re: MFFN Community Access Road

Reference Number

Good afternoon Avril.

In preparation for our meeting tomorrow we have a number of questions we would like to discuss.For the purpose of the federal and provincial EAs our questions are issues and concerns.We require a response to our questions in writing.

Noront Studies, ShapeFiles and Lidar.
In your letter of January 17, 2020, you report that: "Noront has agreed in principle to share all documents with Neskantaga that relate to the MFFN community access road EA. We would like to discuss and understand which reports you require and we can then get those reports to you from Noront.” The first studies we require are any and all archeological studies[likely the Cliffs stage 1 archaeological assessment of the proposed routes] that Noront holds. MFFN and Noront can communicate directly with Neskantaga’s cultural heritage advisor Dr. Scott Hamilton on the transfer of the reports. Scott’s email below.

Route Location data
Scott will require all shapefiles of the proposed routes. We understand that Ontario has Lidar data for the route. Scott will require access to the Lidar data as part of his review.

Scott can be reached at:

Questions and Comments.

1. What is the status of the MFFN discussion of road ownership, maintenance activities and liability with the Province?

2. What is the MFFN current understanding of a single cooperative assessment under the IAA? Will MFFN undertake to provide an ongoing calendar of EA process deadlines to Neskantaga?

3.Please share any details/data/studies on the estimated reduction in the price of food, fuel and supplies that will result from the construction of the all season multi purpose road.

4. What is the estimated ratio of community traffic to industrial traffic on the proposed road?Is the road designed to accommodate the potential future Webequie traffic and the chromite mine haul trucks?

5. Will the road be a public road? If the road is a public road what is the mechanism, if any, to charge road user fees to industrial users?

6. Given that the road is designed to supply mining claims, will the existing ongoing and adverse effects of mining claims be considered in the cumulative effects analysis? If not, why not?

7. What were the concerns raised by community members and MFFN Chief and Council that led to the elimination of Alternative 2 and 3?

8. Noront is publicly stating that Webequie and MFFN will be joint proponent’s on Phase 2 of the proposed road. Have MFFN and Webequie reached an agreement on proponency for Phase 2 of the road? What is the status of the discussions with Webequie on proponency for Phase 2 of the proposed road? Does Ontario participate in these discussions?

9. The Draft TOR states that: “It is understood that the government would have considered the alternatives to the proposed Project when committing to provide funding for an all-season access road.” How did MFFN reach that understanding? Did Ontario share the consideration of alternatives that led to funding the all season access road?

10. Has Ontario committed funding, specifically the funding to construct the road, beyond the funding for the EA? Is MFFN in discussions with Ontario on potential funding support for the construction of the MFFN CAR?

11. We understand that Ontario and Canada are discussing a regional EA. Is MFFN participating in the regional EA discussions? Does MFFN have a view on a regional EA that they would like to share with Neskantaga?

12. Neskantaga have proposed a table to discuss a dispute resolution process. Does MFFN have a view on such a table?

13. We understand that Ontario has proposed a cost share with Canada, on both the cost of the EA and the construction of the road. What, if anything, can MFFN share with Neskantaga on the status of the Ontario/Canada cost share discussions?

14.Canada has asked for Neskantaga’s views on a review panel for the MFFN road. Does MFFN have a view on a possible federal review panel that they would like to share with Neskantaga?

Comment. On Culture heritage. It appears that the location of Henley House and Gloucester House are not accurately represented on the map in the draft TOR[Figure 7-4].

David Peerla

Submitted by
Administrator on behalf of Neskantaga First Nation
Public Notice
Date Submitted
Date modified: