
DD
ITIO
NF
IRS
T N
AT
ION
SE
LE
CT
ION
A
CR
EA
GE
A
CQ
UIS
ITIO
N A
CR
EA
GE
FO
RM
ER
SE
LE
CT
ION
/ A
CQ
UIS
ITIO
N N
AM
E
*=E
FN P
RIO
RIT
Y
MF
A T
LE
EN
TIT
LE
ME
NT
FIR
ST
NA
TIO
NS
IM
PL
EM
EN
TA
TIO
N B
Y F
ISC
AL
YE
AR
IMP
LE
ME
NT
AT
ION
MO
NIT
OR
ING
CO
MM
ITT
EE
Wus
kwi S
akah
eyku
n In
dian
Res
erve
2,27
0.22
G
auer
Lak
eA
dditi
on t
o O
peka
now
i Sak
ahey
kun
Indi
an R
eser
ve
1,
958.
64
Ape
gana
u La
keA
dditi
on t
o N
umay
koos
Sak
ahey
kun
Indi
an R
eser
ve
5,
758.
00
Bal
dock
Lak
e20
09A
UG
US
T 7
MO
-009
-025
Hig
h H
ill L
ake
Indi
an R
eser
veB
unib
onib
ee C
ree
Nat
ion
1,04
3.00
O
pisc
hika
na N
arro
ws
2009
AU
GU
ST
7M
O-0
09-0
25O
pisc
hiku
naya
k N
atio
n In
dian
Res
erve
Bun
ibon
ibee
Cre
e N
atio
n
630
.00
Opi
schi
kana
Nar
row
s20
09A
UG
US
T 7
MO
-009
-026
Kis
ipik
amak
Ind
ian
Res
erve
B
unib
onib
ee C
ree
Nat
ion
4,64
3.00
Ly
nx B
ay
Sis
ipuk
Sak
aheg
an (
A)
Indi
an R
eser
ve
5,
164.
00
Sis
ipuk
Lak
e S
isip
uk S
akah
egan
(B
) In
dian
Res
erve
7
.23
Sis
ipuk
Lak
e A
dditi
on W
est
Sis
ipuk
Sak
aheg
an (
C)
Indi
an R
eser
ve
1
0.26
S
isip
uk L
ake
Add
ition
Eas
t M
istia
tega
mee
k S
ipi I
ndia
n R
eser
ve
1,
809.
00
Nel
son
Bay
O
hpah
ahpi
skow
Sak
aheg
an I
ndia
n R
eser
ve
3,61
3.00
H
ighr
ock
Lake
Moo
sow
hapi
hsk
Sak
aheg
an I
ndia
n R
eser
ve
1,99
2.00
B
onal
d La
ke
Kam
ihko
wap
ihsk
ak P
awis
tik I
ndia
n R
eser
ve
4,
263.
00
Blo
odst
one
Fal
ls
Nih
kik
Ohn
ikap
ihs
9
07.0
0 M
cKni
ght
Lake
20
09A
UG
US
T 7
MO
-200
9-02
2C
hann
el I
slan
d S
apot
awey
ak C
ree
Nat
ion
Indi
an R
eser
ve
Sap
otaw
eyak
Cre
e N
atio
n
3,
358.
00
Cha
nnel
Isl
and
2009
AU
GU
ST
7M
O-2
009-
023
PT
H 1
0 S
apot
awey
ak C
ree
Nat
ion
Indi
an R
eser
ve
Sap
otaw
eyak
Cre
e N
atio
n
143
.30
PT
H 1
0 20
09A
UG
US
T 7
MO
-200
9-02
4W
inni
peko
sihk
Ind
ian
Res
erve
N
orw
ay H
ouse
Cre
e N
atio
n
1,
188.
00
Mol
son
Lake
Acc
ess
Roa
d
2009
/10
38
,757
.65
020
09/2
010
To
tal:
38,
757.
65
350,
004.
15
2,72
9.53
CU
MU
LA
TIV
E T
OT
AL
= 3
52,7
33.6
8
2010
AU
GU
ST
5M
O-2
010-
010
Opa
skw
ayak
Cre
e N
atio
n 21
A S
outh
Ind
ian
Res
erve
Opa
skw
ayak
Cre
e N
atio
n
123
.00
21 A
Sou
th20
10A
UG
US
T 5
MO
-201
0-01
1O
pask
way
ak C
ree
Nat
ion
Roc
ky L
ake
Indi
an R
eser
ve N
o. 1
Opa
skw
ayak
Cre
e N
atio
n
1,
857.
70
Roc
ky L
ake
& R
ocky
Lak
e A
dditi
on20
10A
UG
US
T 1
3M
O-2
010-
012
Pac
hape
sihk
Was
ahow
Ind
ian
Res
erve
Mat
hias
Col
omb
Cre
e N
atio
n
72,1
99.0
0 C
hurc
hill
Riv
er20
10N
OV
EM
BE
R 3
MO
-201
0-02
1S
heth
cho
k In
dian
Res
erve
Nor
thla
nds
Firs
t N
atio
n
2,
999.
00
Sou
th o
f N
orth
land
s20
10N
OV
EM
BE
R 2
4M
O 2
010-
022
Haw
kins
Ind
ian
Res
erve
God
's L
ake
Firs
t N
atio
n
674
.00
Esk
er R
idge
C20
10N
OV
EM
BE
R 3
0M
O 2
010-
023
Thu
ycho
leen
i aze
Ind
ian
Res
erve
Nor
thla
nds
Firs
t N
atio
n
497
.00
Coc
hran
e R
iver
Par
cel B
2010
NO
VE
MB
ER
30
MO
-201
0-02
3T
thek
ale
nu I
ndia
n R
eser
veN
orth
land
s F
irst
Nat
ion
5
21.0
0 C
ochr
ane
Riv
er P
arce
l C20
10N
OV
EM
BE
R 3
0M
O-2
010-
023
Thu
ycho
leen
i Ind
ian
Res
erve
Nor
thla
nds
Firs
t N
atio
n
117
.00
Coc
hran
e R
iver
Par
cel D
2010
NO
VE
MB
ER
30
MO
-201
0-02
5S
uwan
ee L
ake
Indi
an R
eser
veN
isic
haw
ayas
ihk
Cre
e N
atio
n
1,
663.
00
Suw
anne
e La
ke20
10N
OV
EM
BE
R 3
0M
O-2
010-
025
Wap
ikun
oo B
ay I
ndia
n R
eser
veN
isic
haw
ayas
ihk
Cre
e N
atio
n
4,
438.
00
Wap
ikun
oo B
ay20
10N
OV
EM
BE
R 3
0M
O-2
010-
025
Mile
20
Sec
ond
Rev
isio
n In
dian
Res
erve
Nis
icha
way
asih
k C
ree
Nat
ion
1,82
1.00
M
ile 2
0 (s
econ
d re
visi
on)
2011
FE
BR
UA
RY
7M
O-2
011-
002
Egg
Lak
e In
dian
Res
erve
No.
1
Opa
skw
ayak
Cre
e N
atio
n
13,6
95.0
0 E
gg L
ake
2010
/11
100,
604.
70
020
10/2
011
To
tal:
97,
962
450,
608.
85
2,72
9.53
CU
MU
LA
TIV
E T
OT
AL
= 4
53,3
38.3
8 T
OT
AL
AM
OU
NT
OF
LA
ND
SE
T A
PA
RT
TO
DA
TE
Nis
icha
way
asih
k C
ree
Nat
ion
MO
-200
9-01
7JU
NE
17
2009
TO
TA
L A
MO
UN
T O
F L
AN
D S
ET
AP
AR
T A
S R
ES
ER
VE
AS
OF
MA
RC
H 3
1, 2
010
2009
AU
GU
ST
7M
O-0
09-0
27M
athi
as C
olom
b C
ree
Nat
ion
Page 4 of 4
Appendix C
Historic Issues or Matters in Dispute
LIS
T O
F H
IST
OR
IC IS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
S IN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
- 1
- o
f -
18
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
R
E:
Re
ferr
al
Date
M
FA
S
ecti
on
s
MF
A H
ead
ing
s
Gen
era
l Is
su
e / B
ackg
rou
nd
M
issin
g
Do
cu
men
ts
Mean
s o
f R
eso
luti
on
O
ther
Rela
ted
F
iles
1999-B
PF
N-0
02
Buff
alo
Poin
t F
irst
Nation
RE
: R
eed
Riv
er
Sele
ction
6/2
3/1
99
9
1.0
1(6
2),
1.0
1(6
5),
6.0
2(8
),
12.0
1,
12.0
2
Definitio
ns a
nd
In
terp
reta
tion
, D
efined
Word
s a
nd P
hra
ses,
Navig
able
Wate
rway,
Ord
inary
Hig
h W
ate
r M
ark
; W
ate
r In
tere
sts
, S
ele
ction
or
Acquis
itio
n
of
Non-n
avig
able
W
ate
rwa
ys, R
eserv
e
Boundaries o
n
Navig
able
Wate
rways
ISS
UE
: Is
th
e R
eed R
iver
a n
avig
able
wate
rwa
y O
R
is the
bed a
nd s
hore
of
Reed R
iver
elig
ible
for
transfe
r?
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: O
n D
ecem
ber
21
, 1999,
Man
ito
ba
advis
ed
the B
uff
alo
Po
int F
irst N
ation (
BP
FN
) th
at
their R
eed R
iver
Sele
ctio
n w
as a
dja
cen
t to
a
Na
vig
able
Wate
rway a
nd
as s
uch the b
ed a
nd
shore
of
Reed R
iver
belo
w the O
rdin
ary
Hig
h W
ate
r M
ark
w
as inelig
ible
for
Sele
ction u
nder
Para
gra
ph
12.0
2(b
). O
n J
une 2
3, 1
999, B
PF
N r
efe
rred the
matter
to the I
MC
under
Subsectio
n 6
.02(8
) re
gard
ing th
e q
uestion
of
wheth
er
the R
eed
Riv
er
was a
Navig
able
Wate
rway.
Letter
from
M
an
itoba
advis
ing
the B
PF
N tha
t th
e
Reed R
iver
is a
N
avig
able
W
ate
rwa
y a
nd
bed n
ot availa
ble
fo
r sele
ction f
or
Reserv
e.
Report
entitled
“H
isto
ric U
ses o
f th
e R
eed
Riv
er
–
Lake o
f th
e
Woods.”
This
issue w
as r
esolv
ed
thro
ugh d
iscu
ssio
n o
f th
e
part
ies. In s
upport
of
those
dis
cussio
ns, C
anada h
ad
als
o p
rovid
ed a
report
entitled “
His
toric U
ses o
f th
e
Reed R
iver
– L
ake o
f th
e
Woods.”
T
he a
ffecte
d
pro
pert
y (
form
erly k
no
wn
as
Gould
’s P
oin
t) w
as s
et apart
as R
eserv
e o
n M
arc
h 1
4,
2005.
1999-R
RF
N-0
04
Rolli
ng R
iver
First
Nation
RE
: C
ert
ain
S
ele
ctions
9/1
9/1
99
9
1.0
1(1
05),
3
.11,
6.0
2(7
) 13.0
5
Definitio
ns a
nd
Inte
rpre
tation
, D
efined
Word
s a
nd P
hra
ses,
Undevelo
ped R
oad
Allo
wance; P
rincip
les
for
Land S
ele
ction a
nd
A
cquis
itio
n, R
efe
rence
of
Ma
tters
to the
Imple
menta
tion
Mon
itoring C
om
mitte
e;
Land S
ele
ction a
nd
Acquis
itio
n P
rocess,
Pro
cess for
La
nd
Sele
ction
and
Acquis
itio
n; R
oads,
Hig
hw
ays a
nd A
irp
ort
s,
Undevelo
ped R
oad
Allo
wances
ISS
UE
: T
he R
olli
ng R
iver
First N
ation
(RR
FN
) alle
ged that
Man
itoba identified
an
Un
deve
loped R
oad A
llow
ance a
ffecting c
ert
ain
S
ele
ctions a
consid
era
ble
tim
e a
fter
Man
itoba
re
sponded to the
RR
FN
that th
e S
ele
ctions w
ere
elig
ible
for
Sele
ction u
nd
er
Subsection 6
.02(7
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: O
n S
epte
mber
19, 2001, th
e
RR
FN
refe
rred th
e m
atte
r to
the IM
C u
nder
Sectio
n
3.1
1, id
entify
ing the
availa
bili
ty o
f th
e g
overn
me
nt
road a
llow
ance loca
ted b
etw
een the (
SE
22-1
9-
18W
PM
) and the (
SW
23 –
19 –
18 W
PM
). T
o b
e
set apart
as r
eserv
e a
s a
n issue.
Docum
en
ts
refe
rred to in the
RR
FN
Le
tter
to
the IM
C o
n
Septe
mber
19,
2001, such a
s the
June 1
4, 2000
re
sponse to the
RR
FN
fro
m
Man
itoba
.
Dis
cussio
ns b
etw
een
M
an
itoba
and R
olli
ng
Riv
er
First N
ation led to a
re
solu
tion in
whic
h the
govern
ment ro
ad a
llow
ance
at is
sue w
as m
ade
availa
ble
. T
he s
ele
ction
s,
inclu
din
g the U
ndevelo
ped
Road R
OW
were
set apa
rt
as R
eserv
e M
ay 9
, 2005.
2001-
RR
FN
-0
01
LIS
T O
F H
IST
OR
IC IS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
S IN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
- 2
- o
f -
18
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
R
E:
Re
ferr
al
Date
M
FA
S
ecti
on
s
MF
A H
ead
ing
s
Gen
era
l Is
su
e / B
ackg
rou
nd
M
issin
g
Do
cu
men
ts
Mean
s o
f R
eso
luti
on
O
ther
Rela
ted
F
iles
1999-M
CC
N-0
05
Ma
thia
s C
olo
mb
C
ree N
ation
RE
: N
on
tra
nsfe
r of
Federa
l P
aym
en
t to
M
CC
N T
LE
Tru
st
11/2
9/1
999
18.0
1,
36.0
1,
40.2
0(4
)
Federa
l P
aym
ent,
Paym
en
t of
Federa
l P
aym
en
t; M
ate
rial
Failu
re a
nd E
vents
of
Defa
ult, M
ate
rial F
ailu
re
to C
om
ply
with
F
undam
en
tal T
erm
or
Conditio
n;
Mis
cella
neous
Pro
vis
ions, E
ffect of
Am
alg
am
ation a
nd
C
reation o
f F
irst
Nations
ISS
UE
: O
n A
ugust 4, 19
99, C
anada
advis
ed the
Math
ias C
olo
mb C
ree N
ation (
MC
CN
) th
at th
e
conditio
ns in S
ubsection 4
0.2
0(4
) had to b
e
satisfied, in
additio
n to
th
e c
onditio
n p
recedent se
t in
S
ection 3
0.0
2, prior
to th
e p
art
ies e
xecutin
g a
TE
A
with M
CC
N a
nd m
ore
pre
cis
ely
, prior
to C
anada
executing that agre
em
en
t. O
n N
ovem
ber
29, 199
9,
the M
CC
N r
efe
rred that m
atter
to the I
MC
alle
gin
g
that C
anada h
ad m
ate
ria
lly f
aile
d to
co
mply
with
a
fundam
enta
l conditio
n o
f b
oth
the M
FA
and
the
TE
A
by e
xecuting the T
EA
on
April 15
, 1999
bu
t not
transfe
rrin
g the F
edera
l P
aym
en
t to
the M
CC
N T
LE
T
rust. T
he M
CC
N a
lso
alle
ged that C
anada
behaved in a
n inappro
priate
manner
by c
reating t
he
Marc
el C
olo
mb
First N
ation d
uri
ng the
execu
tion
phase o
f th
e T
EA
, a
s w
ell
as o
vert
urn
ing the e
lectio
n
of
all
councilo
rs in J
uly
, 1
999.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: D
iscussio
ns b
etw
een
the M
CC
N
and the M
arc
el C
olo
mb F
irst N
ation o
ccurr
ed
re
gard
ing th
e p
reven
tion o
f th
e a
llocation
of
the T
LE
assets
until S
ep
tem
ber
27, 2000 w
hen the
MC
CN
re
ferr
ed the m
atter
of
allo
cation to the
IM
C.
T
he m
atter
was r
esolv
ed b
y
the M
ed
iate
d S
ettle
men
t A
gre
em
ent date
d M
arc
h
24
th, 2003. P
urs
uant to
the
Med
iate
d S
ettle
men
t A
gre
em
ent, the M
CC
N
sig
ned a
ne
w T
EA
on
Octo
ber
1, 2003
,
2000-
MC
CN
-0
02,
2001-
CA
NA
DA
-004,
2002-
MC
CN
/ T
LE
C-
001
2000-C
AN
AD
A-
001
Canada / T
LE
C
RE
: G
ST
R
em
issio
n O
rder
3/1
0/2
00
0
36.0
1,
37.0
1
Mate
rial F
ailu
re a
nd
E
vents
of
Defa
ult,
Mate
rial F
ailu
re to
Com
ply
with
Fundam
en
tal T
erm
or
Conditio
n; T
axa
tion,
Goods a
nd S
erv
ices
Tax
ISS
UE
: O
n F
ebru
ary
11
, 2000, C
anada r
eceiv
ed a
notice f
rom
TLE
C in
accord
ance w
ith S
ubse
ction
36.0
1(1
) alle
gin
g a
ma
terial fa
ilure
to c
om
ply
with a
fu
ndam
enta
l te
rm o
r con
ditio
n o
f th
e M
FA
. O
n
Marc
h 1
0, 2000, C
anada
refe
rred the m
atter
to the
IMC
in a
ccord
ance w
ith P
ara
gra
ph 3
6.0
1(2
) (b
).
The T
LE
C a
ssert
ed that
Canada h
ad faile
d to
com
ply
with S
ection
37.0
1 in f
aili
ng to issu
e the
GS
T
Re
mis
sio
n O
rder.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: B
arr
y E
ffle
r w
as a
ppoin
ted a
s
adju
dic
ato
r fo
r th
e b
indin
g a
rbitra
tion
.
O
n D
ece
mber
13
, 2000,
Canada issued the
GS
T
Rem
issio
n O
rde
r (P
.C.
2000-1
767)
to the T
LE
C a
nd
a C
onsen
t A
ward
was
sig
ned D
ece
mber
28
th, 2001
by the a
dju
dic
ato
r.
LIS
T O
F H
IST
OR
IC IS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
S IN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
- 3
- o
f -
18
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
R
E:
Re
ferr
al
Date
M
FA
S
ecti
on
s
MF
A H
ead
ing
s
Gen
era
l Is
su
e / B
ackg
rou
nd
M
issin
g
Do
cu
men
ts
Mean
s o
f R
eso
luti
on
O
ther
Rela
ted
F
iles
2000-M
CC
N-0
02
Ma
thia
s C
olo
mb
C
ree N
ation
/
Marc
el C
olo
mb
F
irst N
ation
RE
: A
llocation o
f T
LE
land and
F
edera
l P
aym
ents
betw
een M
CC
N
and M
CF
N
9/2
7/2
00
0
1.0
1(2
3),
4
0.2
0
Definitio
n a
nd
Inte
rpre
tation
, D
efined
Word
s a
nd P
hra
ses,
Date
of
Execution;
Mis
cella
neous
Pro
vis
ions, E
ffect of
Am
alg
am
ation a
nd
C
reation o
f F
irst
Nations
ISS
UE
: O
n S
epte
mbe
r 2
7, 2000, th
e M
ath
ias
Colo
mb C
ree N
ation (M
CC
N)
requeste
d the
assis
tance o
f th
e IM
C in
resolv
ing the q
uestion
concern
ing the a
llocation
of
the T
LE
land a
nd
Federa
l paym
en
ts b
etw
een the M
CC
N a
nd the n
ew
M
arc
el C
olo
mb
First N
ation
(MC
FN
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: O
n N
ovem
ber
15, 2000
, th
e T
AR
R
Ce
ntr
e w
as a
ppoin
ted b
y the I
MC
as a
n independ
ent
fact finder
to iden
tify
rele
vant date
s a
nd p
opula
tio
ns
of
the r
espective E
FN
s. T
he p
art
ies a
gre
ed to
th
e
fact finder’s r
eport
date
d D
ecem
ber
4, 2000
, on
th
e
recom
mended a
llocation
of th
e T
LA
and F
edera
l P
aym
ents
be
tween the M
CC
N a
nd
the M
CF
N.
O
n A
ugust 23, 200
1, th
e
MC
CN
withdre
w its
re
fere
nce to the
IM
C in
regard
s to the r
esolu
tion o
f th
e a
lloca
tion
of
TLE
assets
betw
een M
CC
N a
nd M
CF
N.
1999-
MC
CN
-0
05,
2001-
CA
NA
DA
-004,
2002-
MC
CN
/ T
LE
C-
001
2001-R
RF
N-0
01
Rolli
ng R
iver
First
Nation
RE
: E
xte
nsio
n o
f C
row
n L
an
d
Sele
ction T
ime
Perio
d
3/2
6/2
00
1
4.0
2,
4.0
2(1
)
Periods o
f S
ele
ctio
n
and A
cquis
itio
n o
f Land, E
xte
nsio
n o
f P
eriods
ISS
UE
: O
n M
arc
h 2
6, 20
01, th
e R
olli
ng
Riv
er
First
Na
tion (
RR
FN
) re
queste
d a
6 m
onth
exte
nsio
n to its
C
row
n L
and S
ele
ction p
eri
od u
nder
Subsection
4.0
2.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: T
he R
RF
N a
lleged it w
as u
nable
to
Sele
ct
its land w
ith
in the P
eriod o
f S
ele
ction d
ue
to e
xte
nded
dis
cussio
ns w
ith M
anitoba r
egard
ing
the
elig
ibili
ty o
f th
eir S
ele
ctio
ns.
After
the s
ettin
g a
part
as R
eserv
e o
f th
e S
ele
ctio
n a
t is
sue in f
ile 1
999-R
RF
N, th
e R
RF
N w
ould
have o
nly
5.7
acre
s o
f its C
row
n L
and A
mount to
Sele
ct.
Pla
n fro
m R
RF
N,
Letter
from
IM
C to
RR
FN
re the
IMC
’s d
ecis
ion
on
the R
RF
N’s
exte
nsio
n r
equest.
Decis
ion o
f th
e
IMC
is n
ot on
file
.
At th
e A
pril 2, 2001 I
MC
m
ee
ting
, a
decis
ion w
as
made
tha
t IM
C w
ould
wri
te
to C
anada
/Manitoba a
nd
ask f
or
their c
om
ments
on
this
matter.
A
t th
e M
ay 8
, 2001 IM
C m
ee
ting
, th
e
min
ute
s r
ecord
tha
t IM
C h
as
exte
nded
the
La
nd S
ele
ction
period u
nder
4.0
2(4
) subje
ct
to a
de
taile
d p
lan
bein
g
subm
itte
d, “t
hat
will
pro
vid
e
a B
CR
for
the r
oad
allo
wances they w
ish
to
purc
hase
to a
ccom
moda
te
their
acre
age s
ele
ction
dis
cre
pancy.”
1999-
RR
FN
-0
04
LIS
T O
F H
IST
OR
IC IS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
S IN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
- 4
- o
f -
18
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
R
E:
Refe
rral
Da
te
MF
A
Secti
on
s
MF
A H
ead
ing
s
Gen
era
l Is
su
e / B
ackg
rou
nd
M
issin
g
Do
cu
men
ts
Mean
s o
f R
eso
luti
on
O
the
r R
ela
ted
F
iles
2001-N
CN
-002
Nis
icha
wa
yasih
k
Cre
e N
ation
RE
: E
xte
nsio
n o
f C
row
n L
an
d
Sele
ction T
ime
Perio
d
7/1
8/2
00
1
4.0
2,
4.0
2(1
),
4.0
2(2
),
4.0
2(4
),
4.0
2(6
)
Periods o
f S
ele
ctio
n
and A
cquis
itio
n o
f Land,
Exte
nsio
n o
f P
eriods
ISS
UE
: O
n J
uly
18, 2001
, th
e N
isic
ha
wayasih
k C
ree
Na
tion (
NC
N)
reque
ste
d a
n e
xte
nsio
n o
f its C
row
n
Land S
ele
ction p
eriod u
nder
Subsections 4
.02(2
) and 4
.02(6
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: T
he N
CN
alle
ged it w
as u
nable
to
Sele
ct its land w
ithin
the P
eriod o
f S
ele
ction d
ue t
o
the f
ailu
re o
f C
anada a
nd M
anitoba to f
ulfill
the
ir
respective o
blig
ations u
nder
the M
FA
.
IMC
re
ceiv
ed r
espo
nses fro
m C
anada a
nd M
an
ito
ba
and a
gre
ed to a
land
sele
ction e
xte
nsio
n u
nde
r 4.0
2(3
) at m
ee
ting o
n S
epte
mber
20, 2001.
On N
ovem
ber
2, 2001, th
e IM
C d
ecid
ed it
would
be
more
appro
priate
to
consid
er
the P
eriod o
f S
ele
ction
purs
uant to
Subsection 4
.02(4
).
Response letter
from
the
IM
C to
the N
CN
’s letter
date
d J
uly
4,
2003; in
whic
h a
fu
rther
exte
nsio
n
till
June
11
, 2004
w
as r
equeste
d.
(January
19, 2004
mee
ting
note
s
indic
ate
th
at th
e
IMC
Ch
airpers
on
was to s
end
re
sponse s
tating
that a
ll C
row
n
land h
as b
een
sele
cte
d a
nd
there
fore
the
exte
nsio
n is n
ot
necessary
.)
On J
anuary
31, 2002
, th
e
IMC
decid
ed to e
xte
nd th
e
Pe
riod o
f S
ele
ction f
or
the
NC
N f
or
up to tw
o a
dditio
na
l 1 y
ear
periods to J
uly
30
, 2003 p
urs
uant to
S
ubsections 4
.02(4
) to
accom
moda
te the c
reation
of
O-P
ipon-N
a-P
iwin
(S
outh
In
dia
n L
ake)
conditio
nal
upon the N
CN
subm
itting a
deta
iled
pla
n o
f th
e
rem
ain
der
of its C
row
n L
and
Am
ount w
ith
in 1
20 d
ays.
On M
ay 1
0, 2002 (
revis
ed
Se
pte
mber
13, 2003),
th
e
NC
N s
ub
mitte
d a
pla
n to
the
IMC
.
LIS
T O
F H
IST
OR
IC IS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
S IN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
- 5
- o
f -
18
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
R
E:
Refe
rral
Date
M
FA
S
ecti
on
s
MF
A H
ead
ing
s
Gen
era
l Is
su
e /
Backg
rou
nd
M
issin
g
Do
cu
men
ts
Mean
s o
f R
es
olu
tio
n
Oth
er
Rela
ted
F
iles
2001-S
CN
-003
S
apota
weyak
Cre
e N
ation
RE
: E
xte
nsio
n o
f C
row
n L
and
S
ele
ction
T
ime
Period
8/1
6/2
00
1
4.0
2,
4.0
2(1
),
4.0
2(6
),
4.0
2(7
)
Periods o
f S
ele
ction
and A
cquis
itio
n o
f Land, E
xte
nsio
n o
f P
eriods
ISS
UE
: O
n A
ugust 16, 2
001, th
e S
apota
weyak
Cre
e N
ation
(S
CN
) re
queste
d a
n e
xte
nsio
n o
f its
Cro
wn L
and
Sele
ction p
eriod u
nder
Subsection
4.0
2(1
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: T
he S
CN
alle
ged it w
as u
nable
to
Sele
ct its land w
ith
in the P
eriod o
f S
ele
ction d
ue to
th
e f
ailu
re o
f C
anada to fulfill
its
oblig
ations u
nder
the M
FA
, in
part
icula
r, the S
CN
advis
ed tha
t th
e
Daw
son
Bay S
ele
ction
had b
een r
eje
cte
d b
y
Canada’s
Additio
ns to R
eserv
e C
om
mitte
e.
Letter
date
d
Febru
ary
1, 2002
fr
om
the IM
C to
SC
N r
e the
ir
request fo
r exte
nsio
n o
f period r
efe
rred to
in
Marc
h 1
4,
2002 letter
from
C
anada to
the
IMC
. (N
OT
E: T
his
may
be the J
anuary
31, 2002 letter
from
IM
C.)
On N
ovem
ber
2, 2001, th
e
IMC
decid
ed to g
rant a
re
asonable
exte
nsio
n to
the
Period o
f S
ele
ction f
or
the
SC
N p
urs
uant to
S
ubsection 4
.02(6
) and (
7).
O
n J
anuary
31
, 2002
, th
e
IMC
info
rmed the
SC
N o
f its d
ecis
ion.
2002-
SC
N-0
08
2001-C
AN
AD
A-
004
Canada
/ M
ath
ias
Colo
mb C
ree
Nation
RE
: D
ate
of
Execution o
f M
CC
N T
EA
8/3
0/2
00
1
1.0
1(2
3),
30.0
3
Definitio
ns a
nd
In
terp
reta
tion
, D
efined
Word
s a
nd P
hra
ses,
Date
of
Execution;
Com
ing into
Forc
e,
Effe
ctive D
ate
of
Execution o
f A
gre
em
ent
ISS
UE
: O
n S
epte
mber
19, 2001, C
anada r
equeste
d
the a
ssis
tance
of
the IM
C in r
esolv
ing the
question
concern
ing the D
ate
of
Execution o
f th
e M
ath
ias
Co
lom
b C
ree N
ation’s
(M
CC
N)
TE
A.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: O
n A
ugust 4, 1999, C
anada
advis
ed
the M
CC
N, th
at
the c
onditio
ns in
Subsection 4
0.2
0(4
) had
to b
e s
atisfied, in
additio
n
to the c
onditio
n p
recede
nt set in
Section
30.0
2, p
rior
to the p
art
ies e
xecu
ting a
TE
A w
ith
MC
CN
and
mo
re
pre
cis
ely
, prior
to C
anad
a e
xecu
ting that a
gre
em
ent.
On M
ay 1
5, 2002
, th
e issue w
as r
efe
rred to the S
AC
purs
uant to
Subsection 3
4.0
9(8
) and o
n J
uly
25
, 2002, th
e S
AC
re
ferr
ed the m
atter
back to
the
IM
C
purs
uant to
Subsection 3
4.1
0(6
). In
Septe
mber,
2002, th
e IM
C a
ppo
inte
d L
aw
rie C
hern
iack a
s
adju
dic
ato
r fo
r m
edia
tion
.
R
esolv
ed c
oncurr
ent w
ith
the R
ela
ted R
efe
rral 2002
MC
CN
/TLE
C-
001.
1999-
MC
CN
-0
05,
200
0-
MC
CN
-0
02,
2002-
MC
CN
/ T
LE
C-
001
LIS
T O
F H
IST
OR
IC IS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
S IN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
- 6
- o
f -
18
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
R
E:
Refe
rral
Date
M
FA
S
ecti
on
s
MF
A H
ead
ing
s
Gen
era
l Is
su
e / B
ackg
rou
nd
M
issin
g
Do
cu
men
ts
Mean
s o
f R
eso
luti
on
O
the
r R
ela
ted
F
iles
2001-N
HC
N-0
05
Norw
ay H
ouse
C
ree N
ation
RE
: E
xte
nsio
n o
f C
row
n L
an
d
Sele
ction T
ime
Perio
d
10/2
9/2
00
1
4.0
2,
4.0
2(1
),
4.0
2(4
)
Periods o
f S
ele
ction
and A
cquis
itio
n o
f Land,
Exte
nsio
n o
f P
eriods
ISS
UE
: O
n O
cto
ber
29
, 2001, th
e N
orw
ay H
ouse
C
ree N
ation
(N
HC
N)
requeste
d a
n e
xte
nsio
n o
f its
Cro
wn L
and
Sele
ction p
eriod.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: T
he N
HC
N d
id n
ot pro
vid
e a
re
ason for
its inabili
ty to S
ele
ct w
ith
in the P
eri
od o
f S
ele
ction
. O
n F
ebru
ary
1, 2002,
the
IM
C d
ecid
ed
and info
rmed the N
HC
N that ra
ther
than a
ddre
ssin
g
the r
eq
uest under
4.0
2(1
), C
anada a
nd M
anito
ba
have a
gre
ed to c
onsid
er
refe
rrin
g m
atter
under
4.0
2(3
). If
Canada
or
Manitoba r
efe
r th
e m
atter
under
4.0
2(3
), then N
HC
N n
eeds to
develo
p a
nd
subm
it a
pla
n a
s p
er
4.0
2(4
). O
n F
ebru
ary
8, 20
02,
Man
itoba
refe
rred the m
atter
under
4.0
2(3
).
R
efe
rral 2001-N
HC
N-0
05
was r
epla
ced
by R
efe
rral
2002
-Manitoba-0
06.
2002-
Man
itob
a-0
06
2002-
MC
CN
/TL
EC
-001
Ma
thia
s C
olo
mb
C
ree N
ation
/
TLE
C
RE
: D
ate
of
Execution o
f M
CC
N T
EA
1/1
6/2
00
2
1.0
1(2
3),
30.0
3,
40.2
0(4
)
Definitio
ns a
nd
Inte
rpre
tation, D
efined
Word
s a
nd p
hra
ses;
Date
of E
xecution;
Co
min
g into
Forc
e,
Eff
ective D
ate
of
Tre
aty
En
titlem
en
t A
gre
em
ent;
Mis
cella
neous
Pro
vis
ions, E
ffect of
Am
alg
am
ation a
nd
C
reation o
f F
irst
Nations
ISS
UE
: O
n J
anuary
16
, 2002, th
e M
CC
N a
nd
TLE
C
requeste
d the a
ssis
tance
of
the IM
C in
resolv
ing
the q
uestion c
oncern
ing the D
ate
of
Execution o
f th
e M
CC
N’s
TE
A.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: O
n M
ay 1
5, 2002
, th
e issue w
as
refe
rred to the S
AC
purs
uant to
Subsection
34.0
9(8
) an
d o
n J
uly
25
, 2002, th
e S
AC
refe
rred
the m
atter
back to the I
MC
purs
uant to
Subsectio
n
34.1
0(6
). In
Septe
mber,
2002, th
e IM
C a
ppo
inte
d
Law
rie
Chern
iack a
s a
dju
dic
ato
r fo
r m
edia
tion.
T
he T
LA
and F
edera
l P
aym
en
t a
llocation m
atter
was r
esolv
ed b
y the
M
ed
iate
d S
ettle
men
t A
gre
em
ent date
d M
arc
h
24
th, 2
003. P
urs
uant to
the
Med
iate
d S
ettle
men
t A
gre
em
ent, the M
CC
N
sig
ned a
ne
w T
EA
on
Octo
ber
1, 2003
.
1999-
MC
CN
-005,
2000-
MC
CN
-002,
2001-
CA
NA
DA
-004
LIS
T O
F H
IST
OR
IC IS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
S IN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
- 7
- o
f -
18
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
R
E:
Refe
rral
Date
M
FA
S
ecti
on
s
MF
A H
ead
ing
s
Gen
era
l Is
su
e / B
ackg
rou
nd
M
issin
g
Do
cu
men
ts
Mean
s o
f R
eso
luti
on
O
the
r R
ela
ted
F
iles
2002-B
CN
-002
Bunib
onib
ee
Cre
e N
ation
RE
: E
xte
nsio
n o
f C
row
n L
and
S
ele
ction
T
ime
Period
1/2
8/2
00
2
4.0
2,
4.0
2(1
),
4.0
2(4
)
Periods o
f S
ele
ction
and A
cquis
itio
n o
f L
and, E
xte
nsio
n o
f P
eriods
ISS
UE
: O
n J
anuary
28
, 2002, th
e B
unib
on
ibee
Cre
e N
ation
(B
CN
) re
queste
d a
n e
xte
nsio
n o
f its
Cro
wn L
and
Sele
ction p
eriod u
nder
Subsection
4.0
2(1
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: T
he B
CN
alle
ged
it w
as u
nable
to
S
ele
ct its land w
ith
in the P
eriod o
f S
ele
ction
because the B
CN
did
not have s
uff
icie
nt tim
e to
confirm
Se
lections in the
am
ount of
its C
row
n L
and
A
mount th
at satisfied S
ele
ction o
bje
ctives
esta
blis
hed b
y the m
em
bers
of th
e B
CN
.
O
n J
anua
ry 3
1, 2
002
, th
e I
MC
dis
cussed th
e m
atter
and
agre
ed th
at it w
ou
ld b
e
pre
fera
ble
if
Man
ito
ba o
r C
ana
da r
efe
rre
d t
he m
atter
under
4.0
2(3
).
BC
N w
as
advis
ed b
y lett
er
date
d
January
31
, 2
00
2.
IM
C f
urt
her
advis
es th
at
it c
ou
ld t
hen
exte
nd t
he P
eri
od o
f S
ele
ction
purs
uant
to S
ubsection
4.0
2(4
).
Man
itob
a r
efe
rred
th
e m
atte
r un
de
r 4.0
2(3
) o
n
Febru
ary
8,
20
02
. R
efe
rral 20
02
-BC
N-0
02
wa
s
repla
ce
d b
y R
efe
rral 20
02-
Man
itob
a-0
04.
2002
-M
AN
ITO
BA
-0
04
2002-O
CN
-003
Opaskw
ayak
Cre
e N
ation
RE
: E
xte
nsio
n o
f C
row
n L
and
S
ele
ction
T
ime
Period
1/3
1/2
00
2
4.0
2,
4.0
2(1
),
4.0
2(4
)
Periods o
f S
ele
ction
and A
cquis
itio
n o
f L
and, E
xte
nsio
n o
f P
eriods
ISS
UE
: O
n J
anuary
31
, 2002, th
e O
paskw
aya
k
Cre
e N
ation
(O
CN
) re
queste
d a
n e
xte
nsio
n o
f its
Cro
wn L
and
Sele
ction p
eriod u
nder
Subsection
4.0
2(1
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: T
he O
CN
alle
ged it w
as u
nable
to
Sele
ct its land w
ith
in the P
eriod o
f S
ele
ction d
ue t
o
the lack o
f suitable
Cro
wn L
and w
ithin
reasonable
pro
xim
ity that
met
the
requirem
en
ts s
et ou
t in
the
M
FA
and the O
CN
’s o
wn c
rite
ria f
or
Sele
ction.
O
n J
anua
ry 3
1, 2
002
, th
e I
MC
dis
cussed th
e m
atter
and
agre
ed th
at it w
ou
ld b
e
pre
fera
ble
if
Man
ito
ba o
r C
ana
da r
efe
rre
d t
he m
atter
under
4.0
2(3
).
OC
N w
as
advis
ed b
y lett
er
date
d
January
31
, 2
00
2.
IM
C f
urt
her
advis
es th
at
it c
ou
ld t
hen
exte
nd t
he P
eri
od o
f S
ele
ction
purs
uant
to S
ubsection
4.0
2(4
).
Man
itob
a r
efe
rred
th
e m
atte
r un
de
r 4.0
2(3
) o
n
Febru
ary
8,
20
02
. R
efe
rral 20
02
-OC
N-0
03 w
as
repla
ce
d b
y R
efe
rral 20
02-
Man
itob
a-0
05.
2002
-M
AN
ITO
BA
-005
2003
-O
CN
-00
5
LIS
T O
F H
IST
OR
IC IS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
S IN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
- 8
- o
f -
18
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
R
E:
Refe
rral
Date
M
FA
S
ecti
on
s
MF
A H
ead
ing
s
Gen
era
l Is
su
e / B
ackg
rou
nd
M
issin
g
Do
cu
men
ts
Mean
s o
f R
eso
luti
on
O
the
r R
ela
ted
F
iles
2002-
MA
NIT
OB
A-0
04
Bunib
onib
ee
Cre
e N
ation
/
Man
itoba
RE
: E
xte
nsio
n o
f C
row
n L
and
S
ele
ction
T
ime
Period
8/2
/2002
4.0
2,
4.0
2(3
),
4.0
2(4
)
Periods o
f S
ele
ction
and A
cquis
itio
n o
f L
and, E
xte
nsio
n o
f P
eriods
ISS
UE
: O
n F
ebru
ary
8, 2002, in
response to a
re
quest fr
om
Bun
ibonib
ee C
ree N
ation (
BC
N)
for
an
exte
nsio
n to
the
ir land s
ele
ction p
eriod
, M
anitoba
re
ferr
ed the m
atter
to th
e IM
C u
nder
section
4.0
2(3
) of th
e M
FA
. B
AC
KG
RO
UN
D:
The s
ele
ction p
eriod
was to
expire o
n F
ebru
ary
17, 2
002, and a
s o
f F
ebru
ary
8,
2002 M
anitoba a
dvis
ed
that B
CN
had o
nly
sele
cte
d
1,2
77.3
1 a
cre
s a
nd 3
4,1
56.6
9 a
cre
s w
ere
yet to
be
sele
cte
d.
Ple
ase r
efe
r to
Refe
rral 2002-B
CN
-002 for
additio
nal deta
il.
Letter
refe
rred to
in F
ax d
ate
d
Marc
h 1
8, 2002
to IN
AC
fro
m the
IMC
Chairpers
on.
(A d
raft
letter
INA
C w
as to
send to B
CN
, N
HC
N a
nd
OC
N
by M
arc
h 5
, 2
002.)
F
ebru
ary
6, 2
003
letter
from
IM
C to
B
CN
.
On M
arc
h 1
, 2002, th
e IM
C
decid
ed to
exte
nd th
e
Period o
f S
ele
ction for
the
BC
N f
or
one y
ear
to
Febru
ary
17, 2003
purs
uant
to S
ubsection 4
.02(4
) up
on
conditio
n that th
e B
CN
develo
p a
deta
iled
pla
n f
or
the S
ele
ction
of th
e
rem
ain
der
of
its C
row
n
Land A
mount
within
12
0
days. O
n M
arc
h 2
1, 200
2,
the IM
C info
rmed the B
CN
of
its d
ecis
ion
. O
n A
pri
l 2
3,
2002, th
e B
CN
sub
mitte
d a
pla
n to
the
IM
C a
nd
at th
e
request of
the IM
C; th
e
BC
N s
ub
mitte
d a
more
deta
iled
pla
n o
n M
ay 2
9,
2002 to the I
MC
. O
n J
une
25, 2002 I
MC
acknow
ledged
receip
t an
d
confirm
ed the
exte
nsio
n
until F
ebru
ary
17, 2003. In
the IM
C F
ebru
ary
17, 20
03
mee
ting
min
ute
s, a s
eco
nd
one y
ear
exte
nsio
n is
dis
cussed a
long w
ith a
F
ebru
ary
6, 2003
letter
from
IM
C to B
CN
. I
MC
decid
es to e
xte
nd
for
one
additio
nal year
to F
ebru
ary
17, 2004.
2002-
BC
N-
002
LIS
T O
F H
IST
OR
IC IS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
S IN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
- 9
- o
f -
18
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
R
E:
Re
ferr
al
Da
te
MF
A
Secti
on
s
MF
A H
ead
ing
s
Gen
era
l Is
su
e / B
ackg
rou
nd
M
issin
g
Do
cu
men
ts
Mean
s o
f R
eso
luti
on
O
ther
Rela
ted
F
iles
2002-
MA
NIT
OB
A-0
05
Opaskw
ayak
Cre
e N
ation /
Man
itoba
RE
: E
xte
nsio
n o
f C
row
n L
an
d
Sele
ction T
ime
Perio
d
8/2
/2002
4.0
2,
4.0
2(3
),
4.0
2(4
)
Periods o
f S
ele
ction
and A
cquis
itio
n o
f L
and, E
xte
nsio
n o
f P
eriods
ISS
UE
: O
n F
ebru
ary
8, 2
002, in
consid
era
tion o
f a
request fr
om
OC
N, M
anitoba c
onfirm
ed its
vie
w th
at
the O
paskw
ayak C
ree N
ation (
OC
N)
had n
ot
Sele
cte
d its
Cro
wn
Land A
mount w
ith
in the P
eriod
of S
ele
ction
set ou
t in
Se
ction 4
.02, and
refe
rred
the m
atter
as p
er
4.0
2(3
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: O
n J
anuary
31, 2002, th
e
Opaskw
aya
k C
ree N
atio
n (
OC
N)
requeste
d a
n
exte
nsio
n o
f its C
row
n L
and S
ele
ction p
eriod u
nd
er
Subsection 4
.02(1
). T
he O
CN
alle
ged
it w
as
unable
to
Sele
ct its land
within
the
Period o
f S
ele
ction
due to
the
lack o
f suitab
le C
row
n L
and
within
reasonable
pro
xim
ity that
met th
e
requirem
ents
se
t ou
t in
the M
FA
and
the
OC
N’s
ow
n c
rite
ria fo
r S
ele
ction.
Letter
refe
rred to
in F
ax d
ate
d
Marc
h 1
8, 2002 to
INA
C f
rom
the
IMC
Chairpe
rson.
(A d
raft letter
INA
C w
as to
send
to B
CN
, N
HC
N,
and O
CN
by
Marc
h 5
, 2002
.)
On M
arc
h 2
1, 2
00
2 I
MC
ad
vis
ed
OC
N that
exte
nsio
n f
or
1 y
ear
until Jan
uary
22
, 20
03
was
appro
ve
d s
ubje
ct to
su
bm
issio
n
of a p
lan. O
n J
uly
22
, 2
002
, th
e
OC
N s
ubm
itte
d a
pla
n t
o th
e I
MC
as p
er
4.0
2(4
).
On S
epte
mber
17,
20
02
, th
e I
MC
in
form
ed t
he O
CN
tha
t it
appe
are
d u
nn
ecessary
fo
r th
e
IMC
to
gra
nt an
exte
nsio
n o
f th
e
Peri
od o
f S
ele
ctio
n a
t th
is t
ime
because t
he O
CN
had
actu
ally
sele
cte
d its
Land
with
in th
e 3
ye
ar
peri
od p
rovid
ed
un
der
the
MF
A. I
f sele
ctio
ns a
re late
r w
ith
dra
wn,
IMC
can
consid
er
aga
in a
t th
at tim
e a
s p
er
4.0
2(6
) &
(7).
200
2-
OC
N-0
03
200
3-
OC
N-0
05
LIS
T O
F H
IST
OR
IC IS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
S IN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
- 1
0 -
of
- 1
8
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
R
E:
Refe
rral
Date
M
FA
S
ecti
on
s
MF
A H
ead
ing
s
Gen
era
l Is
su
e / B
ackg
rou
nd
M
issin
g
Do
cu
men
ts
Mean
s o
f R
es
olu
tio
n
Oth
er
Rela
ted
F
iles
2002-
MA
NIT
OB
A-0
06
Norw
ay H
ouse
C
ree N
ation /
Man
itoba
RE
: E
xte
nsio
n o
f C
row
n L
an
d
Sele
ction T
ime
Perio
d
8/2
/2002
4.0
2,
4.0
2(3
),
4.0
2(4
)
Periods o
f S
ele
ctio
n
and A
cquis
itio
n o
f Land,
Exte
nsio
n o
f P
eriods
ISS
UE
: O
n F
ebru
ary
8, 2
002, M
anitoba in
consid
era
tion o
f a r
equest fr
om
NH
CN
, confirm
ed its
vie
w that th
e N
orw
ay H
ouse C
ree N
ation
(N
HC
N)
had n
ot se
lecte
d its
Cro
wn L
and A
mount w
ithin
the
Period o
f S
ele
ction, and r
efe
rred the m
atter
to IM
C
under
section 4
.02(3
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: P
lease r
efe
r to
Refe
rral 2001-
NH
CN
-005 f
or
additio
nal in
form
ation.
Lette
r re
ferr
ed to
in F
ax d
ate
d
Marc
h 1
8, 2002 to
INA
C f
rom
the
IMC
Ch
airpers
on.
(A d
raft letter
INA
C w
as to
sen
d
to B
CN
, N
HC
N,
and O
CN
by
Marc
h 5
, 2002
.)
NO
TE
: T
he IM
C
annual R
eport
for
ye
ars
endin
g
Marc
h, 2002,
2003, and 2
004
sta
tes that th
e
NH
CN
land
sele
ction
exte
nsio
n w
as f
or
two 1
year
periods?
On M
arc
h 2
1, 2002, th
e IM
C
wro
te to
NH
CN
and a
dvis
ed
that at a IM
C m
eeting
on
M
arc
h 1
, 2002
it
was
decid
ed to
exte
nd the
Pe
riod o
f S
ele
ction f
or
NH
CN
for
one y
ear
to
Novem
ber
12, 2002
purs
uant to
Subsection
4.0
2(4
) upon c
onditio
n th
at
the N
HC
N d
evelo
p a
deta
iled
pla
n f
or
the
S
ele
ction
of
the r
em
ain
der
of
its C
row
n L
and
Am
ount
within
120 d
ays. O
n M
ay
10, 2002, th
e N
HC
N
subm
itte
d a
pla
n to the IM
C.
2001-
NH
CN
-0
05
LIS
T O
F H
IST
OR
IC IS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
S IN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
- 1
1 -
of
- 1
8
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
R
E:
Refe
rral
Date
M
FA
S
ecti
on
s
MF
A H
ead
ing
s
Gen
era
l Is
su
e / B
ackg
rou
nd
M
issin
g
Do
cu
men
ts
Mean
s o
f R
es
olu
tio
n
Oth
er
Rela
ted
F
iles
2002-B
LF
N-0
07
Barr
en L
ands
Fir
st N
ation /
Canada
R
E: E
xte
nsio
n o
f C
row
n L
an
d
Sele
ction T
ime
Perio
d
9/1
3/2
00
2
4.0
2(1
),
9.0
1-9
.04
Periods o
f S
ele
ctio
n
and A
cquis
itio
n o
f Land,
Exte
nsio
n o
f P
eriods;
Land in S
evera
lty, Land
O
uts
ide M
anitoba a
nd
Land o
f C
ultura
l and
His
torical S
ignific
ance
in E
xis
ting P
rovin
cia
l P
ark
s, ecolo
gic
al
Reserv
es, W
ildlif
e
Refu
ges a
nd N
ationa
l P
ark
s, Land in
S
evera
lty
ISS
UE
: O
n S
epte
mber
13, 2002, th
e B
arr
en L
ands
First N
ation (
BLF
N)
requeste
d a
n e
xte
nsio
n o
f its
Cro
wn L
and S
ele
ction p
eri
od u
nder
Subsection
4.0
2(1
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: T
he B
LF
N a
lleged it w
as u
na
ble
to
Sele
ct
its land w
ith
in the P
eriod o
f S
ele
ction d
ue
to C
anada’s
dela
y in f
inaliz
ing its
polic
y o
n L
and in
Severa
lty a
nd e
nte
r in
to d
iscussio
ns w
ith
the
BLF
N
in that re
gard
.
O
n O
cto
ber
23, 2002
, th
e
IMC
decid
ed that th
e B
LF
N
was g
rante
d a
one y
ear
exte
nsio
n to O
cto
ber
23,
2003 f
or
the p
urp
ose o
f allo
win
g C
anada to f
inaliz
e
its p
ositio
n a
nd p
olic
y o
n
Land in S
evera
lty (
LIS
).
In
additio
n, th
at th
e B
LF
N
Pe
riod o
f S
ele
ction w
ou
ld b
e
exte
nded
for
an a
dditio
nal
thre
e y
ear
period
aft
er
the
date
Canada a
ffirm
s its
LIS
polic
y. In
a le
tter
date
d
Febru
ary
6, 2003,
the IM
C
info
rmed the B
LF
N o
f its
decis
ion. O
n J
une 2
2, 2
005
the IM
C C
hairpers
on w
rote
to
BLF
N a
nd a
dvis
ed tha
t C
ana
da h
as n
ot co
mple
ted
its p
olic
y o
n L
IS a
nd
there
fore
the e
xte
nsio
n h
as
not yet co
mm
enced. T
he
thre
e y
ear
exte
nsio
n w
ill
com
mence o
nce the issu
es
surr
oun
din
g s
evera
lty a
re
resolv
ed..
2004-
BLF
N-
002
LIS
T O
F H
IST
OR
IC IS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
S IN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
- 1
2 -
of
- 1
8
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
R
E:
Refe
rral
Date
M
FA
S
ecti
on
s
MF
A H
ead
ing
s
Gen
era
l Is
su
e / B
ackg
rou
nd
M
issin
g
Do
cu
men
ts
Mean
s o
f R
es
olu
tio
n
Oth
er
Rela
ted
F
iles
2002-S
CN
-008
Sapo
taw
eyak
Cre
e N
ation
RE
: E
xte
nsio
n o
f C
row
n L
an
d
Sele
ction T
ime
Perio
d
9/3
0/2
00
2
4.0
2,
4.0
2(1
)
Periods o
f S
ele
ctio
n
and A
cquis
itio
n o
f Land,
Exte
nsio
n o
f P
eriods
ISS
UE
: O
n S
epte
mber
30, 2002, th
e S
apota
we
ya
k
Cre
e N
ation
(S
CN
) re
queste
d a
second e
xte
nsio
n to
its C
row
n L
and S
ele
ction
period u
nder
Subsection
4.0
2(1
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: T
he S
CN
alle
ged it w
as u
nable
to
Sele
ct its land w
ithin
the f
irst one y
ear
exte
nsio
n t
o
their p
eriod o
f S
ele
ction
due to the
failu
re o
f C
an
ada
to f
ulfill
its
oblig
ations u
nder
the M
FA
.
Lette
r w
ith I
MC
’s
response to S
CN
re
their r
equest fo
r exte
nsio
n o
f period.
On F
ebru
ary
17
, 2003, th
e
IMC
met and d
ecid
ed
that it
appeare
d u
nnecessary
for
the IM
C to g
rant a s
econ
d
exte
nsio
n to the P
eriod o
f S
ele
ction
at th
is tim
e,
because the S
CN
had
actu
ally
sele
cte
d m
ore
th
an
its tota
l C
row
n L
and A
mount
under
the M
FA
. In
2003
, th
e
IMC
info
rmed the S
CN
of
its
decis
ion.
2001-
SC
N-0
03
2003-I
MC
-003
Nort
hla
nds F
irst
Nation / I
MC
/
Canada
R
E: E
xte
nsio
n o
f C
row
n L
an
d
Sele
ction T
ime
Perio
d
6/2
/2003
4.0
2,
9.0
1-9
.04
Periods o
f S
ele
ctio
n
and A
cquis
itio
n o
f Land,
Exte
nsio
n o
f periods;
Land in S
evera
lty, Land
O
uts
ide o
f M
anitoba
and L
and o
f C
ultura
l and H
isto
rical
Sig
nific
ance in E
xis
ting
Pro
vin
cia
l P
ark
s,
Ecolo
gic
al R
ese
rves,
Wild
life R
efu
ges a
nd
National P
ark
s, Land in
Severa
lty
ISS
UE
: O
n F
ebru
ary
6, 20
03, th
e IM
C o
ffere
d to
exte
nd
the
Nort
hla
nds F
irst N
ation
(N
FN
) P
eriod o
f S
ele
ction
in lig
ht of
the fact th
at C
ana
da h
ad n
ot yet
ente
red into
dis
cussio
ns w
ith the N
FN
’s m
em
bers
re
gard
ing th
e land
in S
evera
lty issue p
er
Subsection
9.0
1(4
) and (
5).
T
his
wa
s n
ot a f
orm
al re
ferr
al.
Inste
ad, IM
C d
ecid
ed to
exte
nd
the
sam
e
accom
mo
dation
tha
t had
bee
n r
eached r
e B
LF
N
request fo
r exte
nsio
n, giv
en their s
imila
r circum
sta
nces.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: T
he IM
C o
ffere
d a
one y
ear
exte
nsio
n e
ffectiv
e fro
m O
cto
be
r 2
3, 2002
, and
once
Ca
nada fin
aliz
ed its
positio
n o
n s
evera
lty the N
FN
la
nd s
ele
ction p
eriod w
ould
be e
xte
nded f
or
an
additio
nal th
ree y
ear
peri
od.
Lette
r fr
om
IM
C
June 2
005.
(NO
TE
: S
imila
r to
th
e J
une 2
2, 200
5
letter
to B
LF
N)
On O
cto
ber
23, 2002
, th
e
IMC
decid
ed that th
e N
FN
w
as g
rante
d a
one y
ear
exte
nsio
n to O
cto
ber
23,
2003 f
or
the p
urp
ose o
f allo
win
g C
anada to f
inaliz
e
its p
olic
y/ d
iscussio
n p
ap
er
on L
and in
Severa
lty (
LIS
);
addin
g tha
t th
e N
FN
Peri
od
of
Sele
ction
would
be
exte
nded
for
an a
dditio
nal
thre
e y
ear
period
aft
er
its
LIS
Polic
y. In
a letter
date
d
Febru
ary
6, 2003
, th
e IM
C
info
rmed the N
FN
of
its
decis
ion.
2002-
BLF
N-
007
LIS
T O
F H
IST
OR
IC IS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
S IN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
- 1
3 -
of
- 1
8
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
R
E:
Refe
rral
Date
M
FA
S
ecti
on
s
MF
A H
ead
ing
s
Gen
era
l Is
su
e / B
ackg
rou
nd
M
issin
g
Do
cu
men
ts
Mean
s o
f R
eso
luti
on
O
the
r R
ela
ted
F
iles
2003-O
CN
-005
Opaskw
ayak
Cre
e N
ation
RE
: E
xte
nsio
n o
f C
row
n L
an
d
Sele
ction T
ime
Perio
d
12
/10
/20
03
4.0
2,
4.0
2(1
)
Periods o
f S
ele
ctio
n
and A
cquis
itio
n o
f Land,
Exte
nsio
n o
f P
eriods
ISS
UE
: O
n D
ece
mber
10, 2003 O
paskw
ayak C
ree
Na
tion r
equeste
d a
n e
xte
nsio
n to their C
row
n L
and
Sele
ction
period a
s p
er
section 4
.02(1
). O
CN
re
quests
an e
xte
nsio
n f
or
two y
ears
and s
ince
the
P
rovin
ce d
id n
ot decla
re c
ert
ain
sele
ctions inelig
ible
fo
r over
one y
ear,
until D
ecem
ber
30
, 2002, O
CN
fe
els
this
should
no
w b
e e
xte
nded
until January
21,
2005.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: O
CN
’s T
EA
is d
ate
d J
anuary
22,
1999, and their p
eriod f
or
Cro
wn L
and
sele
ction
expired o
n J
anua
ry 2
1, 2
002. O
CN
pre
vio
usly
subm
itte
d a
refe
rral an
d r
equest fo
r an e
xte
nsio
n
(2002-O
CN
-003)
date
d J
anuary
31, 2002. M
an
ito
ba
als
o r
efe
rred the m
atter
(2002-M
AN
ITO
BA
-005 o
n
Febru
ary
8, 2002
. O
n S
epte
mber
17, 2002 , the
IM
C info
rmed the
OC
N that it a
ppe
are
d
unnecessary
for
the IM
C to g
rant an e
xte
nsio
n o
f th
e
Period o
f S
ele
ction a
t th
is tim
e b
ecause t
he O
CN
had a
ctu
ally
sele
cte
d its
Land w
ith
in the 3
year
period p
rovid
ed u
nder
the M
FA
. If
sele
ctions a
re
late
r w
ithdra
wn, IM
C c
an
con
sid
er
again
at th
at tim
e
as p
er
4.0
2(6
) &
(7).
In
a letter
date
d D
ece
mb
er
19, 2003 I
MC
ackno
wle
dges
the O
CN
request.
At an
IM
C m
ee
ting d
ate
d
January
19, 2004 it
was
agre
ed that IM
C w
ould
gra
nt
an e
xte
nsio
n o
f 6
mon
ths to
July
21
, 2
004 o
win
g to
is
sues o
ver
the
inte
rpre
tation
of
the M
FA
.
This
will
be
conditio
nal u
pon
OC
N s
ele
cting a
n a
dditio
nal
569.4
3 a
cre
s to f
ulfill
its
outs
tandin
g C
row
n L
and
am
ount and
arr
angin
g a
sele
ction r
evie
w m
eeting
w
ith the p
art
ies. O
CN
’s n
ext
sele
ction w
as E
gg L
ake
and
it w
as r
eceiv
ed b
y M
an
itoba
on 2
005/1
0/1
1.
(NO
TE
: th
e I
MC
Annual
Repo
rt f
or
years
endin
g
Ma
rch 3
1, 2002, 2003, a
nd
2004 r
efe
r to
tw
o e
xte
nsio
ns
gra
nte
d; th
e f
irst w
as v
alid
until January
22, 2003
, a
nd
the s
econd e
xpired J
anu
ary
22, 2004.)
2002-
OC
N-0
03
2002-
MA
NIT
OB
A-0
05
LIS
T O
F H
IST
OR
IC IS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
S IN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
- 1
4 -
of
- 1
8
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
R
E:
Re
ferr
al
Da
te
MF
A
Secti
on
s
MF
A H
ea
din
gs
Gen
era
l Is
su
e / B
ackg
rou
nd
M
issin
g
Do
cu
men
ts
Mean
s o
f R
es
olu
tio
n
Oth
er
Rela
ted
F
iles
2004-S
CN
-001
Sapo
taw
eyak
Cre
e N
ation
RE
: C
once
rns
with C
anada’s
surv
ey p
ractice.
2/2
6/2
00
4
23.0
4
Costs
of
Environm
enta
l A
udit a
nd S
urv
ey o
f Land, S
urv
ey to
Meet
Sta
ndard
s
ISS
UE
: O
n F
ebru
ary
26
, 2004, th
e S
apo
taw
eyak
Cre
e N
ation
(S
CN
) re
ferr
ed the m
atter
to the I
MC
alle
gin
g that
err
ors
in c
uttin
g s
urv
ey lin
es o
n their
Pelic
an R
ap
ids S
ele
ction
Phase 1
surv
ey r
esulted
in
lo
st tim
ber
and
unw
ante
d a
ccess to the land
and
that C
anada’s
surv
eyor
did
not a
dhere
to
accepte
d
surv
ey s
tand
ard
s in c
om
ple
tio
n o
f th
e s
urv
ey.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: In
Marc
h 2
005, th
e I
MC
reta
ine
d
an in
dependent surv
eyor
(All
Sect S
urv
eys L
td.)
as a
fa
ct finder.
O
n M
arc
h 2
3, 2005
Can
ada a
nd S
CN
me
t w
ith
th
e
fact-
finder
Andre
w M
iles a
nd r
esolv
ed the issue to
th
eir m
utu
al sa
tisfa
ction.
The
EF
N s
ubsequently r
efr
eshed the b
oundaries o
f th
e S
ele
ction
.
Lette
r d
ate
d
Marc
h 9
, 2004
fr
om
SC
N to
the
IM
C r
efe
renced in
letter
da
ted A
pri
l 6, 20
04 fro
m S
CN
to
IM
C.
Lette
r d
ate
d M
ay
27, 2
004 fro
m the
TLE
C a
nd o
ther
docum
en
ts f
rom
th
e IM
C a
nd
SC
N
refe
renced in
letter
da
ted J
une
1, 20
04 fro
m
D’A
rcy &
Deacon
to T
LE
C.
Docum
en
t appoin
ting
fact
finder
in M
arc
h,
2005.
Octo
ber
20, 2005
docum
en
t re
fere
nce in lette
r date
d O
cto
ber
31
, 2005 fro
m S
CN
to
IMC
.
Cana
da a
nd S
CN
me
t w
ith
fact-
finder
Andre
w M
iles o
n
Ma
rch 2
3, 2005 a
nd a
gre
ed
to
a r
esolu
tion b
y w
ay o
f havin
g the b
oundari
es
refr
eshed b
y the F
irst
Nation, and the p
lan o
f surv
ey a
ppro
ved.
On A
ugust 10, 2004, th
e
Se
lection
was s
et apart
as
Reserv
e.
LIS
T O
F H
IST
OR
IC IS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
S IN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
- 1
5 -
of
- 1
8
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
R
E:
Refe
rral
Date
M
FA
S
ecti
on
s
MF
A H
ead
ing
s
Gen
era
l Is
su
e / B
ackg
rou
nd
M
issin
g
Do
cu
men
ts
Mean
s o
f R
eso
luti
on
O
ther
Rela
ted
F
iles
2006-R
RF
N-0
02
Rolli
ng R
iver
First
Nation
RE
: T
ransfe
r of
Adm
inis
tration
and C
ontr
ol fr
om
M
an
itoba to
C
anada
2/2
7/2
00
6
7.0
1(2
) T
ransfe
r of
Land a
nd
Inte
rests
fro
m M
an
itoba
to
Can
ada, M
an
ito
ba to
transfe
r C
row
n L
and
and Inte
rests
to
Canada
ISS
UE
: R
olli
ng
Riv
er
First N
ation
(R
RF
N)
alle
ge
d that
there
is a
“re
gula
tory
gap”
that occurs
whe
n the
adm
inis
tration a
nd c
ontr
ol of all
inte
rests
of M
anitoba in
land is tra
nsfe
rred fro
m M
an
itoba
to C
anada a
risin
g
from
the
exis
ten
ce o
f a c
ontr
acto
r lie
n o
n title
. B
AC
KG
RO
UN
D:
This
matter
rela
tes to a
Rolli
ng
Riv
er
acquis
itio
n k
no
wn a
s the
form
er
Ronald
Hill
pro
pert
y,
specific
ally
the
quart
er
section iden
tified a
s the
SE
20-
17-1
8 W
PM
. T
he s
pecific
s o
f th
e issue r
evolv
ed
aro
und the a
pplic
ation
of a b
uild
er’s lie
n(s
) again
st th
is
quart
er
section, w
hic
h b
y la
w p
revente
d a
ny f
urt
her
dis
positio
n o
f th
e p
ropert
y u
ntil such tim
e a
s the
lie
n
wa
s a
ddre
ssed a
nd r
em
oved. O
n F
ebru
ary
27
, 2006,
RR
FN
refe
rred the m
atte
r to
the
IM
C. T
his
issue a
rose
as a
result o
f a m
atter
betw
een the F
irst N
ation a
nd
one o
f its c
ontr
acto
rs a
nd w
as r
esolv
ed a
s b
etw
een
the
m.
The c
hara
cte
rization o
f th
e issue a
s a
regula
tory
gap
issue is c
onfu
sin
g. In
fact a r
egula
tory
gap
did
not
arise in the
conte
xt of
applic
ation o
f a b
uild
er’s lie
n
again
st th
is p
art
icula
r qu
art
er
section o
f th
e form
er
Ronald
Hill
pro
pert
y.
Confirm
ation o
f actions
refe
rred to in
the IM
C D
raft
M
inute
s o
f M
ay
23 &
24, 2006/
June 1
& 2
, 2006, i.e. th
e
Chairpers
on
wri
ting to
Canada
requesting
cla
rification o
n
this
issue
and
C
anada’s
and
Man
itoba’s
re
sponses.
The b
uild
er’s lie
n w
as
addre
ssed b
y the
RR
FN
and
the lie
n r
em
oved. T
he
transfe
r of
the title
fro
m
RR
FN
to C
anada
subsequently o
ccurr
ed.
The a
cquired fee s
imple
la
nd w
as then s
et apart
as
Reserv
e o
n M
ay 2
9, 200
6.
LIS
T O
F H
IST
OR
IC IS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
S IN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
- 1
6 -
of
- 1
8
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
R
E:
Refe
rral
Date
M
FA
S
ecti
on
s
MF
A H
ead
ing
s
Gen
era
l Is
su
e / B
ackg
rou
nd
M
issin
g
Do
cu
men
ts
Mean
s o
f R
eso
luti
on
O
ther
Rela
ted
F
iles
20
07
-TL
EC
-00
4
TLE
C
RE
: B
ILL
32
consulta
tio
n
an
d M
FA
subsectio
n
40
.12
8/2
7/2
00
7
10
.02
, 4
0.1
2
Mis
cella
ne
ous
Pro
vis
ions,
Constitu
tio
nal o
r L
egis
lative
Ch
an
ges
ISS
UE
: T
LE
C a
llege
d th
at
Ma
nitob
a faile
d t
o
consult w
ith t
he
TLE
C a
s p
er
the c
om
mo
n la
w d
uty
to
consult a
nd
acco
mm
oda
te,
as w
ell
as u
nde
r S
ubse
ctio
n 4
0.1
2 in
re
ga
rds to
the
in
tro
duction
of
Bill
32
B
AC
KG
RO
UN
D:
On
Au
gust 2
7,
20
07
, th
e T
LE
C
refe
rre
d th
e m
atte
r to
th
e I
MC
T
LE
C f
urt
he
r a
sse
rts t
ha
t B
ill 3
2 w
ou
ld u
nila
tera
lly ta
ke
aw
ay
the r
ight
of
the
EF
Ns to
dete
rmin
e th
e s
co
pe
of
the
ri
ghts
in
th
e R
epla
ce
me
nt
Inte
rest
un
de
r S
ubse
ctio
n 1
0.0
2.
B
ill 3
2 d
id n
ot
pro
ce
ed
an
d d
ied
on
th
e O
rde
r P
ap
er.
F
ile c
losed
.
Decis
ion m
ad
e a
t M
ay 1
4,
20
08
IM
C M
ee
ting
.
20
06
-TL
EC
-00
4
TLE
C /
M
an
ito
ba
R
E: C
om
pe
ting
consid
era
tio
ns
an
d E
ligib
ility
of
sele
ctio
ns less
tha
n 1
,00
0
acre
s.
5/1
9/2
00
6
3.0
2(3
)-(7
),
3.1
1
Ge
ne
ral P
rincip
les fo
r S
ele
ction
an
d
Acq
uis
itio
n o
f L
and
, R
efe
rence
of
Ma
tte
r to
the
Im
ple
me
nta
tio
n
Mo
nito
rin
g C
om
mitte
e
ISS
UE
: T
he T
LE
C a
lleg
e th
at
Man
itob
a w
as
inco
rre
ctly c
ha
racte
rizin
g s
ele
ctio
ns in
elig
ible
du
e
to c
om
pe
tin
g c
on
sid
era
tio
ns (
e.g
. th
e c
ost o
f surv
ey o
f a
Hyd
ro E
ase
me
nt lin
e)
on
ma
ny
Se
lections u
nd
er
1,0
00
acre
s.
In
ad
ditio
n th
at
Ma
nito
ba
wa
s r
ais
ing
th
e issue
a c
onsid
era
ble
tim
e a
fte
r it r
esp
on
de
d t
o t
he
EF
Ns r
eg
ard
ing
th
e
elig
ibili
ty o
f th
e S
ele
ctio
ns u
nd
er
Su
bsection
6
.02
(7).
B
AC
KG
RO
UN
D:
On
Ma
y 1
9, 2
00
6,
TLE
C r
efe
rre
d
the
matt
er
to t
he
IM
C u
nd
er
Sectio
n 3
.11
. O
n
Jun
e 7
, 2
007
, M
an
ito
ba
pro
vid
ed
an
up
da
te o
f th
eir
Sep
tem
ber
7,
20
05
re
po
rt o
n t
he
“L
ess th
an
1
00
0 a
cre
s”
issu
e.
At
the
IM
C r
equ
est, M
anito
ba
p
rovid
ed a
rep
ort
ite
miz
ing
the
31
Se
lections o
f le
ss th
an
10
00
acre
s th
at
Man
ito
ba
“d
ee
me
d”
no
t
Le
tte
r d
ate
d
No
ve
mb
er
18
, 2
004
and
le
tte
r da
ted
Jan
ua
ry 2
8,
20
05
refe
rred
to
in
TLE
C’s
le
tte
r of
refe
rral d
ate
d
Ma
y 1
9, 2
00
6
to t
he
IM
C.
Refe
rra
l w
as r
esolv
ed
thro
ugh
th
e c
onsensus
achie
ved
in
th
e fo
rm o
f B
ulle
tin
#1
en
titled
“C
oncep
t of
Elig
ibili
ty o
f S
ele
ction
s o
r A
cq
uis
itio
ns”,
da
ted
F
eb
rua
ry, 2
009
, a
nd
Bulle
tin
#2
en
titled
“S
ele
ctio
ns U
nd
er
1,0
00
A
cre
s in
Are
a”,
da
ted
Jun
e, 2
00
9.
LIS
T O
F H
IST
OR
IC IS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
S IN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
- 1
7 -
of
- 1
8
2006
-TL
EC
-00
4 -
C
on
't
elig
ible
beca
use
of co
mp
etin
g c
onsid
era
tions.
T
wo
focus m
eetings h
ave
be
en h
eld
to r
evie
w a
nd
d
iscuss t
he
va
ryin
g in
terp
reta
tio
ns a
nd
a
pp
lica
tio
ns o
f th
e r
ele
van
t M
FA
pro
vis
ions. I
n
ad
ditio
n a
dis
cussio
n p
ap
er
on
Se
lection
s o
f La
nd
L
ess T
ha
n 1
,00
0 A
cre
s in
Are
a h
as b
ee
n p
rep
are
d
by t
he
IM
C.
Th
e I
MC
pa
rty r
ep
resen
tative
s t
he
n a
ske
d the
IM
C
Off
ice
to
pre
pa
re a
bu
lletin
on
th
is m
att
er,
in
a
cco
rdance
with t
he
dis
cussio
n p
ape
r, t
o p
rovid
e
gu
idance
to
th
e p
art
ies a
nd t
he
EF
Ns o
n t
his
m
att
er.
T
he
se
le
d to
th
e I
MC
de
velo
pm
en
t of
two
b
ulle
tins,
or
pro
ce
du
ral a
nd o
pe
ration
al g
uid
elin
es;
the
first o
n th
e c
on
ce
pt of
elig
ibili
ty, a
nd
the
seco
nd
on S
ele
ctio
ns U
nd
er
1,0
00
Acre
s in
Are
a.
B
ulle
tin
#1
on
th
e C
oncep
t of
Elig
ibili
ty o
f S
ele
ctions o
r A
cq
uis
itio
ns w
as r
ele
ased
in
F
eb
rua
ry, 2
00
9.
Fin
al co
mm
en
ts h
ave
be
en
re
ce
ive
d f
rom
th
e p
art
ies a
nd
rele
ase
of
Bu
lletin #
2
en
titled
“S
ele
ctio
ns U
nd
er
1,0
00 A
cre
s in
Are
a”
was r
ele
ase
d in
Ju
ne,
200
9.
LIS
T O
F H
IST
OR
IC IS
SU
ES
OR
MA
TT
ER
S IN
DIS
PU
TE
PA
GE
- 1
8 -
of
- 1
8
IMC
File
Nu
mb
er
Part
y/E
FN
R
E:
Refe
rral
Date
M
FA
S
ecti
on
s
MF
A H
ead
ing
s
Gen
era
l Is
su
e / B
ackg
rou
nd
M
issin
g
Do
cu
me
nts
M
ean
s o
f R
eso
luti
on
O
ther
Rela
ted
F
iles
20
03
-SC
N-0
04
02
/07
/20
03
P
art
III
T
hir
d P
art
y
Inte
rests
. IS
SU
E:
Ca
na
da r
equ
este
d a
pp
rop
ria
te r
ele
ase
s a
nd
in
de
mnitie
s
fro
m S
CN
fo
r la
nd
th
ey c
onsid
ere
d o
ccu
pie
d b
y u
nre
gis
tere
d
inte
rests
pri
or
to a
cce
pting
lan
d t
ransfe
rs f
rom
Ma
nito
ba
. S
CN
b
elie
ves th
at th
eir
accep
tance
of
the
la
nds o
n a
n “
as is w
he
re is”
basis
sho
uld
suff
ice
and
fu
rthe
r th
at w
he
re c
ab
ins w
ere
use
d b
y
SC
N m
em
be
rs, th
ere
we
re n
o T
PIs
to
resolv
e.
O
n F
eb
rua
ry 7
, 2
003
, in
follo
w u
p t
o a
SC
N,
Manito
ba
, a
nd C
an
ad
a m
ee
tin
g o
n
this
ma
tte
r, C
ou
ncill
or
Nels
on
Ge
naill
e r
efe
rre
d it
to I
MC
. B
AC
KG
RO
UN
D:
V
ari
ous in
div
idu
als
ha
ve
de
velo
pe
d c
abin
s o
n
Cro
wn
lan
d a
nd
negle
cte
d to
ob
tain
the
nece
ssa
ry p
erm
its o
r o
the
r le
ga
l te
nu
re.
Cro
wn
la
nd s
ele
ctions b
y v
ari
ou
s E
FN
s
co
nta
in c
abin
s a
nd
som
etim
es m
ore
su
bsta
ntial d
eve
lop
men
ts
an
d th
ese
no
w e
ncu
mb
er
pro
pe
rty, b
y t
he
ir p
resence
ra
the
r th
an
b
y r
eg
iste
red
th
ird
pa
rty in
tere
sts
. I
t is
the
lack o
f re
gis
tra
tio
n o
f th
e in
tere
st a
nd
lack o
f le
gal la
nd
te
nu
re th
at d
iffe
rentia
tes t
hese
d
evelo
pm
en
ts f
rom
oth
er
thir
d p
art
y in
tere
sts
. O
n F
eb
rua
ry 1
2,
20
03
Ca
na
da w
rote
to
th
e I
MC
Cha
irpe
rso
n a
nd
ide
ntified
th
is
issue
as s
ignific
ant
and
fun
da
men
tal to
th
e fulfilm
en
t of
the
co
ntr
actu
al oblig
ations s
et
ou
t in
th
e M
FA
, id
en
tifie
d 1
9
se
lectio
ns w
ith
th
is type
of is
su
e, a
nd
co
nfirm
ed
th
eir
p
rep
are
dn
ess t
o c
on
tin
ue
th
e r
ese
rve
cre
atio
n p
rocess fo
r la
nds
aff
ecte
d b
y s
uch
occu
pa
tio
n c
on
ditio
nal u
po
n M
an
itob
a a
nd
T
LE
C p
art
icip
atin
g t
ow
ard
s r
esolv
ing t
he
issue
. C
an
ad
a d
evelo
pe
d a
do
cu
me
nt e
ntitle
d, “A
n A
gre
em
en
t R
esp
ectin
g P
re T
ransfe
r U
ses o
f C
row
n L
an
ds”.
S
CN
en
tere
d
into
an
ag
ree
men
t of
this
typ
e o
n D
ece
mbe
r 1
5, 2
006
. A
nd t
o
bri
ng
clo
su
re t
o this
refe
rral C
an
ada
pro
vid
ed a
co
py t
o th
e I
MC
C
ha
irpe
rso
n o
n J
un
e 2
3,
20
09.
T
he
IM
C O
ffic
e
cha
ired
focus
me
etin
gs o
n J
anu
ary
1
0, 2
008
an
d J
an
ua
ry
30
, 2
008
to
assis
t th
e
Pa
rtie
s in
de
finin
g
op
tio
ns a
vaila
ble
to
re
solv
e t
he
u
nre
gis
tere
d
inte
rests
arisin
g f
rom
th
e c
on
str
uctio
n o
f str
uctu
res/ b
uild
ings
by m
em
be
rs o
f an
E
FN
on
a s
ele
ctio
n
pri
or
to o
r aft
er
the
sele
ctio
n is m
ad
e b
y
the
EF
N th
at
we
re n
ot
leg
ally
pe
rmitte
d.
C
an
ada
pro
vid
ed
a
cop
y o
f th
e C
an
ad
a –
S
CN
Ag
ree
men
t d
ate
d D
ece
mb
er
15
, 2
006
at a
n I
MC
m
ee
tin
g o
n J
une
23
, 2
009
and
th
is r
efe
rral
wa
s c
lose
d.
Appendix D
Current Issues or Matters in Dispute
� � � ��������
���
�����
������������
��� �����
����
��
� ����
����
���������
��
�
�
PA
GE
- 1
- of
- 1
3
�
IMC
File
N
um
ber
P
arty
/ E
FN
R
E:
Ref
erra
l D
ate
MF
A
Sec
tio
ns
MF
A H
ead
ing
s G
ener
al Is
sue
/ Bac
kgro
un
d
Act
ion
/ Sta
tus
Mea
ns
of
Res
olu
tio
n
Oth
er
Rel
ated
F
iles
1999
-BP
FN
-001
B
uffa
lo P
oint
Firs
t N
atio
n R
E: S
elec
tion
with
in a
Pro
vinc
ial
Par
k
6/23
/199
9 3.
02(1
2),
3.03
(6),
6.02
(8)
9.09
Gen
eral
Prin
cipl
es fo
r S
elec
tion
and
Acq
uisi
tion
of
Land
; Spe
cific
Prin
cipl
es fo
r S
elec
tion
of C
row
n La
nd,
Land
in a
Pro
vinc
ial P
ark,
E
colo
gica
l Res
erve
, Wild
life
Ref
uge
or P
ropo
sed
Nat
iona
l P
ark;
Pro
cess
for
Land
S
elec
tion
and
Acq
uisi
tion
ISS
UE
: O
n Ju
ne 2
3, 1
999
BP
FN
Chi
ef J
ohn
Thu
nder
wro
te
to th
e IM
C C
hairp
erso
n R
on M
auric
e an
d re
ferr
ed th
e B
irch
Poi
nt s
elec
tion
purs
uant
to s
ubse
ctio
n 6.
02(8
) of
the
MF
A.
B
PF
N u
nder
stan
ds th
at S
ubse
ctio
n 3.
03(6
) of
the
MF
A
stat
es th
at E
FN
s m
ay
not g
ener
ally
sel
ect l
ands
in P
rovi
ncia
l P
arks
but
feel
s th
e us
e of
the
wor
d “g
ener
ally
” im
plie
s th
at
exce
ptio
ns m
ay b
e m
ade,
and
sin
ce M
anito
ba h
as
prev
ious
ly s
ough
t to
leas
e th
e P
ark
to p
rivat
e in
tere
sts,
and
B
PF
N w
ishe
s to
con
tinue
to o
pera
te th
e ca
mpg
roun
d, th
at
this
sho
uld
be o
ne o
f the
se e
xcep
tiona
l situ
atio
ns.
As
wel
l B
PF
N fe
els
that
Man
itoba
mis
take
nly
appl
ied
Sub
sect
ion
3.02
(12)
to th
e S
elec
tion.
B
AC
KG
RO
UN
D:
On
Sep
tem
ber
16, 1
998,
Man
itoba
adv
ised
th
e B
uffa
lo P
oint
Firs
t Nat
ion
that
its
Sel
ectio
n w
ithin
Birc
h P
oint
Pro
vinc
ial P
ark
was
not
elig
ible
for
Sel
ectio
n un
der
Sub
sect
ion
3.03
(6)
beca
use
Birc
h P
oint
was
des
igna
ted
unde
r th
e P
rovi
ncia
l Lan
ds A
ct a
nd th
e pa
rk is
the
only
pr
ovin
cial
faci
lity
to p
rovi
de a
cces
s to
the
Lake
of t
he
Woo
ds. O
n M
ay 6
, 201
0 M
anito
ba n
otifi
ed B
PF
N a
nd
advi
sed
that
; the
por
tion
of th
e se
lect
ion
that
ove
rlapp
ed
Birc
h P
oint
Pro
vinc
ial P
ark
was
am
ende
d on
the
Cro
wn
Land
Reg
istr
y to
rem
ove
the
port
ion
with
in th
e P
rovi
ncia
l P
ark,
the
land
nec
essa
ry fo
r th
e ro
ad a
nd r
oad
right
of w
ay
wou
ld b
e ex
clud
ed in
acc
orda
nce
with
Sec
tions
13.
01 a
nd
13.0
3 of
the
MF
A, a
nd a
ppro
xim
atel
y 77
.77
acre
s w
ould
be
elig
ible
for
tran
sfer
if B
PF
N w
ishe
d to
pro
ceed
. M
anito
ba
furt
her
note
d th
at a
s pe
r 9.
09(1
) of
the
MF
A, w
here
an
EF
N
iden
tifie
s la
nd in
a P
rovi
ncia
l Par
k as
land
of c
ultu
ral o
r hi
stor
ical
sig
nific
ance
, Man
itoba
and
the
EF
N w
ill e
nter
into
an
agr
eem
ent o
n pr
otec
tion
of th
is la
nd th
at r
efle
cts
the
sign
ifica
nce
to th
e E
FN
. M
anito
ba a
sked
BP
FN
for
sugg
estio
ns o
n al
tern
ate
met
hods
of m
anag
emen
t or
prot
ectio
n of
land
with
in B
irch
Poi
nt P
rovi
ncia
l Par
k.
The
IMC
und
erto
ok in
its
2010
/201
1 W
ork
Pla
n to
det
erm
ine
the
upda
ted
stat
us o
n th
is r
efer
ral a
nd m
ake
a de
cisi
on o
n ac
tion
requ
ired.
The
C
hairp
erso
n w
as a
sked
on
Dec
embe
r 17
, 201
0 b
y IM
C to
sco
pe
the
IMC
file
, det
erm
ine
whi
ch
info
rmat
ion
and
upda
tes
are
outs
tand
ing,
req
uest
mis
sing
in
form
atio
n fr
om th
e P
artie
s an
d w
rite
up th
e re
ferr
al in
the
form
of t
he
Ref
erra
l Pro
toco
l for
dis
cuss
ion
by
IMC
. T
he
Cha
irper
son
circ
ulat
ed
the
Ref
erra
l in
the
For
m o
f th
e P
roto
col
on J
anua
ry 1
9, 2
011,
and
for
mal
ly
requ
este
d co
mm
ents
fr
om
the
Par
ties,
as
w
ell
as
copi
es
of
any
addi
tiona
l do
cum
ents
/ in
form
atio
n th
at
each
P
arty
be
lieve
s to
be
re
leva
nt t
o a
full
cons
ider
atio
n of
thi
s re
ferr
al.
In r
espo
nse
the
Par
ties
have
pr
ovid
ed
docu
men
ts,
and
the
Cha
irper
son
is
prep
arin
g an
au
gmen
ted
draf
t fo
r ci
rcul
atio
n.
In
addi
tion,
on
Ja
nuar
y 19
/11
the
Cha
irper
son
requ
este
d th
e se
ctio
ns
entit
led
“Int
erpr
etat
ion
of
the
Rel
evan
t P
rovi
sion
s of
the
MF
A”
and
“Pro
pose
d R
esol
utio
n an
d O
ptio
ns
Con
side
red”
be
subm
itted
by
TLE
C
and
Can
ada,
and
the
se a
re d
ue i
n A
pril,
201
1.
Not
de
term
ined
as
of M
arch
31,
20
11
� � � ��������
���
�����
������������
��� �����
����
��
� ����
����
���������
��
�
�
PA
GE
- 2
- of
- 1
3
IMC
File
N
um
ber
P
arty
/ E
FN
R
E:
Ref
erra
l D
ate
MF
A
Sec
tio
ns
MF
A H
ead
ing
s G
ener
al Is
sue
/ Bac
kgro
un
d
Act
ion
/Sta
tus
Mea
ns
of
Res
olu
tio
n
Oth
er
Rel
ated
F
iles
1999
-NC
N-0
03
Nis
icha
way
asih
k C
ree
Nat
ion
(NC
N)
RE
: Dat
e of
E
xecu
tion
of th
e N
CN
TE
A
8/25
/199
9 1.
01(2
3),
30.0
1
Def
initi
on a
nd In
terp
reta
tion,
D
efin
ed W
ords
and
Phr
ases
, D
ate
of E
xecu
tion;
Com
ing
into
For
ce, E
ffect
ive
Dat
e of
A
gree
men
t
ISS
UE
: O
n A
ugus
t 25
, 19
99 C
hief
Jer
ry P
rimro
se w
rote
to
TLE
C a
nd a
sks
TLE
C t
o re
fer
the
mat
ter
to I
MC
on
beha
lf of
Nis
icha
way
asih
k C
ree
Nat
ion
(NC
N).
The
iss
ue i
s to
det
erm
ine
the
effe
ctiv
e da
te o
f th
e N
CN
T
reat
y E
ntitl
emen
t A
gree
men
t (T
EA
), a
s th
e N
CN
and
M
anito
ba
sign
ed
the
TE
A
on
July
30
, 19
98,
but
the
Fed
eral
Min
iste
r of
DIA
ND
did
not
sig
n th
e T
EA
unt
il S
epte
mbe
r 1,
199
8.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: O
n A
ugus
t 25,
199
9 (N
CN
), th
e m
atte
r co
ncer
ning
the
Dat
e of
Exe
cutio
n of
the
NC
N’s
TE
A w
as
refe
rred
to th
e IM
C. T
he N
CN
alle
ged
that
the
Dat
e of
E
xecu
tion
was
Jul
y 30
, 199
8. T
his
was
the
date
that
was
ty
ped
on th
e T
EA
, and
the
date
of t
he s
igni
ng c
erem
ony
in
Nel
son
Hou
se.
All
part
ies
sign
ed th
e E
FN
TE
A th
at d
ay
exce
ptin
g C
anad
a w
ho h
ad a
rep
rese
ntat
ive
initi
al b
esid
e th
e si
gnat
ure
bloc
k. C
anad
a su
bseq
uent
ly s
ent t
he T
EA
to
the
Min
iste
r’s o
ffice
whe
re it
was
sig
ned
by M
inis
ter
Ste
war
t, w
ho a
lso
hand
dat
ed h
er s
igna
ture
Sep
tem
ber
1, 1
998.
The
Ju
ly 3
0, 1
998
date
is a
lso
the
90th
ann
iver
sary
dat
e of
NC
N
sign
ing
adhe
sion
to T
reat
y N
o. 5
. C
anad
a ha
s ta
ken
the
posi
tion
that
the
date
of e
xecu
tion
was
Sep
t 1, 1
998.
C
anad
a re
fere
nces
MF
A s
ectio
n 30
.03
whe
rein
it d
escr
ibes
a
TE
A c
omin
g in
to fo
rce
upon
exe
cutio
n b
y th
e E
FN
and
all
Par
ties.
The
IMC
und
erto
ok in
its
2010
/201
1 W
ork
Pla
n to
det
erm
ine
the
upda
ted
stat
us o
n th
is r
efer
ral a
nd m
ake
a de
cisi
on o
n ac
tion
requ
ired.
O
n D
ecem
ber
17, 2
010
the
Cha
irper
son
was
ask
ed b
y IM
C to
sco
pe th
e IM
C
file,
det
erm
ine
whi
ch in
form
atio
n an
d up
date
s ar
e ou
tsta
ndin
g, r
eque
st
mis
sing
info
rmat
ion
from
the
Par
ties
and
writ
e up
the
refe
rral
in th
e fo
rm o
f th
e R
efer
ral P
roto
col f
or d
iscu
ssio
n by
IMC
. O
n Ja
nuar
y 18
, 201
1, th
e C
hairp
erso
n ci
rcul
ated
the
Ref
erra
l in
the
For
m o
f the
Pro
toco
l and
form
ally
re
ques
ted
com
men
ts fr
om th
e P
artie
s as
wel
l as
copi
es o
f an
y ad
ditio
nal
docu
men
ts/ i
nfor
mat
ion
that
eac
h P
arty
bel
ieve
s to
be
rele
vant
to a
full
cons
ider
atio
n of
this
ref
erra
l. In
re
spon
se, t
he P
artie
s ha
ve p
rovi
ded
docu
men
ts, a
nd th
e C
hairp
erso
n is
pr
epar
ing
an a
ugm
ente
d dr
aft f
or
circ
ulat
ion.
In
addi
tion,
the
Cha
irper
son
requ
este
d th
e se
ctio
n en
title
d “I
nter
pret
atio
n of
the
Rel
evan
t Pro
visi
ons
of th
e M
FA
” be
su
bmitt
ed b
y M
anito
ba a
nd T
LEC
, an
d th
e se
ctio
n en
title
d “P
ropo
sed
Res
olut
ion
and
Opt
ions
Con
side
red”
be
sub
mitt
ed b
y al
l Par
ties,
and
thes
e ar
e du
e in
Apr
il, 2
011.
Not
de
term
ined
as
of M
arch
31,
20
11.
� � � ��������
���
�����
������������
��� �����
����
��
� ����
����
���������
��
�
�
PA
GE
- 3
- of
- 1
3
IM
C F
ile
Nu
mb
er
Par
ty /
EF
N
RE
:
Ref
erra
l D
ate
MF
A
Sec
tio
ns
MF
A H
ead
ing
s G
ener
al Is
sue
/ Bac
kgro
un
d
Act
ion
/Sta
tus
Mea
ns
of
Res
olu
tio
n
Oth
er
Rel
ated
F
iles
2003
-BO
N-0
01
Bro
kenh
ead
Ojib
way
Nat
ion
RE
: Dis
posa
l of
Sur
plus
Rea
l P
rope
rty
and
MF
A P
roce
ss.
1/23
/200
3 1.
01(8
8),
3.10
, 3.
10(1
)
Def
initi
ons
and
Inte
rpre
tatio
n,
Def
ined
Wor
ds a
nd P
hras
es,
Sur
plus
Fed
eral
land
; P
rinci
ples
for
Land
Sel
ectio
n an
d A
cqui
sitio
n, S
peci
fic
Prin
cipl
es fo
r A
cqui
sitio
n of
S
urpl
us F
eder
al L
and
ISS
UE
: O
n Ja
nuar
y 22
, 200
3, th
e B
ON
wro
te to
the
Cha
irper
son
of th
e IM
C a
nd r
efer
red
the
mat
ter
to th
e IM
C,
and
requ
este
d IM
C to
initi
ate
the
disp
ute
reso
lutio
n pr
oces
s fo
und
in A
rtic
le 3
4 of
the
MF
A.
Bro
kenh
ead
Ojib
wa
y N
atio
n (B
ON
) al
lege
d th
at C
anad
a fa
iled
to fo
rwar
d no
tice
of S
urpl
us F
eder
al L
and,
re:
the
Kap
yong
Bar
rack
s; to
the
BO
N a
nd th
at C
anad
a m
ista
kenl
y in
terp
rete
d th
at th
e M
FA
pro
visi
ons
deal
ing
with
sur
plus
F
eder
al C
row
n pr
oper
ty d
id n
ot a
pply
to th
e K
apyo
ng
Bar
rack
s.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: On
Dec
embe
r 4,
200
2, C
anad
a ad
vise
d th
e B
roke
nhea
d O
jibw
ay
Nat
ion
(BO
N)
that
the
Kap
yong
B
arra
cks
had
been
des
igna
ted
as a
“st
rate
gic
disp
osal
” un
der
the
Tre
asur
y B
oard
Pol
icy
on th
e D
ispo
sal o
f Sur
plus
R
eal P
rope
rty
and
that
it w
ould
be
tran
sfer
red
to th
e C
anad
a La
nds
Com
pan
y fo
r di
spos
al.
In a
dditi
on th
ey
advi
sed
that
th
e M
FA
did
not
app
ly to
the
stra
tegi
c di
spos
al p
roce
ss a
s th
e in
tere
st o
f the
EF
N’s
can
not
be
cons
ider
ed o
n a
prio
rity
basi
s.
The
Firs
t Nat
ions
of T
reat
y 1,
incl
udin
g B
ON
, file
d a
Not
ice
of
App
licat
ion
in F
eder
al C
ourt
on
Janu
ary
25, 2
008.
A
deci
sion
was
ren
dere
d on
Sep
tem
ber
30, 2
009;
how
ever
the
deci
sion
has
bee
n ap
peal
ed b
y C
anad
a. It
is u
nder
stoo
d th
at
the
appe
al h
earin
g w
ill b
e in
ear
ly 2
011
pend
ing
Fed
eral
C
ourt
ava
ilabi
lity.
O
n Ja
nuar
y 13
, 201
1 a
lette
r w
as s
ent f
rom
the
Cha
irper
son
to B
ON
to a
dvis
e th
at th
e re
ferr
al h
as b
een
plac
ed in
ab
eya
nce
whi
le th
e lit
igat
ion
is o
ngoi
ng.
Thi
s m
atte
r is
in li
tigat
ion
and
ther
efor
e ha
s no
t bee
n ac
tive.
The
IM
C d
ecid
ed a
t the
IMC
mee
ting
date
d D
ecem
ber
16&
17, 2
010
to
form
ally
pla
ce th
is m
atte
r in
ab
eya
nce
whi
le th
e lit
igat
ion
is
ongo
ing
and
to w
rite
to B
ON
to
advi
se.
The
Cha
irper
son
wro
te to
BO
N
Chi
ef a
nd C
ounc
il on
Jan
uary
13,
20
11 a
nd a
dvis
ed th
at th
e 20
03-
BO
N-0
01 r
efer
ral h
as b
een
form
ally
pl
aced
in a
beya
nce
give
n th
e on
goin
g lit
igat
ion
of th
is m
atte
r.
IMC
pla
ced
refe
rral
in
abe
yanc
e pe
ndin
g ou
tcom
e of
lit
igat
ion
and
ther
efor
e re
solu
tion
not
dete
rmin
ed a
s of
Mar
ch 3
1,
2011
� � � ��������
���
�����
������������
��� �����
����
��
� ����
����
���������
��
�
�
PA
GE
- 4
- of
- 1
3
IMC
File
N
um
ber
P
arty
/ E
FN
R
E:
Ref
erra
l D
ate
MF
A
Sec
tio
ns
MF
A H
ead
ing
s G
ener
al Is
sue
/ Bac
kgro
un
d
Act
ion
/Sta
tus
Mea
ns
of
Res
olu
tio
n
Oth
er
Rel
ated
F
iles
2003
-TL
EC
-002
T
LEC
R
E: L
and
In
Sev
eral
ty P
olic
y M
anua
l
1/27
/200
3 9.
01,
9.02
, 9.
04,
36.0
1
Land
in S
ever
alty
, Lan
d O
utsi
de M
anito
ba a
nd L
and
Cul
tura
l and
His
toric
al
Sig
nific
ance
in E
xist
ing
Pro
vinc
ial P
arks
, Eco
logi
cal
Res
erve
s, W
ildlif
e R
efug
es a
nd
Nat
iona
l Par
ks, L
and
in
Sev
eral
ty, E
lect
ion
by
mem
bers
, Rig
ht a
nd S
tatu
s of
La
nd in
Sev
eral
ty; M
ater
ial
Fai
lure
and
Eve
nts
of D
efau
lt,
Mat
eria
l Fai
lure
to C
ompl
y w
ith
Fun
dam
enta
l Ter
m o
r C
ondi
tion
ISS
UE
: T
LEC
Pre
side
nt F
red
Mus
kego
wro
te to
Can
ada
on J
anua
ry
27, 2
003
with
con
cern
that
the
Land
In S
ever
alty
(LI
S)
Pol
icy
Man
ual
has
not b
een
com
plet
ed.
TLE
C a
dvis
es th
at g
iven
the
circ
umst
ance
s T
LEC
has
no
othe
r re
cour
se b
ut to
ref
er th
e m
atte
r to
the
IMC
. B
AC
KG
RO
UN
D:
A m
embe
r of
BLF
N a
nd/o
r N
FN
who
wis
hes
to
sele
ct la
nd in
sev
eral
ty m
ust e
xerc
ise
his/
her
optio
n be
fore
the
EF
N
has
sele
cted
hal
f of t
heir
land
or
with
in 1
yea
r of
the
TE
A d
ate,
w
hich
ever
is e
arlie
r. C
anad
a ha
d no
t ini
tiate
d di
scus
sion
s w
ith
Man
itoba
, the
two
EF
Ns,
or
thos
e m
embe
rs w
ho e
lect
ed to
take
the
land
in s
ever
alty
, and
this
situ
atio
n le
d to
the
TLE
C r
efer
ral.
The
IMC
rec
omm
ende
d th
at C
anad
a en
ter
into
goo
d fa
ith d
iscu
ssio
ns
conc
erni
ng th
e na
ture
and
ext
ent o
f tha
t rig
ht in
ord
er to
set
tle th
is
outs
tand
ing
mat
ter.
(IM
C A
nnua
l Rep
ort f
or th
e ye
ar e
nded
Mar
ch 3
1,
2001
) A
t the
Feb
ruar
y 17
, 200
3 IM
C m
eetin
g, C
anad
a (E
. Ras
mus
sen)
co
nfirm
ed th
at C
anad
a ha
d no
t fin
ishe
d its
pol
icy.
Can
ada
linke
d th
e de
lay
to; t
he c
ompl
exiti
es, t
he n
eed
to e
ngag
e in
a n
atio
nal p
olic
y re
view
, and
the
lack
of j
udic
ial g
uida
nce
in p
olic
y de
velo
pmen
t.
Can
ada
(ER
) ad
vise
d th
at it
wou
ld d
iscu
ss th
e m
atte
r w
ith M
anito
ba,
and
advi
se IM
C r
e th
e tim
e re
quire
d fo
r co
mpl
etio
n of
the
polic
y.
On
June
26,
200
3 at
an
IMC
mee
ting
Can
ada
(G. K
itche
n) a
dvis
ed th
at
it ha
s co
mpl
eted
a d
raft
of th
e po
licy
and
that
Can
ada
was
on
trac
k to
co
mpl
ete
it b
y th
e fa
ll of
200
3.
On
Janu
ary
19, 2
004
at a
n IM
C m
eetin
g C
anad
a re
port
ed th
at a
tim
elin
e fo
r po
licy
com
plet
ion
coul
d be
pro
vide
d b
y th
e en
d of
Mar
ch,
2004
. C
anad
a ad
vise
d th
at tw
o se
ts o
f bila
tera
l dis
cuss
ions
will
be
requ
ired
– w
ith M
anito
ba a
nd w
ith th
e E
FN
s. I
MC
issu
ed a
lette
r ex
tend
ing
the
land
sel
ectio
n pe
riod
for
BLF
N.
IMC
con
side
rs th
is r
efer
ral
abso
rbed
by
the
Mat
eria
l F
ailu
re a
llega
tions
and
the
subs
eque
nt a
rbitr
atio
n re
latin
g to
LIS
. (20
04-
BLF
N/T
LEC
-002
)
Not
de
term
ined
as
of M
arch
31,
20
11.
Thi
s in
itial
re
ferr
al
was
ab
sorb
ed
into
: 20
04-
BLF
N/T
LEC
-002
� � � ��������
���
�����
������������
��� �����
����
��
� ����
����
���������
��
�
�
PA
GE
- 5
- of
- 1
3
IM
C F
ile
Nu
mb
er
Par
ty /
EF
N
RE
:
Ref
erra
l D
ate
MF
A
Sec
tio
ns
MF
A H
ead
ing
s G
ener
al Is
sue
/ Bac
kgro
un
d
Act
ion
/Sta
tus
Mea
ns
of
Res
olu
tio
n
Oth
er
Rel
ated
F
iles
2004
-B
LF
N/T
LE
C-0
02
Bar
ren
Land
s F
irst
Nat
ion
/ TLE
C
RE
: Sev
eral
ty
5/5/
2004
9.
01,
9.02
, 9.
04,
36.0
1
Land
in S
ever
alty
, Lan
d O
utsi
de M
anito
ba a
nd L
and
Cul
tura
l and
His
toric
al
Sig
nific
ance
in E
xist
ing
Pro
vinc
ial P
arks
, Eco
logi
cal
Res
erve
s, W
ildlif
e R
efug
es
and
Nat
iona
l Par
ks, L
and
in
Sev
eral
ty, E
lect
ion
by
mem
bers
, Rig
ht a
nd S
tatu
s of
La
nd in
Sev
eral
ty; M
ater
ial
Fai
lure
and
Eve
nts
of D
efau
lt,
Mat
eria
l Fai
lure
to C
ompl
y w
ith F
unda
men
tal T
erm
or
Con
ditio
n
ISS
UE
: BLF
N a
llege
s th
at C
anad
a ha
d m
ater
ially
faile
d to
com
ply
with
a
fund
amen
tal t
erm
of t
he M
FA
and
ass
erte
d th
at a
lthou
gh it
s m
embe
rs h
ad g
iven
Can
ada
notic
e of
thei
r el
ectio
n to
take
Lan
d in
S
ever
alty
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith S
ubse
ctio
n 9.
01(1
), C
anad
a ha
d fa
iled
to
ente
r in
to d
iscu
ssio
n w
ith th
ose
mem
bers
und
er S
ubse
ctio
n 9.
01(4
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: On
May
5, 2
004,
the
BLF
N w
rote
to C
anad
a (A
DM
M
iche
l Roy
and
RD
G R
oy
Bird
) an
d in
acc
orda
nce
with
MF
A 3
6.01
al
lege
d th
at C
anad
a m
ater
ially
faile
d to
com
ply
with
a fu
ndam
enta
l te
rm o
r co
nditi
on o
f the
MF
A.
BLF
N a
dvis
ed th
at C
anad
a ha
d 30
da
ys to
rem
edy
the
mat
eria
l fai
lure
or
refe
r th
e m
atte
r to
IMC
. O
n Ju
ne 1
4, 2
004,
TLE
C jo
intly
alle
ged
that
Can
ada
has
mat
eria
lly fa
iled
to m
eet t
he L
and
In S
ever
alty
pro
visi
ons
of th
e M
FA
as
set o
ut in
the
May
5, 2
004
lette
r fr
om B
LFN
. A
t a J
une
23, 2
004
IMC
mee
ting
a le
tter
from
INA
C R
DG
Roy
Bird
to
Chi
ef H
alke
tt an
d C
ounc
il w
as d
iscu
ssed
. C
anad
a’s
posi
tion
is th
at
rath
er th
an b
ring
the
issu
e to
arb
itrat
ion,
it w
ould
rat
her
prov
ide
a tim
efra
me
for
com
plet
ion
of it
s po
licy.
IM
C d
iscu
ssed
the
pros
and
co
ns o
f arb
itrat
ion
as th
e E
FN
was
frus
trat
ed w
ith n
o pr
ogre
ss o
n th
is
mat
ter.
A d
ecis
ion
was
mad
e to
ask
Chi
ef H
alke
tt to
pla
ce m
atte
r in
ab
eya
nce
for
90 d
ays
to fa
cilit
ate
the
fact
find
ing
proc
ess
and
also
to
prep
are
for
arbi
trat
ion,
with
a d
eadl
ine
of S
epte
mbe
r 30
/04.
On
Aug
ust 2
7, 2
004
the
Cha
irper
son
wro
te to
Chi
ef a
nd C
ounc
il an
d co
pied
Can
ada
and
Man
itoba
and
adv
ised
on
the
resu
lts o
f the
Jun
e 23
, 200
4 IM
C m
eetin
g, a
nd s
ugge
sted
a c
olla
bora
tive
appr
oach
with
tig
ht ti
me
fram
es r
athe
r th
an b
indi
ng a
rbitr
atio
n.
On
Nov
embe
r 19
, 20
04 C
anad
a w
rote
to C
hief
Hal
kett
and
Cou
ncil
prov
idin
g no
tice
that
th
e op
tion
to e
lect
land
in s
ever
alty
cry
stal
lized
at d
ate
of fi
rst s
urve
y an
d w
as n
o lo
nger
ava
ilabl
e.
At a
Jan
uary
6, 2
005
IMC
mee
ting
the
IMC
agr
eed
to a
ppoi
nt L
aurie
C
hern
iak
as a
djud
icat
or fo
r th
e bi
ndin
g ar
bitr
atio
n re
gard
ing
the
proc
edur
al is
sue
of th
e co
nduc
t of c
onsu
ltatio
ns c
once
rnin
g th
e na
ture
an
d ex
tent
of t
he r
ight
to L
and
in S
ever
alty
, sub
ject
to t
he a
gree
men
t of
BLF
N.
Onc
e co
nfirm
ed b
y B
LFN
, a m
eetin
g w
ould
be
held
to
The
IMC
und
erto
ok in
its
2010
/201
1 W
ork
Pla
n to
de
term
ine
the
upda
ted
stat
us o
n th
is r
efer
ral a
nd
mak
e a
deci
sion
on
actio
n re
quire
d.
The
Par
ties
and
the
Cha
irper
son
met
with
the
BLF
N C
ounc
il on
Jul
y 20
, 20
10 to
dis
cuss
the
stat
us o
f the
arb
itrat
ion,
an
d th
e C
hairp
erso
n w
rote
to th
e C
hief
and
C
ounc
il on
Jul
y 21
, 201
0 to
pro
vide
a s
tatu
s re
port
/sum
mar
y of
the
LIS
mat
ter.
The
C
hairp
erso
n m
et a
gain
w
ith th
e C
hief
and
C
ounc
il an
d th
eir
lega
l C
ouns
el o
n S
epte
mbe
r 16
, 201
0. B
LFN
is
curr
ently
con
side
ring
how
th
ey
wou
ld li
ke to
pr
ocee
d. T
he
Cha
irper
son
is in
con
tact
w
ith th
e B
LFN
lega
l co
unse
l on
this
mat
ter
mon
thly
.
Not
de
term
ined
as
of M
arch
31,
20
11.
Del
ay
in
rece
ivin
g C
anad
a’s
polic
y on
LIS
re
sulte
d in
re
ferr
al
2003
-TLE
C-
002
whi
ch
was
su
bseq
uent
ly
abso
rbed
in
to th
e M
ater
ial
Fai
lure
al
lega
tions
by
TLE
C a
nd
BLF
N.
� � � ��������
���
�����
������������
��� �����
����
��
� ����
����
���������
��
�
�
PA
GE
- 6
- of
- 1
3
2004
-B
LF
N/T
LE
C-0
02
- C
ontin
ued
-
final
ize
the
term
s of
ref
eren
ce (
TO
R)
and
set d
ates
for
the
bind
ing
arbi
trat
ion.
O
n Ju
ne 2
9, 2
005,
Can
ada
prov
ided
to th
e A
rbitr
ator
a li
stin
g of
dat
es
whe
n it
cond
ucte
d co
nsul
tatio
n w
ith B
LFN
mem
bers
. O
n S
epte
mbe
r 19
, 200
5 B
LFN
req
uest
ed C
anad
a’s
posi
tion
on L
and
in
Sev
eral
ty.
In a
dditi
on, C
hief
Hal
kett
com
men
ted
that
Can
ada
shou
ld
at a
min
imum
hav
e pr
ovid
ed a
rep
ort (
info
rmat
ion)
on
the
May
200
5 di
scus
sion
s fo
r B
LFN
to m
ake
an in
form
ed d
ecis
ion
on h
ow to
pro
ceed
w
ith a
rbitr
atio
n. B
LFN
ass
erts
that
this
info
rmat
ion
is r
equi
red
to
dete
rmin
e if
the
mee
tings
fulfi
lled
mea
ning
ful c
onsu
ltatio
n.
On
July
18,
200
6, th
e re
vise
d te
rms
of r
efer
ence
for
the
bind
ing
arbi
trat
ion
wer
e dr
afte
d by
the
TLE
C to
acc
omm
odat
e a
repr
esen
tativ
e m
embe
r ca
se s
tudy
for
purp
oses
of c
onsi
derin
g th
e qu
estio
n of
the
cont
inue
d av
aila
bilit
y of
the
optio
n to
ele
ct L
and
in S
ever
alty
. O
n Ju
ly
19, 2
006,
the
revi
ew o
f the
rev
ised
term
s of
ref
eren
ce w
as p
ostp
oned
pe
ndin
g ap
poin
tmen
t of a
new
lega
l cou
nsel
for
the
BLF
N a
nd T
LEC
.
� � � ��������
���
�����
������������
��� �����
����
��
� ����
����
���������
��
�
�
PA
GE
- 7
- of
- 1
3
IM
C F
ile
Nu
mb
er
Par
ty /
EF
N
RE
:
Ref
erra
l D
ate
MF
A
Sec
tio
ns
MF
A H
ead
ing
s G
ener
al Is
sue
/ Bac
kgro
un
d
Act
ion
/Sta
tus
Mea
ns
of
Res
olu
tio
n
Oth
er
Rel
ated
F
iles
2006
-M
AN
ITO
BA
-001
B
unib
onib
ee
Cre
e N
atio
n /
Man
itoba
R
E: R
egis
trat
ion
of a
n A
ssig
nmen
t fo
r C
olla
tera
l P
urpo
ses
agai
nst
a le
ase
(TP
I) o
n th
e K
nee
Lake
Lo
dge
sele
ctio
n.
2/3/
2006
6.
02(6
),
36.0
1
Pro
cess
for
Land
Sel
ectio
n an
d A
cqui
sitio
n; M
ater
ial F
ailu
re a
nd
Eve
nts
of D
efau
lt, M
ater
ial F
ailu
re to
C
ompl
y w
ith F
unda
men
tal T
erm
or
Con
ditio
n
ISS
UE
: O
n Ja
nuar
y 13
, 200
6, M
anito
ba w
as g
iven
no
tice
by
the
BC
N in
acc
orda
nce
with
Sub
sect
ion
36.0
1 al
legi
ng a
mat
eria
l fai
lure
by
Man
itoba
to c
ompl
y w
ith a
fu
ndam
enta
l ter
m o
r co
nditi
on.
In r
espo
nse
to th
is
alle
gatio
n M
anito
ba h
ad tw
o op
tions
ava
ilabl
e un
der
MF
A 3
6.01
(2);
to r
emed
y th
e al
lege
d m
ater
ial f
ailu
re o
r to
ref
er th
e m
atte
r to
IMC
. O
n F
ebru
ary
3, 2
006,
M
anito
ba r
efer
red
the
mat
ter
to th
e IM
C in
acc
orda
nce
with
Par
agra
ph 3
6.01
(2)
(b).
B
AC
KG
RO
UN
D:
On
Janu
ary
13, 2
006
BC
N C
hief
G
abrie
l Har
t wro
te to
Man
itoba
DM
of
MA
NA
and
pu
rsua
nt to
36.
01(1
) al
lege
d th
at M
anito
ba h
ad
brea
ched
its
MF
A o
blig
atio
ns w
ith r
espe
ct to
the
regi
stra
tion
of th
e K
nee
Lake
Lod
ge s
elec
tion.
The
al
lega
tion
that
Man
itoba
has
faile
d to
com
ply
with
a
fund
amen
tal t
erm
or
cond
ition
of t
he M
FA
incl
uded
the
follo
win
g pa
rtic
ular
s; a
) th
e br
each
of
Man
itoba
’s
oblig
atio
ns c
onta
ined
in 6
.02(
6), a
nd b
) M
anito
ba
perm
itted
sev
eral
reg
istr
atio
ns to
be
mad
e ag
ains
t lea
se
#348
2 w
hich
enc
umbe
rs th
e B
CN
’s K
nee
Lake
Lod
ge
Sel
ectio
n.
On
Feb
ruar
y 3,
200
6 th
e D
M o
f MA
NA
, H. B
ostr
om,
resp
onde
d to
the
BC
N a
llega
tion,
adv
ised
that
Man
itoba
do
es n
ot c
onsi
der
itsel
f to
be in
bre
ach
beca
use;
a)
the
sele
ctio
n w
as r
egis
tere
d in
the
Cro
wn
Land
s R
egis
ter
on
July
20,
200
0, a
nd t
he s
elec
tion
was
alre
ady
subj
ect t
o a
prio
r ex
istin
g T
PI i
n m
isce
llane
ous
leas
e N
o. 3
482
in
favo
ur o
f Kne
e La
ke L
odge
Inc.
, b)
the
cons
ent o
f M
anito
ba to
an
assi
gnm
ent o
f a le
ase
by
a le
aseh
olde
r fo
r co
llate
ral p
urpo
ses
is n
ot a
“di
spos
ition
” as
def
ined
in
1.01
(27)
of t
he M
FA
, and
c)
Man
itoba
reg
ular
ly c
onse
nts
to a
ssig
nmen
ts fo
r co
llate
ral p
urpo
ses.
As
a re
sult,
M
anito
ba r
efer
s th
e m
atte
r to
the
IMC
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith s
ubse
ctio
n 36
.02(
2) o
f the
MF
A.
The
IMC
und
erto
ok in
its
2010
/201
1 W
ork
Pla
n to
de
term
ine
the
upda
ted
stat
us o
n th
is r
efer
ral a
nd m
ake
a de
cisi
on
on a
ctio
n re
quire
d. O
n D
ecem
ber
17, 2
010
the
Cha
irper
son
was
ask
ed b
y IM
C
to s
cope
the
IMC
file
, det
erm
ine
whi
ch in
form
atio
n an
d up
date
s ar
e ou
tsta
ndin
g, r
eque
st m
issi
ng
info
rmat
ion
from
the
Par
ties
and
writ
e up
the
refe
rral
in th
e fo
rm
of th
e R
efer
ral P
roto
col f
or
disc
ussi
on b
y IM
C.
The
C
hairp
erso
n ci
rcul
ated
th
e R
efer
ral
in
the
For
m
of
the
Pro
toco
l on
Ja
nuar
y 11
, 20
11.
A
t th
at
time
the
Cha
irper
son
form
ally
req
uest
ed c
omm
ents
on
the
Ref
erra
l in
the
For
m o
f th
e P
roto
col
from
th
e P
artie
s,
as
wel
l as
cop
ies
of a
ny
pert
inen
t do
cum
ents
th
at
each
P
arty
be
lieve
s to
be
rele
vant
to
a fu
ll co
nsid
erat
ion
of th
is r
efer
ral.
In
add
ition
, giv
en h
is fi
ndin
gs o
n th
e fil
e, th
e C
hairp
erso
n co
mpl
eted
an
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
M
FA
pro
visi
ons
rela
ting
to
mat
eria
l fai
lure
in r
elat
ion
to th
is
refe
rral
, and
on
Janu
ary
11/1
1 fo
rwar
ded
a co
py to
the
Par
ties
for
cons
ider
atio
n an
d co
mm
ents
. T
he P
artie
s co
mm
ents
are
due
in
Apr
il/11
.
Not
det
erm
ined
as
of M
arch
31,
201
1.
� � � ��������
���
�����
������������
��� �����
����
��
� ����
����
���������
��
�
�
PA
GE
- 8
- of
- 1
3
IMC
File
N
um
ber
P
arty
/ E
FN
R
E:
R
efer
ral
Dat
e
S
um
mar
y
O
ther
R
elat
ed
File
s 20
06-B
CN
/TL
EC
-00
3
4/7/
2006
B
etw
een
Ma
y an
d A
ugus
t, 20
10 th
e IM
C r
evie
wed
the
Por
tage
ref
erra
l. (
IMC
file
200
6-B
CN
/TLE
C-0
03)
The
Cha
irper
son
pres
ente
d an
d ci
rcul
ated
an
anal
ysis
dat
ed J
une
30, 2
010
whi
ch w
as s
ubse
quen
tly a
gree
d to
by
cons
ensu
s of
the
Par
ties.
It
was
agr
eed
at a
n IM
C m
eetin
g on
Jul
y 27
, 20
10 t
o se
para
te t
he I
MC
file
200
6-B
CN
/TLE
C-0
03 i
nto
two
new
file
s.
Thi
s be
cam
e U
nder
taki
ng #
18 a
risin
g fr
om t
hat
mee
ting.
T
he tw
o ne
w fi
les
are
num
bere
d;
2006
-Man
ito
ba-
005,
and
200
7-T
LE
C-0
05.
2006
-Man
ito
ba-
005 :
T
his
refe
rral
file
dea
ls w
ith M
anito
ba’s
ref
erra
l (M
arch
22,
200
6) o
f th
e F
ebru
ary,
200
6, T
LEC
and
Bun
ibon
ibee
Cre
e N
atio
n al
lega
tions
tha
t M
anito
ba m
ater
ially
faile
d to
com
ply
with
a fu
ndam
enta
l ter
m o
r co
nditi
on o
f the
Man
itoba
Fra
mew
ork
Agr
eem
ent.
20
07-T
LE
C-0
05: T
his
refe
rral
file
dea
ls w
ith th
e Ju
ly 1
8, 2
007
TLE
C r
efer
ral r
elat
ed to
“C
row
n R
eser
vatio
ns –
Por
tage
s”.
Pre
viou
sly
thes
e tw
o m
atte
rs w
ere
filed
toge
ther
in o
ne fi
le n
umbe
red
2006
-BC
N/T
LEC
-003
.
2006
-M
anit
ob
a-00
5 20
07-
TL
EC
-005
IMC
File
N
um
ber
P
arty
/ E
FN
R
E:
Ref
erra
l D
ate
MF
A
Sec
tio
ns
MF
A H
ead
ing
s G
ener
al Is
sue
/ Bac
kgro
un
d
Act
ion
/Sta
tus
Mea
ns
of
Res
olu
tio
n
Oth
er
Rel
ated
F
iles
2006
-MA
NIT
OB
A-
005
Man
itoba
/ R
E: E
ffect
of a
P
orta
ge o
n a
Sel
ectio
n in
re
latio
n to
MF
A
prov
isio
ns
4/7/
2006
1.
01(2
1),
3.02
(6),
3.
02(1
2),
7.01
(2),
36
.01
Def
initi
ons
and
Inte
rpre
tatio
n, D
efin
ed
Wor
ds a
nd P
hras
es, C
row
n R
eser
vatio
ns; G
ener
al P
rinci
ples
for
Sel
ectio
n an
d A
cqui
sitio
n of
Lan
d;
Tra
nsfe
r of
Lan
ds a
nd In
tere
sts
from
, M
anito
ba to
Tra
nsfe
r C
row
n La
nd
and
Inte
rest
s to
Can
ada;
Mat
eria
l F
ailu
re a
nd E
vent
s of
def
ault,
M
ater
ial F
ailu
re to
Com
ply
with
F
unda
men
tal T
erm
or
Con
ditio
n
ISS
UE
: In
Feb
ruar
y, 2
006,
bot
h T
LEC
and
Bun
ibon
ibee
C
ree
Nat
ion
(BC
N)
alle
ged
that
Man
itoba
had
mat
eria
lly
faile
d to
com
ply
with
a fu
ndam
enta
l ter
m o
r co
nditi
on o
f th
e M
anito
ba F
ram
ewor
k A
gree
men
t. In
res
pons
e to
th
ese
alle
gatio
ns M
anito
ba h
ad tw
o op
tions
ava
ilabl
e un
der
MF
A 3
6.01
(2);
to r
emed
y th
e al
lege
d m
ater
ial
failu
re o
r to
ref
er th
e m
atte
r to
IMC
. O
n M
arch
22,
200
6 M
anito
ba r
efer
red
the
mat
ter
to IM
C.
B
AC
KG
RO
UN
D: O
n D
ecem
ber
23, 2
002,
Man
itoba
ga
ve n
otic
e to
the
BC
N o
f the
exi
sten
ce o
f a p
orta
ge
acro
ss T
rout
Fal
ls a
nd W
ipan
ipan
is P
orta
ge S
elec
tions
as
sert
ing
that
a p
orta
ge w
as a
“co
mpe
ting
cons
ider
atio
n” a
nd th
eref
ore
that
the
Sel
ectio
ns w
ere
not e
ligib
le u
nder
the
Prin
cipl
es.
On
Feb
ruar
y 27
, 20
06, M
anito
ba w
as g
iven
not
ice
join
tly b
y th
e B
CN
and
T
LEC
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith S
ubse
ctio
n 36
.01
asse
rtin
g a
mat
eria
l fai
lure
by
Man
itoba
to c
ompl
y w
ith a
The
IMC
und
erto
ok in
its
2010
/201
1 W
ork
Pla
n to
de
term
ine
the
upda
ted
stat
us o
n th
is r
efer
ral a
nd m
ake
a de
cisi
on o
n ac
tion
requ
ired.
O
n S
epte
mbe
r 1,
201
0 th
e C
hairp
erso
n w
rote
to B
CN
and
pr
ovid
ed a
n up
date
. G
iven
the
circ
umst
ance
s, th
e M
FA
dire
cts
the
Cha
irper
son
to r
efer
this
m
atte
r di
rect
ly to
bin
ding
ar
bitr
atio
n. (
MF
A A
rtic
le 3
6)
On
Feb
ruar
y 4,
201
1 T
LEC
w
rote
to IM
C a
nd a
sked
that
th
eir
alle
gatio
n be
pla
ced
in
abe
yanc
e on
a w
ithou
t pre
judi
ce
basi
s.
Bin
ding
ar
bitr
atio
n w
hich
is to
be
initi
ated
upo
n co
nfirm
atio
n of
re
quire
d in
form
atio
n fr
om B
CN
. T
he IM
C is
aw
aitin
g a
resp
onse
from
B
CN
to it
’s
Sep
t. 1/
10
lette
r.
Pre
viou
sly
2006
-B
CN
/TLE
C-
003
� � � ��������
���
�����
������������
��� �����
����
��
� ����
����
���������
��
�
�
PA
GE
- 9
- of
- 1
3
2006
-MA
NIT
OB
A-
005
- C
ontin
ued
-
fund
amen
tal t
erm
or
cond
ition
. O
n M
arch
22,
200
6,
Man
itoba
ref
erre
d th
e m
atte
r to
the
IMC
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith P
arag
raph
36.
01(2
) (b
).
���
���
���
��
����
����
����
����
����
����
���
����
����
����
�� !
����
����
�"��
����
#��
����
���$
����
�%��
�$���
����
����
����
&�$�
�"��
���'
�( )
*+,(�
On
Feb
ruar
y 27
, 20
07,
Man
itoba
sen
t a
lette
r to
the
BC
N t
o di
scus
s th
e re
tent
ion
of
the
right
of
pu
blic
ac
cess
to
th
e S
elec
tions
’ po
rtag
es e
ither
by
way
of
an a
cces
s ag
reem
ent
or p
ossi
ble
excl
usio
n un
der
Sub
sect
ion
3.02
(12)
as
dire
cted
by
the
IMC
.
At
an
IMC
m
eetin
g da
ted
A
pril
18,
2007
, th
e P
orta
ge
issu
e w
as
disc
usse
d an
d M
anito
ba
unde
rtoo
k to
pro
vide
a r
epor
t se
tting
out
the
res
ults
of
its
revi
ew o
f the
Sel
ectio
ns w
ith p
orta
ges.
At a
n IM
C M
eetin
g da
ted
Jun
e 14
, 200
7, M
anito
ba
pres
ente
d its
rep
ort d
ated
Jun
e 6,
200
7 to
the
IMC
re
gard
ing
“Sel
ectio
ns c
onta
inin
g a
port
age.
B
etw
een
Ma
y an
d A
ugus
t, 20
10 th
e IM
C r
evie
wed
the
Por
tage
Ref
erra
l (IM
C F
ile #
2006
-BC
N/T
LEC
-003
).
The
Cha
irper
son
pres
ente
d an
ana
lysi
s da
ted
June
30,
20
10 w
hich
was
sub
sequ
ently
agr
eed
to b
y co
nsen
sus
of th
e IM
C r
epre
sent
ativ
es.
It w
as a
gree
d at
an
IMC
M
eetin
g da
ted
July
27,
201
0 to
sep
arat
e th
e IM
C fi
le
into
two
new
file
s. O
n S
epte
mbe
r 1,
201
0 th
e C
hairp
erso
n w
rote
to B
CN
and
pro
vide
d an
upd
ate.
G
iven
the
circ
umst
ance
s, th
e M
FA
dire
cts
the
Cha
irper
son
to r
efer
this
mat
ter
dire
ctly
to b
indi
ng
arbi
trat
ion.
(M
FA
Art
icle
36)
In
the
lette
r th
e C
hairp
erso
n id
entif
ied
the
step
s re
quire
d to
mov
e fo
rwar
d w
ith th
e up
com
ing
arbi
trat
ion,
and
des
crib
ed
the
spec
ific
info
rmat
ion
that
is r
equi
red
from
BC
N to
do
so.
The
Cha
irper
son
also
req
uest
ed th
is d
etai
led
info
rmat
ion
from
TLE
C a
t IM
C m
eetin
gs.
Aw
aitin
g ; B
CN
res
pons
e to
S
epte
mbe
r 1/
10 le
tter
from
IMC
� � � ��������
���
�����
������������
��� �����
����
��
� ����
����
���������
��
�
�
PA
GE
- 1
0- o
f - 1
3
IMC
File
N
um
ber
P
arty
/ E
FN
R
E:
Ref
erra
l D
ate
MF
A
Sec
tio
ns
MF
A H
ead
ing
s G
ener
al Is
sue
/ Bac
kgro
un
d
Act
ion
/Sta
tus
Mea
ns
of
Res
olu
tio
n
Oth
er
Rel
ated
F
iles
2007
-TL
EC
- 00
5 M
anito
ba /
RE
: Effe
ct o
f a
Por
tage
on
a S
elec
tion
in
rela
tion
to M
FA
pr
ovis
ions
4/7/
2006
1.
01(2
1),
3.02
(6),
3.
02(1
2),
7.01
(2),
Def
initi
ons
and
Inte
rpre
tatio
n, D
efin
ed
Wor
ds a
nd P
hras
es, C
row
n R
eser
vatio
ns;,
Gen
eral
Prin
cipl
es fo
r S
elec
tion
and
Acq
uisi
tion
of L
and;
T
rans
fer
of L
ands
and
Inte
rest
s fr
om,
Man
itoba
to T
rans
fer
Cro
wn
Land
an
d In
tere
sts
to C
anad
a.
ISS
UE
: O
n Ju
ly 1
8, 2
007
the
TLE
C s
ubm
itted
a fo
rmal
re
ferr
al o
n “C
row
n R
eser
vatio
ns –
Por
tage
s”.
In it
s re
ferr
al, t
he T
LEC
ass
erts
that
a p
orta
ge is
de
fined
as
a C
row
n R
eser
vatio
n un
der
Sub
sect
ion
1.01
(21)
and
acc
ordi
ngly
that
Man
itoba
is n
ot e
ntitl
ed to
ch
arac
teri
ze a
por
tage
as
a re
ason
able
com
petin
g co
nsid
erat
ion
as th
e ba
sis
upon
whi
ch to
ref
use
to
conf
irm th
e el
igib
ility
of B
unib
onib
ee C
ree
Nat
ion’
s T
rout
Fal
ls a
nd W
ipan
ipan
is P
orta
ge S
elec
tions
. T
LEC
fu
rthe
r as
sert
s th
at M
anito
ba w
as o
blig
ed to
tran
sfer
ad
min
istr
atio
n an
d co
ntro
l of a
ll in
tere
sts
of M
anito
ba in
th
e S
elec
tions
to C
anad
a, in
clud
ing
any
Cro
wn
Res
erva
tions
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith S
ubse
ctio
n 7.
01(2
).
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: On
Dec
embe
r 23
, 200
2, M
anito
ba
gave
not
ice
to th
e B
CN
of t
he e
xist
ence
of a
por
tage
ac
ross
the
Tro
ut F
alls
and
Wip
anip
anis
Por
tage
S
elec
tions
ass
ertin
g th
at a
por
tage
was
a “
com
petin
g co
nsid
erat
ion”
and
ther
efor
e th
at th
e S
elec
tions
wer
e no
t elig
ible
und
er th
e P
rinci
ples
.
Bet
wee
n M
arch
1,
2007
and
Jul
y, 2
007,
the
IM
C
repr
esen
tativ
es
bega
n a
rene
wal
of
th
e IM
C
initi
ativ
e, a
nd a
dopt
ed p
roce
dure
s an
d a
wor
k pl
an
to d
o so
. I
n co
njun
ctio
n w
ith t
his
rene
wal
, th
e IM
C
repr
esen
tativ
es
adop
ted
a “P
roto
col
For
T
he
Ref
erra
l an
d R
evie
w
of
an
Issu
e or
M
atte
r in
D
ispu
te
Und
er
the
1997
M
anito
ba
Fra
mew
ork
Agr
eem
ent o
n T
reat
y La
nd E
ntitl
emen
t”
At
the
IMC
m
eetin
g da
ted
Apr
il 18
, 20
07
the
Por
tage
is
sue
was
di
scus
sed
and
Man
itoba
un
dert
ook
to
prov
ide
a re
port
se
tting
ou
t th
e re
sults
of
its
re
view
of
th
e S
elec
tions
w
ith
The
IMC
und
erto
ok in
its
2010
/201
1 W
ork
Pla
n to
de
term
ine
the
upda
ted
stat
us o
n th
is r
efer
ral a
nd m
ake
a de
cisi
on o
n ac
tion
requ
ired.
In
the
2010
/11
IMC
Wor
k P
lan
it w
as a
gree
d to
con
duct
a s
erie
s of
Foc
us G
roup
Mee
tings
on
this
topi
c. F
our
mee
tings
hav
e be
en h
eld.
(O
n S
epte
mbe
r 14
, 20
10, O
ctob
er 2
8, 2
010,
D
ecem
ber
13, 2
010,
and
Ja
nuar
y 24
, 201
1. T
he m
eetin
g sc
hedu
led
for
Mar
ch 1
8, 2
011,
w
as p
ostp
oned
unt
il A
pril
18/1
1.
Not
det
erm
ined
as
of M
arch
31,
20
11.
Pre
viou
sly
2006
-B
CN
/TLE
C-
003
� � � ��������
���
�����
������������
��� �����
����
��
� ����
����
���������
��
�
�
PA
GE
- 1
1- o
f - 1
3
2007
-TL
EC
- 00
5 -
Con
tinue
d -
port
ages
.
At
the
IMC
M
eetin
g da
ted
June
14
, 20
07,
Man
itoba
pre
sent
ed i
ts r
epor
t da
ted
June
6,
2007
re
gard
ing
“Sel
ectio
ns c
onta
inin
g a
port
age”
, to
the
IM
C.
Bet
wee
n M
ay
and
Aug
ust,
2010
the
IM
C r
evie
wed
th
e P
orta
ge R
efer
ral
(IM
C F
ile #
2006
-BC
N/T
LEC
-00
3),
and
in f
ollo
w u
p, t
he C
hairp
erso
n pr
esen
ted
an
anal
ysis
da
ted
June
30
, 20
10,
whi
ch
was
su
bseq
uent
ly
agre
ed
to
by
cons
ensu
s of
th
e P
artie
s.
It w
as a
gree
d at
an
IMC
Mee
ting
date
d Ju
ly27
, 20
10 t
o se
para
te t
he I
MC
file
into
tw
o ne
w
files
.
(200
6-M
anito
ba-0
05
and
2007
-TLE
C-0
05)
Thi
s 20
07-T
LEC
-005
re
ferr
al
file
deal
s w
ith
the
July
18
, 20
07
TLE
C
refe
rral
re
late
d to
”C
row
n R
eser
vatio
ns –
Por
tage
s”.
The
P
artie
s ag
reed
w
ithin
th
e 20
10-2
011
IMC
W
ork
Pla
n to
con
duct
a s
erie
s of
Foc
us G
roup
M
eetin
gs o
n th
is m
atte
r.
In c
onju
nctio
n w
ith t
he
Foc
us
Mee
tings
, M
anito
ba
cond
ucte
d si
te
asse
ssm
ents
of t
he s
elec
tions
con
tain
ing
port
ages
an
d up
date
d th
eir
com
men
ts.
T
he
need
fo
r a
port
age
was
su
bseq
uent
ly
rem
oved
fr
om
a nu
mbe
r of
se
lect
ions
.
The
P
artie
s ha
ve
also
ex
plor
ed a
ltern
ativ
es fo
r al
l of t
he o
ther
sel
ectio
ns,
and
have
co
ntac
ted
the
EF
Ns
to
prov
ide
clar
ifica
tion
and
upda
tes.
� � � ��������
���
�����
������������
��� �����
����
��
� ����
����
���������
��
�
�
PA
GE
- 1
2- o
f - 1
3
IM
C F
ile
Nu
mb
er
Par
ty /
EF
N
RE
:
Ref
erra
l D
ate
MF
A
Sec
tio
ns
MF
A H
ead
ing
s G
ener
al Is
sue
/ Bac
kgro
un
d
Act
ion
/Sta
tus
Mea
ns
of
Res
olu
tio
n
Oth
er
Rel
ated
F
iles
2007
-BP
FN
-001
B
uffa
lo P
oint
Firs
t N
atio
n R
E: P
ropo
sed
purc
hase
of
Con
trol
Zon
e la
nds
adja
cent
P
TH
#12
.
3/15
/200
7 13
.02,
13
.03
Roa
ds, H
ighw
ays
and
Airp
orts
, E
xclu
sion
of C
erta
in L
and,
W
idth
s of
Roa
d R
ight
of W
ay
ISS
UE
: O
n Ju
ne 2
6, 2
006,
Man
itoba
adv
ised
the
BP
FN
that
am
ong
othe
r th
ings
Man
itoba
was
ent
itled
to a
con
trol
zon
e to
be
exc
lude
d fr
om th
e la
nd p
urch
ased
by
the
BP
FN
alo
ng P
TH
N
o.12
.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: T
his
wou
ld r
esul
t in
the
excl
usio
n of
a 3
9.52
m
etre
wid
e st
rip o
f lan
d al
ong
PT
H N
o.12
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith
MF
A S
ectio
n 13
.03,
and
Man
itoba
has
offe
red
to p
urch
ase
it fr
om B
PF
N.
O
n M
arch
15,
200
7, th
e B
PF
N r
efer
red
the
mat
ter
to th
e IM
C.
Chi
ef T
hund
er a
nd M
anito
ba p
rese
nted
thei
r vi
ews
at th
e IM
C
mee
ting
on D
ecem
ber
12, 2
007.
A
t th
e D
ecem
ber
12,
2007
mee
ting,
the
n C
hairp
erso
n R
od
McL
eod
advi
sed
that
M
FA
S
ectio
n 13
is
cl
ear
on
the
excl
usio
n of
th
e “c
ontr
olle
d ar
eas”
of
a
Pro
vinc
ial
Tru
nk
Hig
hwa
y, b
ut n
otw
ithst
andi
ng, t
he r
elev
ant p
rovi
sion
s in
dica
te
exce
ptio
nal
circ
umst
ance
s m
ay a
t tim
es b
e co
nsid
ered
by
Man
itoba
(i.
e.
the
right
of
ex
clus
ion
and
wid
th
are
both
qu
alifi
ed b
y th
e w
ord
“ord
inar
ily”)
.
It ap
pear
s th
at th
e rig
ht o
f exc
lusi
on, a
nd th
e w
idth
ass
ocia
ted
w
ith a
n un
divi
ded
Pro
vinc
ial T
runk
Hig
hway
exc
lusi
on, a
re n
ot
in
disp
ute.
In
stea
d,
Man
itoba
an
d B
PF
N
rem
ain
in
nego
tiatio
n on
fai
r co
nsid
erat
ion
for
the
39.5
2 m
eter
str
ip o
f la
nd t
hat
Man
itoba
has
; a)
sta
ted
is r
equi
red
for
the
right
of
way
, and
b)
offe
red
to p
urch
ase
from
BP
FN
.
Man
y op
tions
hav
e be
en e
xplo
red
by t
he P
artie
s an
d th
e B
PF
N t
o en
able
thi
s ac
quis
ition
to
proc
eed
to r
eser
ve s
tatu
s.
Res
olut
ion
is c
ompl
icat
ed b
y th
e fa
ct t
hat
the
land
bes
t su
ited
to B
PF
N’s
dev
elop
men
t as
pira
tions
is
the
strip
req
uest
ed b
y M
anito
ba.
Neg
otia
tions
and
con
side
ratio
n of
opt
ions
hav
e co
ntin
ued.
B
PF
N a
nd M
anito
ba h
ave
not a
gree
d on
a p
urch
ase
pric
e or
an
agr
eem
ent.
The
IMC
und
erto
ok in
its
2010
/201
1 W
ork
Pla
n to
det
erm
ine
the
upda
ted
stat
us o
n th
is r
efer
ral a
nd m
ake
a de
cisi
on o
n ac
tion
requ
ired.
On
Dec
embe
r 17
, 201
0 th
e C
hairp
erso
n w
as a
sked
by
IMC
to s
cope
the
IMC
fil
e, d
eter
min
e w
hich
info
rmat
ion
and
upda
tes
are
outs
tand
ing,
req
uest
m
issi
ng in
form
atio
n fr
om th
e P
artie
s an
d w
rite
up th
e re
ferr
al in
the
form
of
the
Ref
erra
l Pro
toco
l for
dis
cuss
ion
by IM
C.
The
Cha
irper
son
circ
ulat
ed th
e R
efer
ral i
n th
e F
orm
of t
he P
roto
col
on J
anua
ry 1
9, 2
011.
A
t tha
t tim
e th
e C
hairp
erso
n fo
rmal
ly r
eque
sted
co
mm
ents
on
the
Ref
erra
l in
the
For
m o
f the
Pro
toco
l fro
m th
e P
artie
s as
wel
l as
copi
es o
f an
y ad
ditio
nal
docu
men
ts/ i
nfor
mat
ion
that
eac
h P
arty
bel
ieve
s to
be
rele
vant
to a
full
cons
ider
atio
n of
this
ref
erra
l. In
re
spon
se th
e P
artie
s ha
ve p
rovi
ded
docu
men
ts, a
nd th
e C
hairp
erso
n is
pr
epar
ing
an a
ugm
ente
d dr
aft f
or
circ
ulat
ion.
On
Feb
ruar
y 16
, 201
1 B
PF
N w
rote
to IM
C w
ith a
dditi
onal
co
nsid
erat
ions
for
IMC
, as
wel
l. In
ad
ditio
n, th
e C
hairp
erso
n re
ques
ted
the
sect
ions
ent
itled
“In
terp
reta
tion
of
the
Rel
evan
t Pro
visi
ons
of th
e M
FA
” an
d “P
ropo
sed
Res
olut
ion
and
Opt
ions
Con
side
red”
be
subm
itted
by
TLE
C a
nd C
anad
a, a
nd th
ese
are
due
in A
pril/
11.
Not
de
term
ined
as
of M
arch
31
, 201
1.
� � � ��������
���
�����
������������
��� �����
����
��
� ����
����
���������
��
�
�
PA
GE
- 1
3- o
f - 1
3
IMC
File
N
um
ber
P
arty
/ E
FN
R
E:
Ref
erra
l D
ate
MF
A
Sec
tio
ns
MF
A H
ead
ing
s G
ener
al Is
sue
/ Bac
kgro
un
d
Act
ion
/Sta
tus
Mea
ns
of
Res
olu
tio
n
Oth
er
Rel
ated
F
iles
2007
-TL
EC
-002
20
07-T
LE
C-0
03
TLE
C /
Man
itoba
R
E: H
ydro
E
asem
ent
8/27
/200
7 1.
01(4
0),
7.01
,
12.0
5,
12.0
7,
12.0
8,
12.0
9,
12.1
0,
38.0
1,
40.1
1
Def
initi
ons
and
Inte
rpre
tatio
n, D
efin
ed
Wor
ds a
nd P
hras
es, H
ydro
E
asem
ent;
Man
itoba
to T
rans
fer
Cro
wn
Land
and
Inte
rest
s to
Can
ada;
W
ater
Inte
rest
s, H
ydro
Eas
emen
t and
D
eter
min
atio
n of
Eas
emen
t Lin
e,
Land
Bel
ow E
asem
ent L
ine
Not
to b
e P
art o
f Tot
al L
and
Am
ount
, Lim
it on
Li
abili
ty fo
r C
erta
in L
and
to b
e S
elec
ted
or A
cqui
red,
Lan
d P
hys
ical
ly
Req
uire
d by
Man
itoba
Hyd
ro,
Rip
aria
n R
ight
s, ;
Agr
eed
For
ms,
Use
of
Agr
eed
For
ms;
Mis
cella
neou
s P
rovi
sion
s, N
o E
ffect
on
Exi
stin
g A
borig
inal
or
Tre
aty
Rig
hts.
ISS
UE
: T
LEC
ref
erre
d tw
o is
sues
with
in th
is r
efer
ral:
first
ly T
LEC
is a
sser
ting
that
Man
itoba
is n
ot e
ntitl
ed
to r
etai
n pa
rtia
l con
stitu
tiona
l jur
isdi
ctio
n re
quire
d to
su
ppor
t an
ease
men
t req
uire
d b
y M
anito
ba H
ydro
; an
d se
cond
ly th
at th
e hy
dro
ease
men
t sho
uld
set o
ut
a re
solu
tion
proc
ess
whe
re th
e E
FN
s ca
n ad
dres
s al
lege
d im
pact
s on
the
EF
N’s
exi
stin
g ab
orig
inal
and
T
reat
y rig
hts,
as
wel
l as
any
pote
ntia
l cla
im to
co
mpe
nsat
ion
in r
espe
ct o
f the
eas
emen
t are
a.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
: O
n A
ugus
t 27,
200
7, th
e T
LEC
re
ferr
ed th
e m
atte
r to
the
IMC
. The
IMC
dire
cted
the
Cha
irper
son
to c
onso
lidat
e th
e su
bmis
sion
s of
the
Par
ties,
and
writ
e up
the
refe
rral
in th
e fo
rm o
f the
R
efer
ral P
roto
col f
or d
iscu
ssio
n b
y IM
C.
Bet
wee
n th
at ti
me
and
June
, 200
9 th
ere
wer
e a
num
ber
of fo
cus
mee
tings
, with
and
with
out l
egal
co
unse
l, on
this
topi
c. T
he is
sues
in d
ispu
te a
re n
ow
char
acte
rize
d as
; a)
term
s an
d co
nditi
ons
of th
e H
/E
docu
men
t, an
d b)
oth
er r
elat
ed is
sues
aris
ing
from
th
e ap
plic
atio
n of
MF
A A
rtic
le 1
2.
TLE
C is
cur
rent
ly e
ngag
ed w
ith th
e E
FN
s to
rev
iew
th
e fo
rm o
f Hyd
ro E
asem
ent,
iden
tify
conc
erns
and
de
velo
p pr
opos
ed o
ptio
ns to
res
olve
the
conc
erns
. It
was
ant
icip
ated
that
TLE
C w
ould
pre
sent
opt
ions
to
reso
lve
the
EF
N’s
gen
eral
issu
es o
f con
cern
and
ad
vise
IMC
of t
heir
mai
n co
ncer
ns w
ith th
e ea
sem
ent
agre
emen
t by
Mar
ch 3
1, 2
011,
how
ever
this
un
dert
akin
g ha
s no
w b
een
carr
ied
forw
ard
until
Jul
y 31
/11.
The
IMC
und
erto
ok in
its
2010
/201
1 W
ork
Pla
n to
rea
ch
cons
ensu
s on
a d
raft
Agr
eed
To
For
m o
f Hyd
ro E
asem
ent
Agr
eem
ent,
and
assi
gned
the
lead
ro
le to
TLE
C.
The
targ
et r
esul
ts a
re, a
) to
hav
e T
LEC
wor
k w
ith th
e E
FN
s to
de
term
ine
and
expl
ain
the
mai
n ar
eas
of c
once
rn, a
nd b
) pr
esen
t op
tions
to r
esol
ve th
e ge
nera
l ar
eas
of c
once
rn, a
nd c
) re
ach
agre
emen
t on
the
Hyd
ro
Eas
emen
t doc
umen
t by
Mar
ch 3
1,
2011
. T
LEC
req
uest
ed th
at th
is
be c
arrie
d fo
rwar
d to
Jul
y 31
/11.
Not
det
erm
ined
as
of M
arch
31
, 201
1.
Appendix E
Definitions used in the 2010/2011 IMC Annual Report
DEFINITIONS USED IN THE 2010/2011
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE IMC
"AFC" means Agreed Forms Committee;
"AIP" means Agreement in Principal;
"BCN" means Bunibonibee Cree Nation;
"BLFN" means Barren Lands First Nation;
"BON" means Brokenhead Ojibway Nation;
"BPFN" means Buffalo Point First Nation;
"CAP" means Community Approval Process;
"EFN" means Entitlement First Nation;
"FRPFIA" means Federal Real Property and Federal Immovables Act;
"IMC" means the Implementation Monitoring Committee;
"I/M Referral Protocol" means the agreed format or "Protocol" for the referral and review
of an Issue or Matter in Dispute;
"LIS" means Land In Severalty;
"LSS" means the Land Selection Study;
"MANA" means Manitoba Aboriginal and Northern Affairs;
"MCCN" means Mathias Colomb Cree Nation;
"MCFN" means Marcel Colomb First Nation;
"MFA" or "Framework Agreement" means the 1997 Manitoba Framework Agreement on
Treaty Land Entitlement;
"MNRTA" means the Manitoba Natural Resources Transfer Agreement;
"NCN" means Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation;
"NHCN" means Norway House Cree Nation;
"OCN" means Opaskwayak Cree Nation;
"OPCN" means O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation;
"RRFN" means Rolling River First Nation;
"SCN" means Sapotaweyak Cree Nation;
"TEA" means a Treaty Entitlement Agreement;
"TLEC" means the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba, Inc.
"TLE" means Treaty land Entitlement under any Treaty in Manitoba.
"TPI" means Third Party Interest;
"TRELES" means Treaty Land Entitlement System;
"WSCN" means Wuskwi Sipihk Cree Nation;
Appendix F
2010 – 2011 IMC Work Plan
IMC
AN
NU
AL
WO
RK
PL
AN
fo
r 20
10/2
011
The
IM
C is
gen
eral
ly r
espo
nsib
le f
or f
acili
tatin
g im
ple
me
nta
tion
of t
he M
FA
and
an
y T
EA
tha
t in
clud
es,
but
not
limite
d to
, m
onito
ring
prog
ress
of
imp
lem
enta
tion
and
m
akin
g re
com
men
dat
ions
an
d re
solv
ing
an
y m
atte
rs o
r is
sues
in d
isp
ute
und
er th
e M
FA
.
As
per
Sec
tion
31
of t
he M
FA
, th
e P
artie
s sh
all u
se t
hei
r be
st e
ffort
s th
at in
clu
de a
ssig
nm
ent
of a
ppro
pria
te p
erso
nnel
to
disc
harg
e o
blig
atio
ns a
nd
all u
nde
rtak
ing
s un
der
the
MF
A a
nd w
ork
supp
lem
ent
al to
the
IMC
.
Whi
le t
his
Wor
kpla
n re
pres
ents
the
IM
C's
agr
eed
scop
e o
f ac
tiviti
es i
t is
im
plem
entin
g i
n th
e 20
10-2
011
fisca
l ye
ar t
ow
ard
s m
akin
g pr
ogr
ess
and
mee
ting
its
oblig
atio
ns u
nder
the
MF
A, i
t doe
s n
ot r
epla
ce n
or is
inte
nded
to a
lter
the
term
s of
the
MF
A n
or a
ny
of th
e ob
ligat
ions
of
the
Par
ties
or th
e IM
C c
reat
ed
here
unde
r.
Wo
rkp
lan
Res
po
nsi
bil
ity
# 1:
Fac
ilit
atin
g Im
ple
men
tati
on
of
the
MF
A
# IM
PL
EM
EN
TA
TIO
N
ISS
UE
IM
PL
EM
EN
TA
TIO
N
BA
RR
IER
R
EQ
UIR
ED
AC
TIO
NS
BY
IMC
R
ES
PO
NS
IBIL
ITY
L
EA
D
TIM
EL
INE
S
FO
R
CO
MP
LE
TIO
N
TA
RG
ET
RE
SU
LT
S B
Y M
AR
CH
31,
201
1
1.1
A
ll E
FN
s ar
e en
title
d to
hav
e a
T
EA
.
The
re a
re s
till 6
EF
Ns
with
out
sig
ned
TE
As.
Iden
tify
barr
iers
or
key
prob
lem
s fa
ced
by
6 E
FN
s to
sig
nin
g T
EA
and
pro
vide
re
port
to
IMC
for
issu
e re
solu
tion.
Rep
ort
to S
AC
. IN
AC
/TLE
C
30-S
ep
Mar
cel C
olo
mb
FN
and
Sha
mat
taw
a si
gn
TE
As
in 2
010/
201
1. D
etai
led
pla
ns to
war
ds
secu
ring
TE
A w
ith th
e re
ma
inin
g 4
EF
Ns
are
in p
lace
.
1.2
All
EF
Ns
mus
t co
mpl
ete
Cro
wn
Lan
d S
elec
tion
in
orde
r fo
r la
nds
to b
e co
nver
ted
to
rese
rve.
5 of
15
EF
Ns
have
co
mpl
eted
the
ir C
row
n La
nd
Sel
ectio
n.
Iden
tify
barr
iers
or
key
prob
lem
s fa
ced
by
rem
ain
ing
10 E
FN
s to
sel
ectin
g C
row
n la
nd
and
prov
ide
repo
rt to
IMC
for
issu
e re
solu
tion.
MB
30
-Se
p (I
nter
im)
31-M
ar(F
inal
)
4 of
10
rem
aini
ng E
FN
s (G
ods
Lake
FN
, B
uffa
lo P
oint
, Bro
ken
head
FN
, B
unib
onib
ee)
hav
e co
mp
lete
d C
row
n La
nd
Sel
ectio
ns. P
lans
are
in p
lace
to a
ddre
ss
how
and
wh
en r
emai
nin
g 10
EF
Ns
inte
nd
to c
ompl
ete
thei
r C
row
n La
nd S
elec
tions
.
1.3
Sch
edul
e B
EF
Ns
are
entit
led
to
acqu
ire O
ther
Lan
d fo
r co
nver
sion
to
rese
rve.
The
tim
e pe
riod
for
acqu
isiti
on
of O
ther
La
nd
is n
ear
ing
com
plet
ion
with
out a
ll po
ssib
le a
cres
hav
ing
bee
n pu
rcha
sed.
Iden
tify
barr
iers
and
opt
ions
to
acqu
irin
g O
ther
Lan
d b
y S
ched
ule
B E
FN
s an
d re
port
to IM
C fo
r is
sue
reso
lutio
n.
TLE
C
31-D
ec
Sch
edul
e B
EF
Ns
have
det
aile
d pl
ans
in
plac
e fo
r ac
quis
ition
of O
ther
Lan
d.
Iden
tify
optio
ns to
rem
ove
barr
iers
to
conv
ersi
on o
f alre
ad
y ac
quire
d la
nds
to
rese
rve
and
re
port
to IM
C fo
r is
sue
reso
lutio
n.
Can
ada
31
-Dec
Bar
riers
to c
onve
rsio
n of
acq
uis
ition
s to
re
serv
e la
nd h
ave
be
en
iden
tifie
d an
d, w
her
e p
oss
ible
, re
mov
ed.
Iden
tify
met
hods
und
er M
FA
and
al
tern
ativ
e o
ptio
ns to
con
vert
land
.
30-J
un
Id
entif
y ta
rget
per
cent
age
of la
nds
to b
e co
nver
ted
this
fisc
al y
ear
.
1.4
MF
A r
equi
res
reso
lutio
n of
Thi
rd
Par
ty In
tere
sts
(TP
I)
befo
re s
ele
cte
d la
nd
can
be c
onv
erte
d to
re
serv
e.
Num
ero
us u
nres
olve
d T
PIs
pre
vent
co
nver
sion
of s
elec
ted
land
to
rese
rve.
Rep
ort o
n st
atus
of e
xist
ing
TP
Is/e
ncum
bra
nces
. T
LEC
30
-Sep
Tar
get n
umbe
rs o
f TP
Is a
re r
esol
ved.
T
arge
t % o
f lan
ds w
ith r
eso
lve
d T
PIs
are
co
nver
ted
to r
ese
rve.
Set
targ
et fo
r nu
mbe
r of
exi
stin
g T
PIs
to b
e re
solv
ed a
nd,
onc
e re
solv
ed,
% o
f lan
ds
with
res
olv
ed T
PIs
to b
e co
nver
ted
to
rese
rve
this
fisc
al y
ear.
TLE
C
30-S
ep
1.5
EF
N p
riorit
y se
lect
ions
/acq
uisi
tions
with
out
sta
ndi
ng
encu
mbr
ance
s or
is
sues
.
Iden
tific
atio
n of
EF
N
201
0-20
11 p
rio
ritie
s la
nds
to b
e tr
ans
ferr
ed.
Dev
elop
and
impl
eme
nt a
mat
rix a
ppro
ach
on E
FN
prio
rity
par
cels
with
out
stan
ding
en
cum
bran
ces
or is
sues
. T
LEC
30
-Ju
n
IMC
agr
eed-
upon
EF
N p
riori
ties
for
Par
ties
rega
rdin
g ne
xt p
arce
ls to
be
tran
sfer
red.
P
riorit
ies
of a
ll P
artie
s ar
e re
flect
ed in
S
trat
egic
Pla
n.
Det
erm
ine
optio
ns to
ad
dres
s ou
tsta
ndin
g is
sues
not
add
ress
ed in
Str
ate
gic
Pla
n of
P
artie
s.
TLE
C
30-S
ep
O
ptio
ns fo
r ad
dres
sing
out
sta
ndin
g is
sues
.
1.6
A R
eser
ve C
reat
ion
Man
ual
(tr
acki
ng
char
ts)
is r
equ
ired
in
ord
er to
im
plem
ent r
eser
ve
crea
tion
in th
e m
ost
effic
ient
an
d ef
fect
ive
man
ner
.
The
Res
erve
Cre
atio
n M
anu
al (
trac
king
ch
arts
) ha
s no
t be
en
final
ised
.
Con
firm
pro
cess
es s
et o
ut in
cur
rent
dra
ft of
Res
erve
Cre
atio
n M
anu
al (
trac
kin
g ch
arts
).
Can
ada
30
-Ju
n
Res
erve
Cre
atio
n M
anua
l (tr
ack
ing
char
ts)
is c
onfir
me
d, a
ppro
ved,
an
d in
use
by
all
Par
ties.
R
ecom
me
nd a
dopt
ion
of R
eser
ve C
reat
ion
Man
ual
(tr
acki
ng c
hart
s) b
y S
AC
. C
anad
a
30-J
un
Impl
eme
nt R
eser
ve C
reat
ion
Man
ual
pr
oces
s (t
rack
ing
char
ts).
C
anad
a
30-J
un
1.7
MF
A s
ets
out
requ
irem
ent
for
a 'H
ydro
Eas
eme
nt' t
o be
gra
nted
, if
nece
ssar
y,
rega
rdin
g se
lect
ed
land
s.
The
re is
ong
oing
di
sagr
eem
ent a
s to
the
defin
ition
of a
nd
proc
ess
for
dete
rmin
ing
the
scop
e of
'Hyd
ro
Eas
emen
ts'.
Rep
ort o
n M
anito
ba’s
pro
pos
ed
proc
ess
for
dete
rmin
ing
'Hyd
ro E
asem
ents
' and
de
term
ine
opt
ions
to r
each
agr
eem
ent o
n pr
oces
s.
MB
/TLE
C
30-J
un
Agr
eem
ent h
as b
een
reac
hed
on
the
proc
ess
for
dete
rmin
ing
'Hyd
ro E
asem
ent
s'
and
the
proc
ess
is b
ein
g co
nsis
tent
ly
impl
emen
ted.
1.8
The
Par
ties
have
ag
reed
to e
nga
ge in
S
trat
egic
Pla
nnin
g as
a p
roce
ss to
aid
ea
ch P
arty
in
impl
emen
ting
its
resp
ons
ibili
ty u
nder
th
e M
FA
.
Par
ties
need
to fu
lfill
com
mitm
ents
mad
e in
S
trat
egic
Pla
n in
a
timel
y fa
shio
n.
Rev
iew
an
d re
port
on
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
S
trat
egic
Pla
nnin
g pr
oces
s o
n a
quar
terl
y ba
sis.
IM
C (
Cha
irper
son)
Ju
ne 3
0, a
nd
quar
terl
y th
erea
fter.
Par
ties
fulfi
ll co
mm
itted
del
iver
able
s.
W
ork
pla
n R
esp
on
sib
ility
# 2
: M
on
ito
rin
g P
rog
ress
of
Imp
lem
enti
ng
MF
A
M
ON
ITO
RIN
G
CA
TE
GO
RY
M
ON
ITO
RIN
G F
OC
US
R
EQ
UIR
ED
AC
TIO
NS
BY
IM
C
RE
SP
ON
SIB
ILIT
Y
LE
AD
TIM
EL
INE
S
FO
R
CO
MP
LE
TIO
N
TA
RG
ET
RE
SU
LT
S
2.1
E
ffect
ive
Man
age
me
nt a
nd
Use
of I
nfor
mat
ion
Tra
ckin
g ef
fect
iven
ess
of in
form
atio
n pr
epar
ed
for
use
in p
arce
l re
serv
e cr
eatio
n pr
oces
s.
Ass
ess
stat
us a
nd e
ffect
ive
use
of R
eser
ve
Cre
atio
n M
anu
al b
y al
l thr
ee P
artie
s on
a
quar
terl
y ba
sis.
IM
C (
Cha
irper
son)
30
-Ju
n
Res
erve
Cre
atio
n M
anua
l co
mpl
ete
d an
d in
us
e b
y al
l Par
ties.
Ass
ess
stat
us a
nd e
ffect
ive
use
of
TR
ELE
S.
IMC
(C
hairp
erso
n)
30-S
ep
T
RE
LES
is e
xpan
ded
for
use
by
all P
artie
s.
Ass
ess
stat
us a
nd e
ffect
ive
use
of T
LEC
in
form
atio
n m
ana
gem
ent s
yste
m.
IMC
(C
hairp
erso
n)
30-J
un
T
LEC
is a
ble
to e
ffect
ivel
y m
ana
ge a
nd
shar
e its
info
rmat
ion
to E
FN
s an
d P
artie
s.
2.2
E
ffect
ive
Coo
rdin
atio
n &
C
omm
unic
atio
n
Tra
ckin
g co
ord
inat
ion
and
com
mun
icat
ion
betw
een
Par
ties
To
asse
ss o
vera
ll co
mm
uni
catio
ns
incl
udi
ng e
ffect
iven
ess
of r
esp
onse
s a
nd
com
plia
nce
with
del
iver
ing
com
mitt
ed-t
o ta
sks.
IMC
(C
hairp
erso
n)
31-O
ct
Par
ties
fulfi
ll co
mm
itted
del
iver
able
s.
2.3
S
trat
egic
Pla
nnin
g b
y P
artie
s T
rack
ing
effe
ctiv
e us
e of
str
ateg
ic p
lann
ing
Ass
ess
prog
ress
of P
artie
s in
com
plet
ing
and
impl
emen
ting
mul
ti-ye
ar S
trat
egic
P
lan.
IM
C (
Cha
irper
son)
31
-Oct
N
umb
er o
f sel
ect
ions
/acq
uisi
tions
pr
oce
edin
g to
res
erve
sta
tus
2.4
E
ffect
ive
Adm
inis
trat
ion
of
MF
A b
y P
artie
s
Tra
ckin
g co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith la
nd s
elec
tion-
rela
ted
timef
ram
es in
M
FA
Con
firm
re
quir
emen
ts fo
r w
ritte
n ex
tens
ions
gra
nted
for
Cro
wn
Lan
d S
elec
tions
. IM
C (
Cha
irper
son)
30
-Ju
n
The
re is
com
plia
nce
with
Cro
wn
Land
S
elec
tion-
rela
ted
timef
ram
es s
et o
ut in
M
FA
.
2.5
E
ffect
ive
IMC
O
pera
tions
Effe
ctiv
e fin
anci
al a
nd
offic
e ad
min
istr
atio
n.
Impl
eme
nt W
orkp
lan
and
Bud
get a
s pr
ovid
ed.
IMC
(C
hairp
erso
n)
01-M
ay
IMC
mee
ts W
orkp
lan
and
Bud
get
com
mitm
ents
.
Reg
ular
eva
lua
tion
of
IMC
. C
ondu
ct in
tern
al s
elf-
eval
uat
ion.
IM
C (
Cha
irper
son)
31
-Oct
P
ositi
ve e
valu
atio
n an
d co
ntin
ually
im
prov
ing
effe
ctiv
enes
s.
2.6
Lan
d m
ust b
e tr
ansf
erre
d to
re
serv
e in
ord
er fo
r M
FA
to b
e fu
lfille
d.
Tra
ckin
g qu
antit
y a
nd
typ
e of
lan
d tr
ansf
erre
d.
Iden
tify
com
preh
ens
ive
me
asur
eme
nts
for
trac
king
pro
gre
ss o
f lan
d tr
ansf
erre
d (s
uch
as: t
otal
acr
es a
nd p
arce
ls, C
row
n ac
res
and
par
cels
, oth
er a
cres
and
par
cels
, sm
alle
r p
arce
ls -
less
than
10
00 a
cres
, la
rge
acre
s an
d pa
rce
ls, a
cre
s b
y E
FN
, pr
iorit
y ac
res
by
EF
N, p
arce
ls b
y E
FN
, pr
iorit
y pa
rcel
s by
EF
N).
IMC
(C
hairp
erso
n)
31-O
ct
Pro
gres
s of
tra
nsfe
rrin
g la
nds
is tr
acke
d ac
cord
ing
to m
easu
rem
ents
.
W
ork
pla
n R
esp
on
sib
ilit
y #
3: R
eso
lvin
g o
r R
efer
rin
g D
isp
ute
s
D
ISP
UT
E /
D
ISP
UT
E
NU
MB
ER
D
ISP
UT
E M
AIN
IS
SU
ES
R
EQ
UIR
ED
AC
TIO
NS
BY
IM
C
RE
SP
ON
SIB
ILIT
Y
LE
AD
TIM
EL
INE
S
FO
R
CO
MP
LE
TIO
N
TA
RG
ET
RE
SU
LT
S
3.1
T
LEC
20
07-
TLE
C-0
02
TLE
C d
isag
ree
s w
ith tr
ans
fer
of
Adm
inis
trat
ion
& C
ontr
ol to
MB
, ha
s co
ncer
ns a
bout
pos
sib
le
impa
cts
on T
reat
y &
Abo
rigi
nal
Rig
hts,
an
d ha
s co
ncer
ns a
bout
pr
opos
ed c
onte
nt o
f agr
eed
form
of
Hyd
ro E
ase
men
t.
EF
Ns
revi
ew
ing
optio
ns fo
r re
solu
tion.
T
LEC
31
-Oct
Pre
sent
atio
n of
opt
ions
by
TLE
C to
res
olve
ge
ner
al is
sues
of c
once
rn o
n ea
sem
ent
issu
e. T
LEC
rev
iew
and
pre
sent
atio
n of
the
ir pr
efer
red
optio
n to
IMC
for
cons
ider
atio
n.
Rev
iew
of a
gre
ed fo
rm fo
r H
ydro
E
asem
ent
Agr
eem
ent
. T
LEC
30
-Se
p
Exp
lana
tion
of T
LEC
's m
ain
conc
erns
with
E
asem
ent
Agr
eem
ent
and
thei
r pr
opo
sed
optio
ns fo
r re
solu
tion.
31-M
ar
Dra
ft A
gree
d to
For
m o
f Hyd
ro E
asem
ent
Agr
eem
ent d
eter
min
ed.
3.2
B
arre
n La
nds
20
04-
BLF
N-0
02
Bar
ren
Lan
ds a
llege
d C
ana
da
mat
eria
l fa
ilure
MF
A r
egar
din
g La
nds
in S
ever
alty
issu
e.
IMC
to d
eter
min
e ac
tions
req
uire
d.
IMC
(C
hairp
erso
n)
31-J
ul
Bar
ren
Lan
ds m
ake
a de
cisi
on
on s
tatu
s of
ar
bitr
atio
n.
3.3
B
unib
onib
ee
20
06-
BC
N/T
LEC
-00
3
Bun
ibon
ibee
& T
LEC
alle
ge
Man
itoba
mat
eria
l fai
lure
MF
A.
TLE
C a
llege
d M
anito
ba n
ot
entit
led
to C
row
n R
eser
vatio
n (P
orta
ge).
Foc
us G
roup
to p
rese
nt o
ptio
ns to
IM
C fo
r re
solu
tion
on C
row
n re
serv
atio
n.
IMC
(C
hairp
erso
n)
30-S
ep
F
ocus
Gro
up r
ecom
me
ndat
ions
.
15-D
ec
Con
sens
us o
n C
row
n re
serv
atio
ns.
3.4
B
uffa
lo P
oint
200
7-B
PF
N-0
01
Buf
falo
Poi
nt o
bjec
ted
to e
xclu
sion
of
con
trol
zon
e (
a rig
ht-o
f-w
ay)
fr
om la
nd a
cqu
isiti
on fo
r co
nver
sion
to r
eser
ve o
n P
TH
12.
Fol
low
-up
with
MB
Hig
hw
ays
and
B
uffa
lo P
oint
to d
eter
min
e st
atus
of
neg
otia
tions
an
d in
dic
ate
nee
d fo
r re
port
ing
to IM
C o
n m
ovem
ent
mad
e in
ne
gotia
tions
.
MB
31
-Ma
y IM
C to
mak
e a
deci
sion
on
actio
n.
3.5
B
uffa
lo P
oint
199
9-B
PF
N-0
01
Buf
falo
Poi
nt d
isag
rees
with
MB
as
sert
ion
that
sel
ectio
n in
Birc
h P
oint
Pro
vinc
ial P
ark
is in
elig
ible
.
Fol
low
-up
with
Buf
falo
Poi
nt to
de
term
ine
stat
us a
nd r
epo
rt to
IMC
on
mai
n ar
eas
of c
ontin
ued
dis
pute
. M
B
31-J
ul
IMC
to m
ake
a de
cisi
on o
n ac
tion.
3.6
N
isic
ha
wa
yasi
hk
19
99-
NC
N-0
03
NC
N d
isag
ree
d C
anad
a
Dat
e of
Exe
cutio
n of
TE
A
Fol
low
-up
with
NC
N to
det
erm
ine
stat
us a
nd r
ep
ort t
o IM
C o
n m
ain
area
s of
con
tinue
d d
isp
ute.
C
anad
a
30-J
un
IM
C to
mak
e a
deci
sion
on
actio
n.
3.7
B
roke
nhe
ad
20
03-
BO
N-0
01
Sur
plus
Fed
eral
land
Bro
ken
hea
d se
lect
ed
Kap
yong
"S
trat
egi
c D
ispo
sal"
.
Tre
aty
1 F
N's
law
suit
Fed
eral
A
ppe
al.
Can
ada
30
-Ju
n
IMC
to m
ake
a de
cisi
on o
n ac
tion.
3.8
B
unib
onib
ee
20
06-
Man
itob
a-
001
Bun
ibon
ibee
alle
ged
Man
itob
a br
each
ed M
FA
Sub
sect
ion
6.02
(6)
not r
egis
ter
Kn
ee L
ake
on C
row
n La
nd
Re
gist
ry.
Fol
low
-up
with
Bun
ibon
ibee
to
dete
rmin
e st
atus
and
re
port
to IM
C
on m
ain
are
as o
f con
tinu
ed d
ispu
te.
TLE
C
30-J
un
IMC
to m
ake
a de
cisi
on o
n ac
tion.
W
ork
pla
n R
esp
on
sib
ilit
y #
4: R
epo
rtin
g
4.1
The
MF
A r
equi
res
the
prod
uctio
n of
an
Ann
ual
Re
port
.
No
issu
e, ju
st a
n on
goi
ng
req
uire
men
t.
Pro
duce
Ann
ual
rep
ort.
IMC
(C
hairp
erso
n)
30-J
un,
201
1
Ann
ual
Re
port
pro
duc
ed b
y Ju
ne 3
0, 2
011.
4.2
T
he M
FA
req
uire
s re
gula
r fin
anc
ial
repo
rtin
g.
No
issu
e, ju
st a
n on
goi
ng
req
uire
men
t.
Pro
duce
fina
ncia
l re
port
s on
a m
onth
ly a
nd
quar
terl
y ba
sis.
IM
C (
Cha
irper
son)
Apr
il 30
for
firs
t m
onth
ly r
epo
rt.
June
30
for
first
qu
arte
rly
repo
rt.
Acc
epta
ble
fin
anci
al r
epor
ts p
rod
uced
th
roug
hout
the
fisca
l yea
r 2
010/
201
1.
4.3
The
IMC
pro
duce
s ye
arly
Au
dite
d F
inan
cial
S
tate
men
ts.
No
issu
e, ju
st a
n on
goi
ng
req
uire
men
t.
Ens
ure
prod
uctio
n of
Aud
ited
Fin
anci
al
Sta
tem
ents
.
IMC
(C
hairp
erso
n)
30-J
un,
201
1
Unq
ualif
ied
audi
ted
stat
eme
nts
pro
duce
d b
y Ju
ne 3
0, 2
011.
Appendix G
Draft Reserve Creation Process Flow Chart for TLE with Water Power Easements
TL
EC
Can
ad
aF
irst
Nati
on
MB
- L
AN
DS
MB
- A
NA
Hyd
roM
B -
Wate
r
Ste
ward
sh
ipM
B -
To
po
Map
MB
- D
ofS
1R
eceiv
es
BC
R
and m
ap o
f S
ele
ctio
n
Makes
Sele
ctio
n s
ends
BC
R a
nd
map
1
2F
orw
ard
s B
CR
and m
ap to
Manito
ba
Receiv
es
BC
R a
nd m
ap f
rom
Canada
2
3C
onsi
ders
and s
ends
elig
ibili
ty
resp
onse
Receiv
es
Canada's
elig
ibili
ty
resp
onse
Receiv
es
Canada's
elig
ibili
ty
resp
onse
3
4E
nte
rs s
ele
ctio
n o
n C
row
n L
and
Regis
try
4
5/a
Circula
tes
pro
vincia
l depts
. and
agencie
sR
eceiv
es
circula
rR
eceiv
es
circula
r5/a
5b
Resp
onds
to W
ate
r S
tew
ard
ship
Receiv
es
Hyd
ro's
resp
onse
5b
5c
Receiv
es
Wate
r S
tew
ard
ship
's
resp
onse
Receiv
es
copy
of
Wate
r S
tew
ard
ship
's r
esp
onse
Sends
resp
onse
to M
anito
ba -
Lands
5c
6/a
Receiv
es
copy
of
resp
onse
Receiv
es
Resp
onse
Receiv
es
Resp
onse
Sends
out M
anito
ba's
elig
ibili
ty
resp
onse
on the S
ele
ctio
nR
eceiv
es
copy
of
resp
onse
Receiv
es
copy
of
resp
onse
6/a
6b
Advi
se W
ate
r S
tew
ard
ship
to
request
ELD
R
Receiv
es
confirm
atio
n to r
equest
ELD
R6b
6c
Receiv
es
request
for
ELD
RF
orm
ally
request
s H
ydro
to
pre
pare
ELD
R6c
6d
With
Hyd
ro a
nd T
opo m
appin
g
dete
rmin
es
if s
uita
ble
photo
gra
phy
exi
sts
Begin
s pre
para
tion o
f E
LD
R a
nd
pro
vides
info
rmatio
n to M
anito
ba
regard
ing e
xist
ing p
hoto
gra
phy
May
ass
ist A
NA
with
dete
rmin
ing
if s
uita
ble
photo
gra
phy
exi
sts
6d
7a
If n
ecess
ary
- in
itiate
s photo
tendering p
rocess
Manages
air p
hoto
tendering
pro
cess
7a
7b
Pro
vides
gro
und c
ontr
ol f
or
air
photo
pro
cess
7b
7c
Receiv
es
air p
hoto
data
fro
m
contr
acto
r begin
s st
ructu
ring d
ata
7c
8/a
Follo
ws
up w
ith H
ydro
with
in 1
2
month
s re
quest
of
ELD
R8/a
8b
Hyd
ro c
onfirm
s E
LD
R targ
et
com
ple
tion d
ate
8b
9S
ubm
its E
LD
R to W
ate
r
Ste
ward
ship
Receiv
es
ELD
R f
or
revi
ew
9
9a
Advi
ses
Hyd
ro to p
rovi
de 1
0
copie
s of
ease
ment lin
e r
eport
to
AN
A
9a
9b
Receiv
es
copie
s of
ELD
R a
nd
update
d s
pre
adsh
eet fr
om
Hyd
ro
Sends
10 p
aper
copie
s of
ELD
R
and e
lectr
onic
vers
ion to A
NA
as
well
as
a u
pdate
d H
ydro
ELD
R
spre
adsh
eet
9b
9c
Receiv
es
1 c
opy
of
the E
LD
RR
eceiv
es
1 c
opy
of
the E
LD
RR
eceiv
es
4 c
opie
s of
the E
LD
RR
eceiv
es
2 c
opie
s of
the E
LD
RD
istr
ibute
s E
LD
R, keepin
g 2
copie
s.
Receiv
es
ELD
R d
ata
required to
dete
rmin
e c
onto
ur
line li
mits
9c
TLE
C m
ay
pro
vide technic
al
ass
ista
nce to E
FN
in r
evi
ew
of
ELD
R
EF
N b
egin
s re
view
of
ELD
R
10
Conto
ur
lines
ext
rapola
ted f
rom
photo
gra
phy
10
10a
Receiv
es
dig
ital c
onto
ur
data
fro
m
Topo M
ap
Forw
ard
s dig
ital c
onto
ur
data
to
Hyd
ro10a
11/a
Undert
akes
Surv
ey
of
Ease
ment
Lin
e b
y photo
gra
mm
etr
ic m
eth
ods
base
d o
n the E
LD
R
11/a
11b
Retu
rns
dig
ital e
ase
ment lin
e to
Topo M
ap
Receiv
es
dig
ital E
ase
ment lin
e
from
Hyd
ro11b
12
Receiv
es
6 c
opie
s of
the
Ease
ment Lin
e p
hoto
map
Pre
pare
s E
ase
ment Lin
e
photo
map, pro
vides
6 c
opie
s to
AN
A f
or
dis
trib
utio
n
12
13
Receiv
es
request
for
meetin
g to
revi
ew
ease
ment lin
e
requirem
ents
Receiv
es
request
for
meetin
g to
revi
ew
ease
ment lin
e
requirem
ents
Receiv
es
request
for
meetin
g to
revi
ew
ease
ment lin
e
requirem
ents
Receiv
es
notic
e f
or
meetin
g to
revi
ew
ease
ment lin
e
requirem
ents
Coord
inate
s F
ive P
art
y M
eetin
g to
revi
ew
Ease
ment Lin
e p
hoto
map
and a
gre
em
ent
Receiv
es
request
for
meetin
g to
revi
ew
ease
ment lin
e
requirem
ents
13
TLE
C m
ay
pro
vide technic
al
ass
ista
nce to E
FN
in r
evi
ew
of
Ease
ment Lin
e p
hoto
map
EF
N m
ay
begin
revi
ew
of
Ease
ment Lin
e p
hoto
map p
rior
to
the m
eetin
g.
13a
Makes
pre
senta
tion o
f E
ase
ment
Lin
e p
rocess
and o
verv
iew
of
term
s of
ease
ment
Hyd
ro m
akes
pre
senta
tion
regard
ing E
ase
ment Lin
e
dete
rmin
atio
n
13a
13b
Ease
ment Lin
e p
hoto
map s
igned
off
if p
art
ies
agre
e
Ease
ment Lin
e p
hoto
map s
igned
off
if p
art
ies
agre
e. F
N s
ignin
g
may
be d
efe
rred u
ntil
the B
CR
acceptin
g term
s of
ease
ment
agre
em
ent is
exe
cute
d.
Ease
ment Lin
e p
hoto
map s
igned
off
if p
art
ies
agre
e
Ease
ment Lin
e p
hoto
map s
igned
off
if p
art
ies
agre
e13b
13c
FN
may
request
additi
onal t
ime
for
the r
evi
ew
of
the E
ase
ment
Lin
e a
nd E
ase
ment A
gre
em
ent,
may
inclu
de c
om
munity
engagem
ent.
AN
A to c
oord
inate
flo
w o
f
additi
onal i
nfo
and s
tatu
s of
revi
ew
if a
pplic
able
13c
18 month ELDR preparation period begins .
TL
EC
Can
ad
aF
irst
Nati
on
MB
- L
AN
DS
MB
- A
NA
Hyd
roM
B -
Wate
r
Ste
ward
sh
ipM
B -
To
po
Map
MB
- D
ofS
13d
Pro
vides
copie
s of
BC
R a
cceptin
g
term
s of
ease
ment agre
em
ent
Forw
ard
s B
CR
acceptin
g term
s of
ease
ment agre
em
ent to
Canada
inclu
din
g the f
orm
of
ease
ment
and e
xecute
d E
ase
ment Lin
e
photo
map.
Receiv
es
copy
of
BC
R a
cceptin
g
term
s of
ease
ment agre
em
ent
Receiv
es
copy
of
BC
R a
cceptin
g
term
s of
ease
ment agre
em
ent
Receiv
es
copy
of
BC
R a
cceptin
g
term
s of
ease
ment agre
em
ent
13d
14
Pre
pare
s R
SM
of
Sele
ctio
n14
15
TLE
C m
ay
pro
vide technic
al
ass
ista
nce to E
FN
in r
evi
ew
of
RS
M
Revi
ew
s and s
igns
off
RS
M o
f
Sele
ctio
n
Revi
ew
s and s
igns
off
RS
M o
f
Sele
ctio
n
Revi
ew
s and s
igns
off
RS
M o
f
Sele
ctio
n15
16
Surv
eys
Sele
ctio
n b
oundaries
& if
pra
ctic
al t
he e
xpla
nato
ry p
lan o
f
ease
ment
Pro
vides
surv
ey
inst
ructio
ns
upon
request
16
16a
Dete
rmin
es
coord
inatio
n o
f
pre
para
tion o
f th
e E
xpla
nato
ry
Pla
n o
f E
ase
ment w
ith M
anito
ba
Dete
rmin
es
coord
inatio
n o
f
pre
para
tion o
f th
e E
xpla
nato
ry
Pla
n o
f E
ase
ment w
ith M
anito
ba
Pro
vides
technic
al a
ssis
tance in
regard
s to
pre
para
tion o
f th
e
Exp
lanato
ry P
lan o
f E
ase
ment as
required
Pro
vides
technic
al a
ssis
tance in
regard
s to
pre
para
tion o
f th
e
Exp
lanato
ry P
lan o
f E
ase
ment as
required
Pro
vides
technic
al a
ssis
tance in
regard
s to
pre
para
tion o
f th
e
Exp
lanato
ry P
lan o
f E
ase
ment as
required
16a
17
Request pre
para
tion o
f th
e
Expla
nato
ry P
lan o
f E
asem
ent by
Manitoba if necessary
17
17a
Conducts
necessary
fie
ld w
ork
and p
repare
s e
xpla
nato
ry p
lan o
f
easem
ent if r
equired
17a
18
Pro
vides
Exp
lanato
ry P
lans
of
Ease
ment fo
r re
view
by
FN
,
Manito
ba a
nd H
ydro
Revi
ew
s E
xpla
nato
ry P
lan o
f
Ease
ment
Revi
ew
s E
xpla
nato
ry P
lan o
f
Ease
ment
If r
equired p
rovid
es E
xpla
nato
ry
Pla
ns o
f E
asem
ent fo
r re
vie
w b
y
FN
, C
anada a
nd H
ydro
18
19
Receiv
es
BC
R a
ppro
ving
Exp
lanato
ry P
lan o
f E
ase
ment
Pro
vides
BC
R a
ppro
ving
Exp
lanato
ry P
lan o
f E
ase
ment
19
20
Pre
pare
s P
rovi
sional P
lan/s
of
Sele
ctio
n f
or
revi
ew
by
FN
and
Manito
ba
Revi
ew
s P
rovi
sional P
lan/s
of
Sele
ctio
n
Revi
ew
s P
rovi
sional P
lan/s
of
Sele
ctio
n20
21
Receiv
es
BC
R c
onfirm
ing
boundary
of
Sele
ctio
n s
how
n o
n
the P
rovi
sional P
lans
Pro
vides
BC
R c
onfirm
ing
boundary
of
Sele
ctio
n s
how
n o
n
the P
rovi
sional P
lans
21
22
Sig
ns
Pla
n o
f S
urv
ey
of
Sele
ctio
nS
igns
Pla
n o
f S
urv
ey
of
Sele
ctio
n22
23
Sig
ns
Exp
lanato
ry P
lan/s
of
Ease
ment
Sig
ns
Exp
lanato
ry P
lan/s
of
Ease
ment
Sig
ns
Exp
lanato
ry P
lan/s
of
Ease
ment
23
24
Regis
ters
pla
ns
in L
TO
& C
LS
R,
pre
pare
s le
gal d
esc
riptio
ns
of
Ease
ment and S
ele
ctio
n a
nd
pro
vides
to M
anito
ba
Receiv
es
legal d
esc
riptio
ns
of
Sele
ctio
n a
nd E
ase
ment
24
25
Com
ple
tes
pre
para
tion o
f th
e
Ease
ment A
gre
em
ent by
inse
rtin
g
the a
ppro
riate
legal d
esc
riptio
ns
25
26
Exe
cute
s 5 c
opie
s of
the
Ease
ment A
gre
em
ent
26
26a
Receiv
es
copy
of
transm
ittal l
etter
from
Manito
ba to M
B H
ydro
Receiv
es
copy
of
transm
ittal l
etter
from
Manito
ba to M
B H
ydro
Forw
ard
s 5 c
opie
s of
the
Ease
ment A
gre
em
ent to
MB
Hyd
ro
Receiv
es
Ease
ment A
gre
em
ents
from
Manito
ba
26a
27
Exe
cute
s 5 c
opie
s of
the
Ease
ment A
gre
em
ent
27
27a
Receiv
es
copy
of
transm
ittal l
etter
from
MB
Hyd
ro to E
FN
Receiv
es
Ease
ment A
gre
em
ents
from
Manito
ba
Receiv
es
copy
of
transm
ittal l
etter
from
MB
Hyd
ro to E
FN
Forw
ard
s 5 c
opie
s of
the
Ease
ment A
gre
em
ent to
EF
N27a
28
Auth
orizes
signin
g o
f E
ase
ment
Agre
em
ent by
BC
R, th
en
exe
cute
s 5 copie
s of
Ease
ment
Agre
em
ent
28
28a
Receiv
es
auth
orizin
g B
CR
and
Ease
ment A
gre
em
ents
fro
m E
FN
Forw
ard
s th
e a
uth
orizin
g B
CR
and 5
copie
s of
the E
ase
ment
Agre
em
ent to
Canada
Receiv
es
copy
of
transm
ittal l
etter
from
EF
N to C
anada
Receiv
es
copy
of
transm
ittal l
etter
from
EF
N to C
anada
28a
29
Pro
vides
notic
e o
f A
IP o
f th
e A
TR
to M
anito
ba
Receiv
es
notic
e o
f A
IP o
f th
e A
TR
from
Canada
29
30
Receiv
es
notic
e o
f P
rovi
ncia
l OiC
Receiv
es
cert
ifie
d c
opie
s of
Pro
vincia
l OiC
Receiv
es
notic
e o
f P
rovi
ncia
l OiC
Tra
nsf
ers
adm
inis
tratio
n a
nd
contr
ol t
o C
anada b
y w
ay
of
OIC
(backgro
und to s
tate
Sele
ctio
n
subje
ct to
ease
ment)
Receiv
es
notic
e o
f P
rovi
ncia
l OiC
30
31
Accepts
tra
nsf
er
of
adm
inis
tratio
n
and c
ontr
ol o
f S
ele
ctio
n f
rom
Manito
ba
31
31a
Exe
cute
s 5 c
opie
s of
the
Ease
ment A
gre
em
ent
31a
31b
Gra
nts
Ease
ment to
Hyd
ro a
nd
transf
ers
part
ial a
dm
in a
nd c
ontr
ol
to M
anito
ba
31b
31c
Canada d
istr
ibute
s copie
s of
the
Ease
ment A
gre
em
ent and
FR
PF
IA in
stru
ments
Receiv
es
copie
s fr
om
Canada
Receiv
es
copie
s fr
om
Canada
Receiv
es
copie
s fr
om
Canada
31c
32
Receiv
es
notic
e o
f R
ese
rve
desi
gnatio
n
Sets
entir
e S
ele
ctio
n a
side a
s
Rese
rve s
ubje
ct to
ease
ment
Receiv
es
notic
e o
f R
ese
rve
desi
gnatio
n
Receiv
es
notic
e o
f R
ese
rve
desi
gnatio
n32
33
Notif
ies
pro
vincia
l depart
ments
and a
gencie
s of
Rese
rve
desi
gnatio
n
Receiv
es
notif
icatio
n thro
ughout
the p
rocess
Receiv
es
notif
icatio
n o
f
desi
gnatio
n33