Imc 2010-11 Final Imc Annual Report for Printer Final Sept08 11

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.


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.


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


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.


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.


(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,


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.


(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.


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


Bunibonibee Cree Nation has selected 35,209.70 acres. (Source: March 25/11 TRELES)

YEAR DATE OCPC/MO NO. RESERVE NAME - ADDITION

SELECTION ACREAGE


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


God’s Lake First Nation has selected 41,077.28 acres. (Source: March 25/11 TRELES)


SELECTION ACREAGE


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


Manto Sipi Cree Nation has selected 9,964.68 acres. (Source: March 25/11 TRELES)


SELECTION ACREAGE


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


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


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


Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation has selected 72,735.93 acres. (Source: March 25/11 TRELES)

YEAR DATE OCPC/MO

NO. RESERVE 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


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 -



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


1,845.00

North Steeprock Lake

2007 JUL, 23 MO-2007-013


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


(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.


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



(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.


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


(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.


(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


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


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.


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;


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.


(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.


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.


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.


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.


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

Marion Wilson

TextBox

As of March 31, 2009

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

Documents

Imc 2010-11 Final Imc Annual Report for Printer Final Sept08 11