Re: March 9, 2022 Letter/Addendum to BKM Board of Directors TO ALL SHAREHOLDERS - PLEASE READ - At least the letter component!
A group of concerned shareholders forwarded the attached letter and addendum dated March 9, 2022 to the Board of Directors thru the PBM office and we were advised that the letter was delivered to the Directors. Unfortunately management decided not to give it to the BoD prior to their meeting but advise us they delivered it after the meeting. That was contrary to our instructions to them. We have given them 16 days to respond and they have chosen not to respond or provide any date for such response. This is very unfortunate but seems to be consistent with they way they have treated us as individual shareholders in the past. We are now going public with our letter and inviting all shareholders, large and small, to respond to our request for support so that ultimately we may recover share value in this failing company. We are prepared, as concerned shareholders, to take all steps necessary to make this project successful. The shareholders we represent are good people who only wish to see the Morrison Mine project succeed. There is no other motive or agenda. Please read the letter and provide us with your comments. Of course we would like your support. You may email me at alanwarnock@wkalawyers.ca or text me at (403) 818-6727. Please provide details as to your name, email address, cell/telphone number, number of shares owned or controlled, etc. Please be patient as it may take a little time to respond. Thank you for giving this your attention.
Alan Warnock
----------------------------------------------------------------------
March 9
th, 2022
To: Board of Directors, Pacific Booker Minerals Ltd. (PBM)
Mr. Gregory R. Anderson; Mr. Victor Eng; Mr. John Plourde; Dr. Dennis C. Simmons;
Mr. Eric A. Tornquist; Mr. William F. Webster;
Please be advised we are a substantial concerned group of shareholders in PBM, most of whom have been very long-term shareholders and have maintained a cordial relationship with management of PBM over these last many years. Specifically, we are a committee of seven (7) shareholders who have been active in seeking out answers as to why we have now been rejected by the EAO office three times in the last ten years. In addition to ourselves and other shareholders we represent, we control approximately 2 million shares and located largely within B.C. and Alberta. At this point we have reached out and spoken to a few shareholders in other geographic areas but have not actively solicited their support. We continually receive inquiries from other shareholders when they know of our existence. When we received the PBM news release of March 2, 2022 and were advised of the Board of Directors meeting to be held on March 11
th, we believed it crucial that you hear from our group of shareholders and specific concerns. Therefore, please include this letter on your March 11
th agenda and provide a response to us as soon as possible thereafter.
Please accept our condolences on the very recent passing of your long-term colleague and director, Mr. Bill Deeks. We know that Bill contributed much to PBM and he will be greatly missed by his family, friends and colleagues.
Thank you for taking the time to read our letter and consider our comments and recommendations. This correspondence is the result of many, many hours of discussion and research among our shareholder group. It includes discussions with current and former MLAs, legal and professional advisors, experts in resource development in first nation territories and bureaucrats who are well versed in the details of the Morrison copper project. The conclusions we have reached are unanimous within our group and supported by the third party experts/advisors we have spoken to.
On March 2, PBM management made their first significant written news release since the provincial ministers issued their latest rejection of the EAO certificate. The majority of the news release seems to be a re-statement of old issues (largely technical and engineering matters) wherein management is debating and challenging the EAO office for relying on their erroneous positions. To be clear, we essentially agree with management with their statements on these issues. However, subsequent to the 2012 EAO decision, PBM management failed to recognize the need to follow the BC EAO process by not responding to the required SAIR process and formally providing the technical information that was recommended. The BC EAO process has defined parameters and specific information requirements that result in a document that can ultimately be approved. One of our shareholders (within our leadership group of 7 shareholders) is very informed about the EAO process provided a draft “First Nations Consultation Plan” in 2009 to PBM management which we have attached for your review as Addendum “A”. It was strongly recommended by our shareholder that they follow the process outlined in the attached plan. We believe that if PBM management had taken this plan seriously and followed through on this very specific plan, the 2012 EAO permit would have been approved and today it is very likely there would be an operating copper mine on the Morrison site. However, this process was not followed by management. Instead, there were several company website posts of reports, argumentative statements, and banner development for the purpose of lobbying, that was not part of the formal and required process.
We believe the primary focus of the recent March 2
nd, 2022 news release is misdirected. The latest EAO permit application did not fail primarily because of engineering or technical issues, even though the Ministers in their “refusal” decision commented on the risk of Morrison Lake potential contamination and its effect on the salmon stock. The underlying issue and the “elephant in the room” is not these secondary issues but rather the one that is not addressed in the PBM newsletter until the very last paragraph which states: “The challenge going forward for PBM will be to address the First Nations concerns in regards to the projects’ impact on Babine Lake and the Skeena River”.
Management finally addresses the real issue in the news release but almost as an afterthought. Why has this issue not been addressed earlier? The reason it has not been addressed is because PBM has no significant relationship with Lake Babine Nation (LBN). Some observers would even say the relationship is toxic. LBN is the primary First Nations group that PBM must interact with in order to have any chance of success in a future EAO permit application. Our shareholder group has had significant discussions with MLAs familiar with the Morrison Copper project, a former MLA (Andrew Weaver, who spoke in favor of PBM eloquently in the BC legislature when a sitting member several years ago), experts in the area of resource development in First Nation territories and a former bureaucrat within the EAO administration. The advice and direction is unequivocal: Without a strong business relationship and partnership with LBN, any future environmental permit application is doomed and will receive the same negative result as the previous three applications. None of these observers are opposed to PBM’s proposed mine. To the contrary, they stated they would love to see the project proceed, providing tax revenue to the province and local first nations and quality jobs to the surrounding communities. They recognize the great opportunities in this project but are also aware of the fading hope of its realization without a massive reset in the attitude of management of PBM towards LBN and the native community in general.
As stated earlier, for the past 6-7 years, many have described the relationship between LBN and PBM as “toxic”. Sadly, management seemed to be completely oblivious to this fact. In 2020, the Province and LBN entered into a “Foundation Agreement” whereby, among other matters, the LBN would be given the right to participate in the EAO application process and hence, have much more control over resource development within their traditional lands. The “Lake Babine – B.C. Environmental Assessment Collaboration Agreement”, just signed in 2021, more clearly defined the terms of the terms of the earlier “Foundation Agreement” by stating “Lake Babine and the Province share a strong interest in deciding whether those projects can proceed in the territory”. Although, strictly speaking, these new agreements applied only to the projects proceeding under the new 2018 Environmental Assessment Act, management had to know (or should have known) that this application, proceeding under the previous legislation, would be viewed through the lens of these new agreements by the Ministers involved in the approval process. Clearly, LBN speaking in opposition of the project had serious influence with the Ministers and, hence, again the refusal to grant the permit. This is the third refusal in ten years. The technical issues as stated in the Ministers denial of the permit such as “risk to salmon in Morrison Lake” are largely symptoms of the underlying disease, the lack of relationship with LBN and therefore trust in management to act in their best interest.
Although the refusal to engage effectively with LBN is the primary reason for the failure of the EAO permit, there were some technical engineering issues around the tailings pond, water quality in Morrison Lake, etc. that also contributed to the refusal. The reports that were developed and posted on the PBM website were not even close to fulfilling the requirements of the EAO and therefore not sufficient for the Ministers to grant approval. Typically, there is a working group established (that includes FN representatives) lead by the EAO to discuss the information provided and address issues concerns by the parties. This is an effective way to track the project approval documents. Issues such as tailings pond, water quality monitoring, fisheries, etc, would all have been discussed and moved forward in this forum. This would have been the cornerstone of the process following the 2012 rejection if the SAIR request had been followed. Participating in this process would have helped foster a stronger working relationship with LBN and other FN communities potentially affected by the project. It would also flush out any irrelevant or erroneous issues that may be raised with the intent of delaying the project. The current management essentially disregarded the prescribed EAO process. In our view, PBM lacked the EAO consulting expertise to carefully navigate the regulatory process. By refusing to complete the SAIRS process, management gambled that it could exit the process and force the ministers to make a decision based on what EAO administration deemed insufficient information and compliance. That was an extremely risky decision without EAO or First Nations support. In retrospect, we should not be surprised by the outcome.
There is no question that any future EAO application will be forced to proceed under the new 2018 legislation and therefore is subject to these new agreements between the province and LBN. Whether we love or hate these agreements, they are now part of the process. It is now abundantly clear that there must be a collaboration agreement with the first nations and it will likely be in the form of a joint venture agreement (or something similar) to have any chance of success in the new application. Our advisors tell us the First Nations have been essentially granted de-facto veto power over resource projects within their territories. It is our new reality we must face.
In addition to the relationship issue with LBN, there are serious challenges with the company’s credibility within the EAO administration and insufficient political support from the ministers who essentially decide the fate of the company. This is completely contrary to what several alarmed shareholders were told by Mr. Plourde (in the weeks prior to the recent EAO rejection) when asked direct and specific questions regarding these critical issues. We were advised that the EAO permit was essentially a sure thing with nothing more than a few conditions attached to the permit. To be completely frank, this was completely inaccurate and misleading. As investors, much to our regret, we trusted management’s assertions without verifying the accuracy of these statements.
We do not suffer from the illusion that the challenge of rebuilding share value will be simple or easy. To the contrary, this will be an arduous endeavor that has been made even more difficult by previous serious missteps. We are at a fork in the road. We can continue down the same pathway, refusing to acknowledge the obvious issues, which will result in more of the same – failure. Or, we can choose a new pathway, recognizing the new political reality we face and adjust our strategy to effectively address the challenges we face as a company. We respectfully suggest that the following steps must be taken to set the stage for success.
- Reconfigure the Board of Directors with the following factors in mind: Keep some of the existing members of the board for the sake of continuity and respecting the level of expertise they have. Remaining members should have no negative baggage which creates a stumbling block in future discussions with LBN. Appoint at least four new members so the new board of directors has a competent level of expertise in indigenous business resource relations, overall knowledge of mining business, corporate governance, legal and accounting oversight, and a clear understanding of the provincial and federal regulatory application and approval processes. Consideration should be given to seeking out an indigenous board member with some business experience to reflect our seriousness in addressing priority issues we have outlined;
- Appoint a new CEO (even if interim for a period of time) with strong background in mining and corporate governance and strong communication skills, supportive of the new direction and priorities of the company. John Plourde may remain as an unofficial advisor to PBM;
- Seek out excellent professional advisors and consultants with expertise in the areas of Indigenous partnerships, EAO resource applications within First Nation territories;
- Develop a concise regulatory approval strategy, stakeholder, and First Nation consultation strategy that is fully supported by the Board of Directors and corporate executive. Communicate with the shareholders outlining the company’s new direction, dedicated to reverse the failure by charting a new course setting out the new direction and goals which will ultimately lead to success of the company and increase shareholder value.
There has been some discussion with respect to suing the B.C. government as a result of these EAO refusals. At first glance, we believe taking such legal action would be extremely foolhardy. Any litigation would have an extremely uncertain outcome and would mean this project would be strangled in the court process for several years. It would make future EAO permits impossible and essentially the project would have to be sold to a third party for a significantly diminished valuation. As a concerned shareholder group, we wish to state clearly that any such legal action would be actively opposed by our group.
Management could consider at this point selling the Morrison project ( as is) and we do not know how shareholders would respond to such a potential sale. We presume it would depend on the price obtained for the sale of the asset. We are not optimistic that, without an EAO permit, PBM would obtain good value for its sole resource – Morrison copper project.
We are prepared, on a positive basis, to have further interaction with you if you are willing and prepared to make substantial changes in the direction and leadership of PBM. There may be other large shareholders who wish to provide some input on these matters and we would be happy to participate in a further discussion on these important issues.
There is no doubt that we share the same goal, which is maximizing of shareholder value. It has been an extremely disappointing 20 years with share value now languishing near $0.80 CDN per share, down from all-time high of nearly $15. We believe if you allow us, as a group of long-suffering shareholders, to participate in this discussion of future direction of this company, all shareholders would ultimately benefit. Our goal is to see competent, professional and strong leadership at the helm of PBM. We would much rather that goal be accomplished in a cooperative manner rather than in an acrimonious fashion.
Thank you for all the contributions you have made to the governance of PBM. We appreciate your time in reading this correspondence and trust you will give serious consideration to our proposals. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or concerns. We look forward to your timely response.
Best Regards,
Alan G. Warnock (group of 7 - on behalf of many concerned PBM shareholders)
alangwarnock@hotmail.com (403) 818 6727
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum “A”
attached to March 9th 2022 letter to Pacific Booker Minerals Ltd. Board of Directors
from Concerned Shareholder Group
First Nations Consultation Plan
Draft
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OFFICE
CERTIFICATE APPLICATION
INTRODUCTION
PBM is undertaking a public consultation and communications program in support of the Morrison Project application. This First Nations Consultation Plan forms a required part of the PBM Application to the EAO.
The purpose of this document is to satisfy the First Nations Consultation requirements as set out in Schedule A, Part E, Section 14 of the Section 11 Order issued by the EAO. This document outlines the proposed plan for a comprehensive consultation and communications program.
This plan is designed to serve as a framework for moving forward with consultation – it establishes broad engagement criteria and is designed to be flexible to accommodate the needs of First Nations and to allow for input, revisions and updates as required. This proposed plan will continue to evolve based upon ongoing communications and consultation activities with the LBN and under the direction of the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (EAO).
PBM has had face-to-face discussions regarding the proposed project with LBN. In drafting this plan, PBM has relied in part upon information and feedback provided to it by the LBN.
1. General Overview 1.1 Project Overview PBM is publicly committed to a consultation process that is consistent meets or exceeds regulatory requirements. This includes the concept of engagement outside of the regulatory process in areas such as economic development, education or social initiatives, as well as regular interaction with First Nations to promote a positive corporate presence and profile with community members.
1.2 PBM Corporate Responsibility PBM is committed to working with First Nations for the purposes of building and maintaining long-term, mutually beneficial relationships.
Lake Babine First Nation (LBN) hold a primary and important place in the consultation process.
PBM considers First Nations and local interests by:
- providing tangible opportunities for First Nations input, involvement, and benefit from the proposed project
- providing flexible and active adjustments to project parameters based on First Nations input and desires
- conducting public consultation in accordance with industry / regulatory guidelines and informed by First Nation guidelines for meaningful consultation
- providing opportunities for community awareness and input about its development and operational plans in proximity to residents, landowners and First Nation communities, or those impacted by development
PBM is also committed to continuous and lasting improvements, by:
- regular reviews of its activities in the community
- asking First Nations stakeholders for their feedback on PBM’s role as a corporate neighbour
PBM’s approach to building these relationships is based on respect and timely communication about relevant and proposed developments. PBM believes community consultation is a collaborative process shared between PBM and the communities in which it operates.
1.3 Principles of First Nations Engagement PBM will apply the following principles of engagement with respect to the proposed project consultation process:
§ First Nations will be accurately informed on a timely basis about proposed Project activities for the purposes of seeking First Nation’s input. PBM will endeavour to consult early and often with First Nations and to continuously provide opportunities for First Nations to provide input and comments with respect to Project matters.
§ PBM will engage First Nations early to learn about community goals and perspectives and PBM will take those factors into consideration in Project planning.
§ First Nations consultation and participation processes will be transparent and open.
§ As part of environmental assessment and planning, PBM will endeavor to learn about and integrate available information concerning local, historical and traditional knowledge, health-related issues and economies into its consultation and planning processes
§ All interactions and information sharing with First Nations will be in accordance with the highest ethical, legal and regulatory standards.
1.5 Objectives of Consultation The purpose the consultation process is to set out how PBM will consult with the LBN on the Project in relation to their individual treaty rights.
Consultation carried out pursuant to the consultation plan, will:
(a) subject to the Section 11 Order, the approved Terms of Reference and the Application, seek to ensure that PBM, the Crown and First Nations develop sufficient credible information to allow them to understand and meaningfully assess, and if required accommodate, the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the Project on treaty rights, health, culture and socio-economic interests of the First Nations; and
(b) seek to ensure that the First Nations are able to carry out their preferred means of exercising their Treaty rights now and in the future within the vicinity of the Project and;
(c) seek to addressed concerns raised by First Nations in the consultation process.
In its review of the Project, the EAO will utilize information collected by PBM, and LBN in the environmental assessment process to aid in the discharge of the Crown’s duty for First Nations consultation. While PBM may conduct certain procedural aspects of Aboriginal consultation (such as funding and discussing First Nation traditional land uses), the Minister(s) will retain responsibility to determine whether such consultation has been adequate and ultimately whether an EA Certificate ought to be issued for the project.
PBM understands that the First Nation consultation activities assigned to it by EAO through the Section 11 Order, and outlined in the consultation plan, do not define or exhaust the Crown’s duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate First Nation’s interests and concerns associated with the proposed project. As deemed necessary by the Project Assessment Director, the EAO (on behalf of the Crown), may undertake additional consultation activities with potentially affected First Nations in addition to those outlined in this plan
. This plan is meant to guide PBM’s requirement to consult, delegated to it by the Section 11 Order and other consultation requirements that may be set. This process will support meaningful engagement with the LBN to ensure regulatory requirements are met; ensuring that First Nations, PBM, and the Crown have sufficient and credible information to assess potential impacts of the Project on First Nation treaty rights; avoid the impacts through design or provide suitable mitigation options for Project effects and identify any outstanding residual effects that cannot be mitigated; and provide a reasonable opportunity for First Nations, PBM and the Crown to discuss accommodation if necessary.
2. PROPOSED FIRST NATION CONSULTATION APPROACH 2.1 Overview The proposed Project is located in an area subject to First Nations consultation.
First Nations will be consulted in an appropriate manner during all stages of the Project’s development.
The primary purpose of First Nations consultation is to identify how First Nation exercises its treaty rights to fish, hunt, trap, and gather in the Project area, identify potential impacts of the proposed Project on their exercise of those treaty rights, and develop measures in discussions with affected First Nations to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse impacts on treaty rights from the proposed Project.
PBM’s First Nation consultation process will be conducted in accordance with EAO’s five primary consultation considerations (First Nations setting, key issues, specific identification of treaty rights, process of consultation and EAO’s conclusion regarding the Crown’s duties), along with anticipated elements of process reporting and discussion.
It is anticipated that PBM, through the First Nations consultation process and in conjunction with the EAO, will include and work to address issues of importance to the LBN, including (but not limited to):
· Impacts on LBN’s treaty rights related to the project
· Development plans related to the proposed Project
· Environmental impact assessment and use of traditional knowledge
· General socio-economic impacts
· Internal capacity for Project review and participation
· Identifying potential adverse environmental, economic, health and heritage effects associated with the proposed project, and identifying measures to avoid, reduce or mitigate such effects
3. SUMMARY OF PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION PBM submitted a project description (a preliminary overview) to the EAO in (Insert Date), as the first step in initiating the Project review process. Pre-application consultation refers to all engagement that has occurred since submission of the proposed Project Description (insert Date) and acceptance by the EAO of a final Application – targeting July 25, 2009.
3.1 Identified First Nations Working with the EAO, PBM has taken steps to identify First Nations who may be interested in participating in the proposed Project consultation. They can be defined as including the following:
§ First Nations who reside, or work near the Project and could be physically affected by the construction or operation (or both) of the Project and its associated activities.
§ First Nations who potentially have environmental, treaty, cultural, social or economic interests in, or particular knowledge of, defined spatial areas or activities that might be potentially affected by the Project.
3.2 Methodology During the Pre-Application Stage, PBM has broadly disseminated information about the Project and the consultation process using direct engagement, advertising, letters and fact sheets, and other means deemed appropriate by interested First Nations.
To date, engagement has occurred by means of direct meetings, site visits, exchanges of information, correspondence, local interviews, community meetings, presentations to Chiefs and Councils and other means identified by PBM.
Key Activities § Development of communications support materials including, but not limited to,
o fact sheets/bulletins and other communications materials as requested or warranted
o open house displays
o letters/notices/ads
o maps
§ PBM ensured that copies of all Project related communications materials were provided to potentially affected First Nations on a timely basis
§ First Nations should have the opportunity of representation on appropriate committees in the processes, in order to provide advice and recommendations directly to government agencies responsible for the assessment process. PBM believes the EAO Working Group process provides a vital opportunity to ensure First Nations have opportunities to provide input directly into the EAO review process.
§ Participation in the EAO open house (?)
§ Presentations or meetings with First Nations – as requested
§ Identification and analysis of potential issues including, options for mitigation measures in response to concerns raised through the consultation process
§ Review of the proposed ToR and responses, and where possible, incorporation of specific First Nation input and comments into subsequent drafts
§ Individual meetings with First Nations to discuss specific issues of interest
3.3 Summary of Pre-Application Consultation PBM has completed presentations of the proposed Project to the LBN and in addition has actively responded to requests for capacity funding to enable review of EAO documents and participation in EAO processes.
(Add in PBM consultation activities)
3.4 Proposed Future Consultation Activities a. Meetings and Communications In addition to participation in an EAO open house, PBM remains available to provide presentations, hold community meetings, and provide other forums during the Application stage, as deemed appropriate by the First Nation community, for discussion of various aspects of the Project, including:
o providing environmental service specialists to discuss studies for the Environmental Assessment; and
o exploring other issues of interest with respect to the proposed Project.
In the instances where PBM is engaging a First Nation’s community at large, PBM will prepare plain-language Project information to accurately describe the Project and its potential impacts on First Nations communities and treaty rights. This information will depend on the meeting agenda, but will commonly include a high level description of the Project and clear maps of the Project location in relation to communities and recognizable landmarks. Working with First Nations, PBM will make every effort to ensure sufficient copies of information are available for community distribution.
b. Information and Distribution
PBM has provided a description of the Project and maps showing the Project footprint in relation to First Nations reserves, communities and known landmarks.
Additionally, PBM will continue to utilize a variety of communications methods to ensure that First Nations receive Project information in a timely manner, including:
o Direct provision of information to designated representatives and/or consultation offices using any of the following communications tools:
§ e-mail
§ website postings
§ hand delivery and/or courier
§ telephone
§ advertising in local media
c. Environmental Assessment and First Nation Participation PBM will seek to provide opportunities for First Nations involvement in the EAO process by:
· ensuring that the First Nations are provided with any previous biophysical, social, health, economic or cultural studies conducted by PBM, including study methodology;
· consulting with First Nations during the EAO Application review process over how existing traditional knowledge, other information and advice has been incorporated into the Application; and
Other Information Requirements PBM will work cooperatively with the First Nations to ensure that there is full, complete, reliable and credible information to assess the potential impacts of the project on the section 35 rights of the First Nations. Where there are gaps in information, either in the Application, or in respect of the information-gathering process (e.g., field studies) or otherwise, PBM will:
· provide opportunities for First Nations to note concerns;
· seek a common PBM-LBN understanding of the above-noted concerns on a timely basis;
· on direction from the EAO, carry out further studies and information gathering;
· work cooperatively with the First Nations to find means of addressing any information gaps and;
· where PBM requires further information from the First Nations in any steps of the regulatory review process, communicate at the earliest opportunity with the First Nations in respect of any such matter.
d. Capacity Funding
PBM recognizes that First Nations communities seek capacity funding to enable them to consult on Project applications. PBM has and will continue to consult with LBN to assess reasonable opportunities for capacity funding in relation to other opportunities identified above.
It is necessary for First Nations, PBM and the Crown to have sufficient and credible information to assess the potential impacts of the Project on First Nation treaty rights. PBM recognizes that First Nations often require additional capacity to participate meaningfully in all aspects of consultation. PBM has been committed to providing reasonable funding to enhance First Nations capacity in order to understand the Project and its potential effects on the exercise of their treaty rights.
e. Documentation of Contacts and Discussions
PBM will track consultation and engagement to ensure all consultation efforts are accurately recorded and reported. PBM will provide its records of communication to the EAO and such information will serve as part of its overall Application. These documents, including minutes of meetings, phone calls, emails, written correspondence, reports and supporting documentation will be a matter of public record. To ensure openness, accountability and transparency during the process, PBM will share its records of communication with First Nations through the application process.
In addition, PBM has actively solicited comments from LBN on the various draft ToR’s and has attempted to find common ground and agreement, where possible.
Meaningful Consideration of First Nations’ Input PBM is committed to meaningful consideration of the issues and concerns raised by the LBN during the consultation process. PBM is committed to seeking to find ways of addressing potential impacts identified during the EA process.
PBM will keep a full and accurate record of communications with First Nations, identifying issues and concerns raised throughout the consultation process, and how these issues and concerns are to be addressed. Such communications will be shared with the First Nations throughout the consultation process.
The above process will also apply to consultants and professionals acting on PBM’s behalf on the Project, such as in the execution of the EA and consultation processes outlined herein. This will ensure that the First Nations and the EAO have confidence that PBM is properly understanding First Nations’ input and concerns and that PBM is seeking ways of addressing those concerns.
PBM will, in particular:
· ensure, through discussions with the First Nations, that it understands those concerns – where any concerns are not understood, PBM will seek further information and explanation from the First Nations in a timely manner;
· in accordance with the Section 11 Order, PBM will:
§ document, in writing, how it proposes to address those concerns and;
§ where PBM is unable or unwilling to address certain concerns, PBM will provide reasons for those decisions;
· approach such consultation with an open mind, and be prepared to make reasonable changes to the Project or aspects thereof based on the information received by the First Nations.
f. Addressing First Nations Concerns and Dispute Resolution
PBM will take a proactive approach in situations where First Nations express concerns about the application or in relation to specific elements of the proposed project.
In situations where First Nations and PBM find they have different perspectives on a particular issue, PBM will endeavor to resolve the dispute, where possible, through direct, interest-based communication with First Nations.
First Nations will be consistently encouraged to provide suggestions to PBM on ways and methods to resolve particular concerns not addressed to their satisfaction during the engagement process.
3.5 Summary of First Nations Interests in the Project In consultations to date, First Nations have informed PBM that their interests include:
| Category | First Nation Interest |
| Section 35 Rights | Recognition of Treaty Rights to hunt, gather, trap and fish |
| Effect of the Project on rights protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act. |
| Mitigation for infringement of treaty rights. |
| | Accommodation of section 35 rights |
| Consultation | Consultation and accommodation of First Nations interests will occur throughout all Project phases. |
| First Nations to be kept informed of Project-related planning and activities with full and timely exchanges of information. |
| Lack of capacity to participate in Project review and consultation activities. |
| |
| Environmental Effects | Potential effects on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, particularly in relation to species that are harvested. |
| Potential cumulative impacts on species that are traditionally and culturally important to First Nations. |
| | Effective monitoring, minimization and management of the impacts of development |
| Fishing | Potential impacts on areas used for fishing. |
| Hunting | Potential decrease in hunting opportunities due to habitat loss, alteration or fragmentation. |
| Reduction of traditional hunting grounds due to both increased industrial activity and disturbance of animals. |
| Temporary and permanent restriction of daily and seasonal movements of wildlife. |
| Plant Harvesting | Abundance and survival of medicinal and food plants due to habitat disturbance and protection of traditional plant harvesting sites. |
| Archaeological and traditional use sites | Protection of archaeological sites and areas used for traditional purposes. |
| Development of Capacity and Relationships | Developing greater capacity to participate in the economic and social benefits of development while minimizing the impacts of development on their rights |
| | Developing cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships with government and industry
|
| | Developing the capacity to consult so as to better enable them to identify concerns and to avoid, minimize or mitigate potential impacts of development
|
3.6 Issues raised and mitigation proposed The following table provides a summary of primary issues brought forward by First Nations organizations during pre-application consultations to date, along with PBM’s response in mitigating the issue.
| Primary Issue | Response and mitigation |
Capacity Funding
First Nations indicated a lack of internal capacity to undertake reviews of ToR and other related application materials
| Reflecting this need, to date, capacity funding has been provided to the LBN |
Drafting of ToR
First Nations indicated a desire to help shape or frame the Project ToR | PBM incorporated First Nations feedback into the revisions to the draft ToR. |
| Protection of aboriginal and treaty rights | First Nations will be consulted in an appropriate manner during all stages of the Project’s development. The primary purpose of consultation is to identify how First Nations exercise treaty rights in the Project area, potential impacts of the proposed Project on the exercise of those rights, and measures to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse impacts on treaty rights from the proposed Project. |
| First Nations involvement in consultation process / approach | PBM encourages continued involvement in the EAO process. The Consultation process has been adapted to enable First Nations to provide input into how they wish to be consulted and how PBM can better meet First Nations consultation expectations. |
| Infrastructure and operation | PBM will facilitate First Nations involvement. Determine whether the construction, operation or decommissioning of the Project will affect the exercise of Treaty rights through meaningful consultation. |
| First Nations land use | PBM will continue to work with First Nations to gather information and develop further understanding of traditional use practices in the area, and to include this knowledge in developing mitigation approaches for the Project. |
| Primary Issue | Response and mitigation |
Environmental effects and
Valued Environmental Components (VECs)
· Vegetation
· Wildlife
· Archaeological
· Water
| PBM will continue to work with First Nations in protecting against impacts to identified VECs.
PBM will seek to further engage First Nations in ongoing environmental studies and mitigation strategies. |
Social effects
· Heath
· Cultural
· Employment | PBM will continue to identify and address issues associated with local socio-economic impacts, including development of capacity-related partnerships with First Nations. |
4. PLANNED APPLICATION REVIEW CONSULTATIONS PBM proposes the following consultation / communications activities during the legislated 180 day Application Review Period of July through December 2009.
| Proposed Activity | Anticipated Timing |
Provide Application
Circulation of the Application to those First Nations who have expressed an interest in reviewing the Application to date |
Immediately upon submission of the Application to the EAO |
Review of Application
PBM suggests working with interested First Nations to establish an opportunity to meet personally to review the Application and to provide further clarification with respect to the Application. |
To be determined – but likely targeting July / August 2009 |
Advertisement for Application Open House
As part of the regulatory process, PBM will participate at an open house to review the Application. Notification for the open house (to be located in Granisle) will including:
· Newspaper advertisements
· Posters
· Letters of invitation to FNs and other interested parties
· Email notification |
Advertisements will begin immediately after filing of the Application (targeting July 25, 2009) |
| | | |
| Proposed Activity | Anticipated Timing |
EAO Application Open House
An open house will be held in Granisle to provide information regarding the Application. |
PBM would participate in the EAO Open House |
Working Group Meetings
Although PBM is not a formal member of the EAO Working Group, it remains prepared to attend any future meetings. |
To be determined |
Application Decision
PBM proposes producing an information bulletin that will summarize the Application Decision. If approval is granted, PBM would also provide a schedule of key events associated with construction and anticipated in-service of the proposed project. |
Anticipate early 2010 |
| | | |
Appendix 1 - Pre-Application Consultation Activities – to date