07296
  1                   MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
  2          
  3                     VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT  
  4                        Volume 31
  5                             
  6              Including List of Participants
  7                             
  8        
  9                             
 10                      Hearing
 11                         
 12   Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Project
 13                         
 14                    Presiding:
 15               Gerard Lecuyer, Chair
 16                    Kathi Kinew
 17                  Harvey Nepinak
 18                   Robert Mayer
 19                  Terry Sargeant
 20     
 21                Tuesday, June 8, 2004
 22                  Radisson Hotel
 23                  288 Portage Avenue
 24                   Winnipeg, Manitoba
 25       
07297
  1                  LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
  2   
  3   Clean Environment Commission:
  4   Gerard Lecuyer        Chairman
  5   Terry Sargeant        Member
  6   Harvey Nepinak        Member
  7   Kathi Avery Kinew     Member
  8   Doug Abra             Counsel to Commission
  9   Rory Grewar           Staff
 10   CEC Advisors:
 11   Mel Falk
 12   Dave Farlinger
 13   Jack Scriven
 14   Jim Sandison
 15   Jean McClellan
 16   Brent McLean
 17   Kyla Gibson
 18   
 19   Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation:
 20   Chief Jerry Primrose
 21   Elvis Thomas
 22   Campbell MacInnes
 23   Valerie Matthews Lemieux
 24   
 25   
07298
  1                    LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
  2                
  3   Manitoba Conservation:
  4   Larry Strachan
  5   Trent Hreno
  6   
  7   Manitoba Hydro/NCN:
  8   Doug Bedford, Counsel
  9   Bob Adkins, Counsel
 10   Marvin Shaffer
 11   Ed Wojczynski
 12   Ken Adams
 13   Carolyn Wray
 14   Ron Mazur
 15   Lloyd Kuczek
 16   Cam Osler
 17   Stuart Davies
 18   David Hicks
 19   George Rempel
 20   David Cormie
 21   Alex Fleming
 22   Marvin Shaffer
 23   Blair McMahon
 24   
 25   
07299
  1                  LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
  2   
  3   CAC/MSOS
  4   Byron Williams
  5   Mona Pollitt-Smith
  6   
  7   O-Pinon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation
  8   Headman Chris Baker
  9   
 10   CASIL
 11   Leslie Dysart
 12   
 13   Association of Displaced Residents of South Indian Lake:
 14   Dennis Troniak
 15   Angus dysart
 16   Vern Anderson
 17   Carol Kobliski
 18   Nelson Hart
 19   
 20   Interpreters
 21   Jimmy D. Spence
 22   Charlie James Spence
 23   
 24   
 25   
07300
  1                             INDEX OF EXHIBITS
  2   
  3   EXHIBIT NO.                                       PAGE
  4   
  5   
  6   CAC/MSOS 1012:   Closing Argument 
  7                    - June 8, 2004 - Book of 
  8                    References                       7354
  9   
 10   CAC/MSOS 1013:   Speaking Notes:  
 11                    Overview: Uncertainty            7354
 12   
 13   CAC/MSOS 1014:   Written Commentary on
 14                    Environmental Impact
 15                    Statement - CAC/MSOS             7354
 16   
 17   TREE/RCM 1011:   Closing Statement from TREE
 18                    and RCM Regarding the 
 19                    Need for and Alternative to Wuskwatim     
 20                    Advancement                      7389
 21   
 22   MMF 1005:        Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v. 
 23                    British Columbia (Hydro   
 24                    and Power Authority) 2001         7390
 25   
07301
  1                           INDEX OF EXHIBITS
  2   
  3   EXHIBIT NO.                                       PAGE
  4   
  5   MMF 1006:       Aboriginal Plant Use  
  6                   in Canada's Northwest Boreal Forest       
  7                   (excerpt) Robin J. Marles, Christina      
  8                   Clavelle, Leslie Monteleone, Natalie      
  9                   Tays, Donna Burns. Natural Resources      
 10                   Canada                            7390
 11   
 12   OPCN-1003:      O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation       
 13                   closing remarks - Manitoba Clean
 14                   Environment Public Hearing -
 15                   Wuskwatim Generation and
 16                   Transmission Projects              7406
 17   
 18   CASIL 1015:     Closing remarks of CASIL           7457     
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24   
 25   
07302
  1   
  2                    INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS
  3   UNDERTAKING NO.                                 PAGE
  4   
  5   CAC/MSOS-95:  Provide cite of Dr. 
  6   Higgins' and Mr. Harper's evidence re NUGs re 
  7   specific example of hospitals or other large
  8   commercial or industrial operations 
  9   producing steam                                  7330
 10   CAC/MSOS 96:  Advise of client's views 
 11   to an expanded role for the Clean Environment 
 12   Commission as the independent monitor for all 
 13   projects which affect the environment            7351
 14   CAC/MSOS 97:  Advise why it would be 
 15   different, on the environmental side, if the CEC were 
 16   put in a position and given the necessary resources 
 17   to monitor the economic advantages               7352
 18   CAC/MSOS 98:  Advise if the CAC/MSOS 
 19   clients happened to see conflict between applied 
 20   research and western research and traditional 
 21   knowledge during the course of the hearings, if they 
 22   discussed it at all                              7353
 23   
 24   
 25   
07303
  1   Tuesday, June 8, 2004 
  2   UPON COMMENCING AT 9:08 A.M.
  3   
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  Ladies and gentlemen, we 
  5   shall begin.  Rory will just go over the schedule for 
  6   today first.
  7               MR. GREWAR:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  
  8   There's just been one change to the schedule.  The 
  9   Boreal Forest Network has rescheduled from this 
 10   morning at 10:00 a.m. till tomorrow at 11:00 a.m.  
 11   and that's meaning that we go with the Consumers 
 12   Association of Canada first, followed by Time to 
 13   Respect Earth's Ecosystem, Resource Conservation 
 14   Manitoba, both offering closing statements.  And 
 15   there will be a lunch break.  And then we have 
 16   O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation, Community Association 
 17   of South Indian Lake and the Association of Displaced 
 18   Residents South Indian Lake for the afternoon and 
 19   that will conclude the day.
 20               THE CHAIRMAN:  So we begin with the 
 21   Consumers Association.  And I see that we have some 
 22   able presenters up front and take it from there.
 23               MR. WILLIAMS:  Good morning, Mr. Chair, 
 24   members of the panel.  As you probably remember, my 
 25   name is Byron Williams and with me is my colleague 
07304
  1   and soon to be learned friend Ms. Mona Pollitt-Smith 
  2   from our office.  Back in the back row as usual are 
  3   Ms. Gloria Desorcy from the Consumers Association and 
  4   Mr. Chuck Cruden from the Manitoba Society of Seniors 
  5   who keeps protesting that he is retired from that 
  6   function but I can't get rid of him. 
  7               Mr. Chairman, what we propose to do is I 
  8   will lead off, addressing what CAC/MSOS were funded 
  9   to do which is the addressing The Need For and 
 10   Alternative analysis from their perspective.  And 
 11   then Ms. Pollitt-Smith will bat clean up and provide 
 12   a brief overview of her arguments in terms of the 
 13   EIS.  
 14               There are two handouts that are with you 
 15   this morning and I can advise you that Ms. 
 16   Pollitt-Smith, along with myself, have prepared a 
 17   more comprehensive written argument in terms of the 
 18   EIS which is just being bound as we speak.  So that 
 19   will be filed with Mr. Grewar I expect at the 
 20   mid-morning break.  
 21               I've set my clock and I think that's 
 22   appropriate, Mr. Chairman, because I want to start by 
 23   taking you back in time.  I want to take you back in 
 24   time to an age of greater innocence.  I want to take 
 25   you back to the period between 1970 and 1975 when a 
07305
  1   group of idealistic representatives from the 
  2   province, from the Federal Government, from Academia 
  3   as well as an army of consultants prepared a report, 
  4   a summary report for the Lake Winnipeg, Churchill and 
  5   Nelson River study board, Canada and Manitoba, April 
  6   1975.  A report which, with the benefit of hindsight, 
  7   a Hydro witness has characterized at page 4591 of the 
  8   transcript as impressive and leading edge for its 
  9   time.  In some, a very impressive piece of work. 
 10               Unfortunately, as my colleague Ms. 
 11   Pollitt-Smith will discuss in her part of the 
 12   argument in the later stages of this submission, this 
 13   leading edge comprehensive work absolutely failed to 
 14   recognize the insidious impact of methylmercury 
 15   poisoning.  And it failed to foresee the devastating 
 16   impact that mercury poisoning would have on the 
 17   affected communities and upon the domestic and 
 18   commercial natural resources harvesting in that area. 
 19               Sadly, the environmental, psychological 
 20   and economic scars, a project such as the Churchill 
 21   River Diversion, are still with us today.  And they 
 22   have been acutely felt within this room as part of 
 23   the living, breathing reality of this hearing.  
 24               On behalf of my clients, I bring this to 
 25   your attention not as an attempt to refight old 
07306
  1   battles, or again, not as an attempt to taint Hydro 
  2   with the stigma of once mistaken/always wrong.  
  3   Rather, we started by walking back in time to 
  4   highlight the truism that the decision before you 
  5   with regard to both the Need For and Alternatives 
  6   analysis and the Environmental Impact Statement is 
  7   not an adjudicative issue subject to scientific 
  8   certainty, rather, and I'll refer you to tab 1 of the 
  9   Book of References that I provided you, as a Nova 
 10   Scotia Court of Appeal found citing with the approval 
 11   comments of the Federal Court of Appeal in the 
 12   Alberta Wilderness decision, 
 13                  "...given the nature of the task, we 
 14                  suspect that finality and certainty in 
 15                  environmental assessment can never be 
 16                  achieved."  
 17               Our clients share this view and they 
 18   believe that those observations are equally 
 19   applicable to the Need For and Alternative analysis.  
 20               And the importance of this point became 
 21   clear to me when I belatedly began to prepare my 
 22   closing arguments.  Because the first document I 
 23   turned to was Manitoba Hydro Exhibit 1000, this 
 24   pretty and rather daunting document that we went 
 25   through on the first day of the hearing.  And I have 
07307
  1   to confess to you that when I first read this 
  2   document, I wondered to myself, do we really need to 
  3   have a hearing?  For surely, the answers were all 
  4   here in the pretty tables, the lovely graphs.  No 
  5   doubt, statistics all calculated to the nth degree of 
  6   statistical certainty.  And I have no doubt that in a 
  7   few years, we'll be looking back at Hydro's work in 
  8   terms of Wuskwatim and observing that it was leading 
  9   edge for its time and it was a very impressive piece 
 10   of work. 
 11               That being as it may, Mr. Chairman, and 
 12   members of the panel, my client's first piece of 
 13   advice to you is that notwithstanding the pretty 
 14   documents, notwithstanding the 10 feet of supporting 
 15   materials, notwithstanding the armada of experts and 
 16   opinions that have been before you, we're asking you 
 17   to recognize what this process is all about.  It's an 
 18   exercise in judgment, not in certainty.  
 19               In the words of the Joint Ontario Panel, 
 20   and this is at tab 2 of my client's Book of 
 21   References in the second page, "this determination 
 22   involves value judgments."  I'm pointing to paragraph 
 23   94.  There is no absolute best, no absolute preferred 
 24   choice.  This is at the bottom of the second page, 
 25   paragraph 94.  
07308
  1                  "It is the task of this Board to rely 
  2                  on its judgment and experience, as 
  3                  well as the evidence and submissions, 
  4                  in making this decision.  In view of 
  5                  the purpose of the Act, public input 
  6                  may be a critical consideration in the 
  7                  approval decision." 
  8               My client's suggestion that the record 
  9   before you is fraught with uncertainty and that you 
 10   run the very real risk of being wrong is not an 
 11   invitation to a regulatory paralysis.  We're not 
 12   suggesting that you make no decision because you 
 13   might be wrong nor is it an invitation to regulatory 
 14   agnosticism.  Just because there's no absolute best 
 15   choice in terms of the Need For and Alternative 
 16   analysis does not mean that we should not endeavour 
 17   to identify a preferred alternative amongst an 
 18   adequate set of reasonable and suitable alternatives. 
 19               What it means is that in your act of 
 20   informed judgment, you must take into account a 
 21   variety of factors.  And as you seek to weigh and 
 22   assess the evidence and the masses of material before 
 23   you, my clients would ask you to keep in mind in 
 24   assessing this evidence the following five factors.  
 25               The first factor is to keep in mind the 
07309
  1   specific nature of the issue you're being asked to 
  2   address, for the fact is that some questions are more 
  3   amenable to certainty than others.  
  4               We can be more confident in our 
  5   prediction about the directional relationship between 
  6   interest rates and inflation over the next year than 
  7   we can about the outcome of the federal elections in 
  8   Canada and the United States and the consequential 
  9   impacts those will have on environmental premiums.  
 10   So the nature of the issue before you is something 
 11   important to keep in mind.  
 12               And a second factor to keep in mind, and 
 13   this is especially relevant both in the alternatives 
 14   analysis and in my friend, Ms. Pollitt-Smith's 
 15   cumulative effects analysis, is to keep in mind and 
 16   focus upon the process by which Hydro has arrived on 
 17   its recommendations on the specific issues. 
 18               Is it an approach that is accepted as 
 19   best practice or a standard practice?  And just as an 
 20   example, when you look on the Need For and 
 21   Alternatives side, we know that tools such as 
 22   levelized cost and internal rate of return are 
 23   standardized tests employed by utilities across 
 24   Canada.  
 25               By contrast, we know that portfolio 
07310
  1   analysis also is something that is recommended by 
  2   regulators and by tribunals across Canada but it's 
  3   something that Manitoba Hydro hasn't performed 
  4   appropriately in the context, The Need For and 
  5   Alternative analysis.  So it's important to keep in 
  6   mind the methodology by which Hydro has addressed the 
  7   issue. 
  8               The third factor that we'd ask you to 
  9   keep in mind is the nature and the tenor of the 
 10   debate that you heard during this hearing.  And in 
 11   this regard, my clients are fervent believers in the 
 12   principle of the competition of ideas.  They believe 
 13   that regulators achieve the best results when the 
 14   proponents' evidence is fully tested.  First of all, 
 15   through the objective testing of counsel for the 
 16   Commission, secondly, through vigorous challenge by 
 17   funded participants in terms of expert evidence and 
 18   cross-examination, and thirdly, by informed community 
 19   participation.  
 20               And we note with approval that my friend, 
 21   Mr. Bedford, seems to endorse these values as well.  
 22   And I refer you to the transcript, I believe it's 
 23   page 1914 or 1913 when he commented, 
 24                  "Now that all those who have been here 
 25                  for two weeks now can appreciate how 
07311
  1                  much richer discussion is, how much 
  2                  more useful expert testimony is and 
  3                  how much better informed Commissioners 
  4                  are when those who question have 
  5                  worked hard and have been able to 
  6                  prepare.  And conversely, those of us 
  7                  who have been here for the last two 
  8                  weeks can all appreciate how much less 
  9                  useful questioning is when there has 
 10                  been little or no preparation."  
 11               And my clients can only hope that Mr. 
 12   Bedford's client, Manitoba Hydro and the province 
 13   will endorse those principles and those thoughts the 
 14   next time that a regulatory process such as this 
 15   comes up for consideration.  
 16               In terms of the competition of ideas, my 
 17   clients are relatively confident on the Need For and 
 18   Alternatives side that through the work of this Clean 
 19   Environment Commission and the objective expert 
 20   evidence both of TREE and the CAC/MSOS witnesses, we 
 21   can have a fair degree of confidence that the issues 
 22   have been fully and fairly canvassed; and if not, 
 23   consensus reached, at least we have narrowed the 
 24   issues. 
 25               My clients regret to say that they cannot 
07312
  1   express the same degree of confidence in terms of the 
  2   EIS where though the CEC was thorough in its 
  3   objective testing of the case, it appears as if Hydro 
  4   and certain participants were flying at different 
  5   altitudes in terms of their argument.  And my clients 
  6   think that is a fundamental importance as you look in 
  7   terms of your recommendations and in terms of issues 
  8   like monitoring.  
  9               The fourth factor that my clients 
 10   consider to be of importance is what is the end 
 11   product of this competition of ideas?  And again, we 
 12   can point favourably to the Need For and Alternatives 
 13   side where agreement was not reached but the issues 
 14   were narrowed and some degree of consensus was 
 15   reached on issues such as the hurdle rate between CAC 
 16   and Hydro, issues such as the appropriate target for 
 17   DSM where CAC and TREE ultimately agreed, and even in 
 18   terms of the narrowing gap of load forecasts where 
 19   agreement was not reached between any of the Hydro, 
 20   TREE or CAC/MSOS but the issues were narrow.  
 21               By contrast in yesterday's rebuttal 
 22   evidence by Hydro/NCN, it demonstrated again the 
 23   unanswered questions on the EIS side such as what are 
 24   the best practices for cumulative effects analysis?  
 25   What does Dr. Duinker really think?  Those issues are 
07313
  1   still far from clear.  
  2               The final kind of key factor that I would 
  3   ask you to consider on behalf of my clients in 
  4   weighing the credibility of the expert evidence 
  5   before you is the experts themselves.  Were the 
  6   experts well informed?  Were they objective?  And I 
  7   have to admit to my own bias on this particular 
  8   aspect of the case because I am going to recommend to 
  9   you the opinions of Dr. Higgin and Mr. Harper for a 
 10   variety of reasons.  And the first is that they 
 11   demonstrated a thorough mastery of the record.  And 
 12   they displayed an objective fairness which was 
 13   enriched by their experience.  
 14               And I think it's important as you weigh 
 15   the evidence of these witnesses to review their 
 16   qualifications which are set out in the transcript at 
 17   pages 5449 through 5454.  Because with all respect to 
 18   the other witnesses, I don't think that two witnesses 
 19   alone brought such an element of diversity to this 
 20   hearing.  Experience in the Hydro industry, 
 21   experience in government both in the Department of 
 22   Energy and in the Renewable Energy and Conservation 
 23   Branch in Ontario, business experience both with 
 24   Hydro and in the natural gas industry, experience 
 25   representing and providing advice to consumers in 
07314
  1   terms of the work at ECS.  And Dr. Higgins also was a 
  2   regulator, sitting in a very similar position as 
  3   yourselves. 
  4               So when you weigh the evidence, please 
  5   consider the balanced perspective, the credibility of 
  6   Dr. Higgin and Mr. Harper because they know of what 
  7   they speak.  And they had no ideological axe to 
  8   grind.  
  9               Now when I was in between snapshots of 
 10   the hockey game last night as I was preparing this 
 11   argument, I asked myself am I talking too much like a 
 12   lawyer?  Am I putting too much emphasis on 
 13   credibility and on process?  And perhaps you're 
 14   asking the same question as well.  Does process 
 15   matter?  As long as we get the right answer, does it 
 16   really matter how we get there?  
 17               In my client's view in this hearing above 
 18   all, process matters. 
 19               The first reason it matters so 
 20   fundamentally in this hearing is because of history.  
 21   And I referred previously to the psychological scars 
 22   of many in Northern Manitoba.  The cumulative 
 23   psychological legacy of projects like the CRD.  And 
 24   it's important to remember that regardless of how 
 25   benign Wuskwatim may or may not be, it is built upon 
07315
  1   a messy, soiled experience in the Churchill River 
  2   Diversion.  And the starting point for many 
  3   individuals in those communities affected by 
  4   Wuskwatim is a distrust for big Hydro and for big 
  5   science.  
  6               So process matters because one of the key 
  7   objectives of this hearing must be to ensure those 
  8   for whom history matters, that the process is 
  9   thorough, balanced, and transparent. 
 10               We have to inspire public confidence.  
 11   It's too much to expect we can heal the wounds but 
 12   maybe we can assuage the fears and give the 
 13   communities up north a sense that the mistakes of the 
 14   past are less likely to be repeated. 
 15               Process also matters because of the 
 16   precedent being set by this hearing.  This panel more 
 17   than I, I'm sure, are familiar with the grand vision 
 18   for northern hydroelectric development, Notigi, Gull, 
 19   and the mother of all generating stations, Conawapa.  
 20   And your recommendations in terms of analytical 
 21   process as well as results are going to be critical 
 22   to Manitoba Hydro as it considers future endeavours 
 23   to its government regulators and to future members of 
 24   the Clean Environment Commission. 
 25               The third reason process really matters 
07316
  1   in this hearing is transparency.  In my client's 
  2   perspective, it's fundamentally important that we 
  3   make it clear why we are engaging in a particular 
  4   course of action.  And I want to use the example of 
  5   wind.  Because as we will discuss later, the record 
  6   of this hearing in my client's submission is clear.  
  7   Hydro-led wind development cannot be justified 
  8   economically at the current time when consideration 
  9   is given to the potential benefits versus the 
 10   potential risk.  
 11               This doesn't mean that there cannot be a 
 12   provincial initiative in that area.  There are many 
 13   social and environmental reasons why the province may 
 14   choose to embark on a wind initiative.  But the fact 
 15   that wind is not currently economically sound raises 
 16   important questions of who should pay.  Who should 
 17   bear the financial risk for wind development?  Should 
 18   it be private parties?  Should it be the government 
 19   which is engaging in these actions for policy 
 20   reasons, environmental reasons?  Or should it be 
 21   Hydro rate payers?  And I suspect you know my 
 22   client's perspective on that.  
 23               The final reason my clients wish to 
 24   emphasize that process matters relates to 
 25   accountability.  Process matters and your 
07317
  1   recommendations for follow-up matters so much in this 
  2   hearing in order that we can ensure the potential 
  3   economic benefits of Hydro development in terms of 
  4   Wuskwatim are realized by Manitobans and by Manitoba 
  5   rate payers and that the objectives in the 
  6   legislation of economy and efficiency are achieved.  
  7               My clients believe this is particularly 
  8   important because while they have come to the 
  9   conclusion that Wuskwatim is economically viable 
 10   based on the likely benefits versus the likely risks, 
 11   they have also concluded that the rewards from a 
 12   Hydro perspective are not as great as outlined in 
 13   this pretty document.  And they are concerned that 
 14   the risks, as originally enumerated by Hydro, are 
 15   somewhat understated, although that was revised 
 16   during the course of the hearing. 
 17               And they are also concerned that Manitoba 
 18   Hydro has failed to fully recognize and achieve the 
 19   full potential of demand-side management, both 
 20   economically and in terms of efficiency, in terms of 
 21   conservation.  
 22               Based on these conclusions and concerns, 
 23   my clients believe it's so important that there be 
 24   continued regulatory oversight by the Public 
 25   Utilities Board to ensure that the economic benefits 
07318
  1   of Wuskwatim are realized and that the great 
  2   potential for DSM is not squandered or lost or 
  3   overlooked in a mad rush to build another dam.  
  4               With these less than brief preliminary 
  5   remarks, I wish to turn to the Need For and 
  6   Alternative analysis and the conclusions of my 
  7   clients CAC/MSOS.  And I want to just comfort the 
  8   panel that I don't intend to offer you a mere rehash 
  9   of the direct evidence provided by Mr. Harper and Dr. 
 10   Higgin.  I do want to indicate that my clients fully 
 11   endorse the recommendations as set out in their 
 12   evidence at pages 5557 through 5563.  
 13               What I hope to do in the next half an 
 14   hour or so is elaborate on some of the items which -- 
 15   I started late, Mr. Chair.
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  You've still got about 40 
 17   minutes.
 18               MR. WILLIAMS:  I'm giving my colleague, 
 19   Ms. Pollitt-Smith, the last ten.  What I hope to do 
 20   in the 30 minutes that I have allotted to myself is 
 21   to elaborate on top some of the matters which my 
 22   clients believe are particularly germane to the CEC's 
 23   recommendations.  And I don't want to sound too much 
 24   like Prime Minister Martin, as he currently is, but 
 25   one thing that my clients wish to make absolutely 
07319
  1   fundamentally perfectly clear relates to their 
  2   conclusion that the project is economically 
  3   acceptable.  Because that conclusion is based on 
  4   their understanding of the need for the project 
  5   which, as expressed by Mr. Harper at pages 5460 and 
  6   5557 of the transcript, is to take advantage of an 
  7   opportunity in the export market, thereby promoting 
  8   economy and lower rates for Manitoba consumers.  Put 
  9   another way by Mr. Harper at page 5596 of the 
 10   transcript, "The benefits to the rate payers are the 
 11   real drivers for this project."  
 12               And we would note that a similar point 
 13   seems to be made by Manitoba Hydro in the third tab 
 14   of Exhibit MH 1000 at page 3 where it points to the 
 15   economic benefits of increased exports.  And at page 
 16   4, it points out in the first bullet that significant 
 17   profits keep Manitoba rates low.  
 18               My clients wish to emphasize this point 
 19   in terms of the objective of the hearing.  Because in 
 20   their view, there are considerable financial, 
 21   business and market risks associated with this 
 22   project.  And they recognize that if the doomsayers 
 23   are right or if Manitoba Hydro fails to fully achieve 
 24   the benefits of this project, then that they, the 
 25   rate payers, not the province, are likely to be on 
07320
  1   the financial hook for the downside of this project.  
  2   From my client's perspective, they will bear the 
  3   primary risk in terms of the potential for increased 
  4   rates. 
  5               My clients believe that these risks are 
  6   acceptable provided that the potential benefits are 
  7   shared with rate payers.  And they recognize, and as 
  8   Hydro has demonstrated in this hearing, that the 
  9   potential benefits can be shared with rate payers in 
 10   a combination of ways, lower rates or rate increases 
 11   that are lower than what otherwise might be expected. 
 12   They might also be reflected in a lower debt/equity 
 13   ratio, thereby reducing a driver for increased rates.
 14               My clients note, though, that nowhere in 
 15   the record of this proceeding is there the suggestion 
 16   by Hydro/NCN that the profits from exports from 
 17   Wuskwatim will be used for dividends to the province. 
 18               So accepting the need from a rate payer's 
 19   perspective is contingent on the profits for export 
 20   opportunities being used for the purposes of economy 
 21   for keeping rates low. 
 22               On this point, my clients suspect that 
 23   TREE will argue, as Dr. Miller suggested at page 5655 
 24   of the transcript, that keeping rates low is 
 25   inconsistent with the objective of promoting 
07321
  1   efficiency.  They would point out, though, that in 
  2   the context of promoting efficiency, conservation and 
  3   the objective of leaving a smaller footprint, there 
  4   are other more effective ways to do it.  And that 
  5   point is made by Mr. Torrie in his response to CNF 
  6   interrogatory number 12.  When he pointed out that 
  7   depending on the relevant importance of energy 
  8   commodity prices to the total end-use service cost, 
  9   electricity and other energy commodity demand may not 
 10   be as sensitive to commodity price as a more narrowly 
 11   focused orientation might predict.  And he observed 
 12   that for general manufacturing and non-electrically 
 13   heated homes and buildings, electricity is a 
 14   relatively small cost.  Typically less than 2 per 
 15   cent of value added from general manufacturing and 
 16   often much less than 10 per cent of the cost of 
 17   owning and operating a non-electricity heated house 
 18   or commercial building.  And he pointed out that this 
 19   is one of the reasons why there is such a large 
 20   pent-up supply of economic DSM.  
 21               So with all respect to Dr. Miller, my 
 22   clients concur with Mr. Torrie that merely raising 
 23   rates is not a panacea to achieving the objective of 
 24   efficiency.  In their view, I think echoing the view 
 25   of Mr. Torrie, direct investment in DSM is a much 
07322
  1   more efficient way to go.  
  2               The clients also on this last brief 
  3   comment on the subject also wish to remind those who 
  4   advocate raising rates in the interest of efficiency. 
  5   That behind these raised rates, there are real people 
  6   on low or modest incomes who may be adversely 
  7   affected by a narrow, simplistic attempt to increase 
  8   efficiency by raising rates.  
  9               Moving from the Need For to the 
 10   Alternatives analysis, there are three threshold 
 11   questions which my clients believe must be addressed. 
 12   And they must be addressed before we move to 
 13   assessment of the viability and reasonableness of 
 14   Wuskwatim.  The first question is did Hydro fail to 
 15   adopt the correct approach in assessing the 
 16   reasonableness as compared to other alternatives of 
 17   Wuskwatim?  And if so, does that failure undermine 
 18   the validity of its proposal?  
 19               And I'll go through the next two 
 20   questions and then I'll come back to the first one.   
 21               Secondly, did Hydro overstate its load 
 22   forecast so as to fatally undermine its proposal?     
 23               And thirdly, did Hydro err in adopting a 
 24   partnership perspective in weighing the benefits of 
 25   Wuskwatim, particularly given the fact they used a 
07323
  1   Hydro perspective and methodology in assessing its 
  2   risks?  
  3               Back to the first question, did Hydro 
  4   adopt the wrong analysis or perform the wrong 
  5   analysis in weighing the reasonableness of Wuskwatim 
  6   against other alternatives and what are the 
  7   consequences of that?  I'll recommend for your 
  8   consideration Mr. Harper's discussion of this at 
  9   pages 5463 through 5465 of the transcript.  And my 
 10   clients believe his comments there are of great 
 11   importance not just for this hearing but for future 
 12   ones to come.  
 13               In essence what Mr. Harper says is that 
 14   he has no material concerns with how Hydro screened 
 15   the potential alternatives.  But he takes issue with 
 16   Hydro's attempt to justify its preference for 
 17   Wuskwatim and he does so by pointing out, first of 
 18   all, what they did.  And that's set out in the 
 19   transcript at pages 5463, 5464.  He notes that Hydro 
 20   argued, first of all, that Wuskwatim was economically 
 21   viable even after taking into account the risks 
 22   associated with the project.  Then Hydro went on to 
 23   say that continuing with Wuskwatim did not preclude 
 24   Hydro from exploring other alternatives.  And 
 25   thirdly, by suggesting that any negative financial 
07324
  1   impacts were manageable, and in the long term, there 
  2   were positive financial impacts and rate benefits to 
  3   customers. 
  4               Mr. Harper goes on to point out what he 
  5   considered Hydro failed to do.  What it failed to do 
  6   was to provide a comprehensive justification of the 
  7   Wuskwatim project from a portfolio perspective.  And 
  8   by portfolio perspective, he referenced using a short 
  9   listed alternatives to develop alternative portfolios 
 10   of options each of which would be suitable for 
 11   satisfying the identified need.  And then evaluating 
 12   them on a level fair playing field against a criteria 
 13   which had been set out initially including economic, 
 14   financial and other criteria.  
 15               Mr. Harper goes on to argue, there's a 
 16   number of cites for this but one is page 5514, that 
 17   Hydro has essentially failed to establish that 
 18   Wuskwatim is a preferred alternative.  
 19               In making this suggestion, conclusion, 
 20   Mr. Harper is supported by the evidence of Mr. Torrie 
 21   and it appears throughout Mr. Torrie's written and 
 22   direct evidence, and in particular pages 5697, 5698.  
 23   And Mr. Harper goes on to say that by failing to 
 24   perform a portfolio analysis, assuming that a 
 25   particular alternative, in this case Wuskwatim, is 
07325
  1   the preferred alternative, could bias results as one 
  2   looks at the economic and financial aspects as 
  3   opposed to when you have just short listed 
  4   alternatives and are looking at each of them on a 
  5   level playing field. 
  6               And he goes on to note at page 5467 that 
  7   the adoption of a more comprehensive approach in this 
  8   case, particularly with regard to what he sees as 
  9   preferred alternatives of DSM, SSE and non-utility 
 10   generation, would require more information than is 
 11   currently available on the future potential for 
 12   expanded DSM programs, NUGs or supply-side 
 13   enhancements.  
 14               In essence, he concludes that Hydro's 
 15   work on this, one of the most essential and basic 
 16   analytical questions, is incomplete and that it 
 17   cannot be completed given data limitations.  
 18               Now Hydro may argue and they may make 
 19   reference to the Terms of Reference and they may 
 20   suggest that they don't have to establish that 
 21   Wuskwatim is a preferred alternative, only that it 
 22   has been selected on reasonable grounds including 
 23   economic viability.  However, with respect to any 
 24   such argument by Manitoba Hydro, in my client's view, 
 25   such a proposition is inconsistent with existing 
07326
  1   environmental and regulatory practice in other 
  2   jurisdictions. 
  3               And we'd refer you to, in the Book of 
  4   References, tab 2 through 4 of those references.  And 
  5   I'll start with tab 2, a site from the Re West 
  6   Northumberland Landfill decision of the Ontario Joint 
  7   Board.  The Ontario Joint Board, I believe it's a 
  8   municipal board and the environmental assessment 
  9   board sitting together.  
 10               And in particular, I refer you to 
 11   paragraph 93(a) where the Board's conclusion was 
 12   that, 
 13                  "The undertaking must be the preferred 
 14                  alternative among an adequate set of 
 15                  reasonable and suitable alternatives, 
 16                  having regard to the purpose of the 
 17                  Act."  
 18               It's not enough to say that Wuskwatim is 
 19   economically viable.  It's critical to establish that 
 20   it's preferred among an adequate set of reasonable 
 21   and suitable alternatives. 
 22               Now, as you'll note in paragraph 94, and 
 23   I read this quote to you before, this process is a 
 24   process not of scientific certainly.  There's no 
 25   absolute best or preferred choice.  But it's 
07327
  1   important particularly for future hearings, for the 
  2   Wuskwatims or the Conawapas to come, that the process 
  3   is properly established now.  
  4               And for guidance as well, we'd refer you 
  5   to tab 4, the Resource Planning Guidelines of the 
  6   British Columbia Utilities Commission where you can 
  7   see a very similar approach is recommended and 
  8   followed.  And I won't go through it all which would 
  9   take me well into next year.  But at page 3 under 
 10   Resource Planning Guidelines, you can see the first 
 11   step is identification of the planning context and 
 12   the objectives of a resource plan.  Stage 5 and 6 are 
 13   development of multiple resource portfolios and 
 14   evaluation and selection of resource portfolios.  And 
 15   if you read the notes under those two sections, and I 
 16   won't drag you through them, you'll see why this is 
 17   so important.  Establishing portfolios and analysing 
 18   the trade-offs between portfolios and how they 
 19   perform under uncertainty will facilitate determining 
 20   which portfolio performs best relative to the stated 
 21   objectives.  So this is more than an academic issue 
 22   of process.   
 23               Now I would note that in the context and 
 24   the specific fact situation of this proceeding, Mr. 
 25   Harper notes, and that's at page 5465 and 5466 of the 
07328
  1   transcript, that, 
  2                  Hydro and NCN contend that in this 
  3                  particular case, the issue really 
  4                  doesn't arise since the export 
  5                  opportunity is large enough to 
  6                  accommodate and develop all of the 
  7                  short-listed options.  
  8   And he says that, 
  9                  If this is the case, then the approach 
 10                  is reasonable provided there are no 
 11                  limitations on either Hydro's 
 12                  financial or intellectual capital that 
 13                  will preclude pursuing all of these 
 14                  opportunities at the same point in 
 15                  time.  
 16               But I would note as well though that as 
 17   set out on page 5605 and 5606 of the transcript, Mr. 
 18   Harper makes his recommendation observation with some 
 19   trepidation.  
 20               So just to sum up on this section.  From 
 21   my client's perspective, the preferred alternatives 
 22   in this hearing are DSM, supply-side enhancements and 
 23   non-utility generation.  
 24               However, based on the sensitivity 
 25   analysis performed by Hydro and the risk benefit 
07329
  1   assessment, Wuskwatim appears to be an acceptable 
  2   alternative and there appears to be room within the 
  3   opportunity of the greater export opportunities for 
  4   DSM, SSE and Wuskwatim.  
  5               MR. MAYER:  I really hate to interrupt 
  6   but I heard Mr. Harper comment on the supply-side 
  7   enhancement in DSM.  I only heard the reference to 
  8   NUGs in relation to wind power which Dr. Higgin says 
  9   is not, at this point, financially viable and still 
 10   it can't compete with hydro power even with the 
 11   subsidies.
 12               MR. WILLIAMS:  And I'm just keeping track 
 13   of the time so I can see how long my response is to 
 14   Mr. Mayer.
 15               THE CHAIRMAN:  For his interruption, I'll 
 16   double the time that you lost.
 17               MR. WILLIAMS:  Feel free to interrupt 
 18   then.  I would note, I don't think in terms of if you 
 19   review Dr. Higgins' and Mr. Harper's direct evidence, 
 20   oral evidence, and I can certainly provide you the 
 21   cite, they spoke of non-utility generation in a 
 22   couple of instances.  And they used a specific 
 23   example of hospitals or other large commercial or 
 24   industrial operations producing steam.  And I can 
 25   certainly provide that cite to you, Mr. Mayer. 
07330
  1   (UNDERTAKING CAC/MSOS-95:  Provide cite of Dr. 
  2   Higgins' and Mr. Harper's evidence re NUGs re 
  3   specific example of hospitals or other large
  4   commercial or industrial operations producing steam)
  5   
  6               MR. WILLIAMS:  So in essence, while my 
  7   clients disagree with the process and we think it's 
  8   important that the Commission make a recommendation 
  9   for future proceedings, given the size of Wuskwatim 
 10   built in with what appears realistic in terms of DSM 
 11   and SSE, it appears that Hydro in this case can have 
 12   its cake and eat it too. 
 13               I want to turn to the second threshold 
 14   issue I raised which relates to whether the load 
 15   forecast is so flawed.  And when Hydro suggested it 
 16   could have its DSM cake and still build Wuskwatim, 
 17   that suggestion was strenuously challenged by Mr. 
 18   Torrie who suggested, in his written evidence, that 
 19   Hydro's load forecast was overstated to such a degree 
 20   that it was strongly arguable that Hydro could 
 21   achieve its export opportunities and fulfil them 
 22   without building Wuskwatim. 
 23               Now in terms of Mr. Torrie's comments, 
 24   and I'll be brief because time is running quickly, it 
 25   is important to note that there's some material 
07331
  1   validity to them and Mr. Harper acknowledged that.  
  2   Especially he shared some of Mr. Torrie's concerns in 
  3   terms of the commercial load forecast.  But as Mr. 
  4   Harper notes at pages 5581 and 5582 of the 
  5   transcript, at the end of the day, he had more 
  6   comfort in the numbers presented by Manitoba Hydro 
  7   than the numbers presented by Mr. Torrie.  And one of 
  8   the key reasons for that was that the reference 
  9   starting point that Mr. Torrie had, through no fault 
 10   of his own, was 1,000 gigawatt hours lower than the 
 11   reference starting point of Manitoba Hydro.  And that 
 12   allowed Mr. Harper to conclude that notwithstanding 
 13   the real and valid concerns that Mr. Torrie advanced, 
 14   he had some confidence that the final load forecast 
 15   was closer to the Hydro number than the Torrie 
 16   number. 
 17               And I have more on that subject but time 
 18   runs on. 
 19               The final threshold issue that my clients 
 20   wish to address is what perspectives should be taken 
 21   in assessing the economic viability of the project.  
 22   And Hydro of course argues that the benefits of the 
 23   project should be assessed from the perspective of 
 24   Hydro/NCN from the partnership's perspective, while 
 25   the risks should be assessed using Hydro's hurdle 
07332
  1   rate policy and their weighted cost of capital.       
  2               Again, as a starting point, I refer you 
  3   to Mr. Harper's evidence on this, pages 5467 through 
  4   5473.  And also as well to Mr. Bedford's polite but 
  5   unsuccessful cross-examination of Mr. Harper on this 
  6   point which is at pages 5600 to 5602. 
  7               Now while my clients understand why Hydro 
  8   would like to adopt a partnership perspective, both 
  9   because it yields a higher internal rate of return 
 10   and also because it avoids, to a certain degree, the 
 11   messiness of getting into the partnership agreement, 
 12   they think that perspective is fundamentally wrong.  
 13   And it's an important message to send to Hydro and to 
 14   the government that addressing the financial benefits 
 15   of the project from a partnership perspective while 
 16   addressing the risks from a Hydro perspective does 
 17   not make good common sense, is imprudent, is 
 18   inconsistent analytically and is not mandated by the 
 19   terms of reference.  
 20               And the most important element of that my 
 21   clients wish to emphasize is a point of common sense. 
 22   And I always think Mr. Adams, during the course of 
 23   this hearing, has demonstrated a lot of common sense. 
 24   So I refer you to his comments starting at page 914, 
 25   915 of the hearing when he conceded freely that the 
07333
  1   assessment of a generation opportunity and its 
  2   viability could be materially affected by the nature 
  3   of ownership.  That was in the context of wind, the 
  4   private versus public debate.  And while he wouldn't 
  5   agree with me that it would be crazy to evaluate the 
  6   economic viability of a project from the perspective 
  7   of a private sector company, he did agree with me 
  8   that it would be imprudent, in essence he agreed that 
  9   it would be imprudent to address the financial 
 10   viability of a project from a perspective other than 
 11   Manitoba Hydro.  It would be an imprudent business 
 12   practice.  And of course it would be because it 
 13   doesn't provide a true economic picture of the risks 
 14   and benefits experienced by Hydro. 
 15               And it doesn't make common sense because 
 16   in this case, as we've heard through the testimony of 
 17   Mr. Thomas and Mr. Wojczynski, the perspectives of 
 18   Hydro and NCN are somewhat different.  Mr. 
 19   Wojczynski, and I believe it's at page 109 of the 
 20   transcript, said that the primary driver for Hydro in 
 21   this project is profits.  
 22               Mr. Thomas, given the needs of his 
 23   community, focuses on three pillars, job 
 24   opportunities, contract opportunities for business 
 25   and the profits from Hydro.  And he refused to put a 
07334
  1   premium on one over the other.  And that's at page 
  2   908 of the transcript.  
  3               So in essence, you have different 
  4   perspectives for Hydro and for NCN. 
  5               And it doesn't make analytical sense to 
  6   use the partnership perspective for the benefits but 
  7   the Hydro perspective for the risks because, in 
  8   simple terms, that's an apples to oranges comparison.
  9               MR. MAYER:  With respect, Mr. Williams, 
 10   before you go much farther on that, if some of the 
 11   legal opinion is correct that Hydro would have a 
 12   great deal of difficulty in maintaining its limited 
 13   liability should the partnership fail because of its 
 14   active involvement in the project and in operating 
 15   it, isn't it at least prudent to take the risk as 
 16   Hydro's risk because the evidence appears to be 
 17   clear, that NCN would probably be successful in 
 18   maintaining its restricted liability in the event of 
 19   a partnership failure.  So isn't it prudent for Hydro 
 20   to assume that it will have to bear the risk should 
 21   something go wrong?  And at the same time, 
 22   understanding that if it is successful and the 
 23   profits are significant, that they have to understand 
 24   that those profits have to be shared, and therefore, 
 25   shared with its partner?  And therefore, isn't it 
07335
  1   again more prudent to assess, even from Hydro's point 
  2   of view, the profitability of the project, which is 
  3   its primary goal, based on the fact that it will have 
  4   to share some of those profits with its partner?
  5               MR. WILLIAMS:  Mr. Mayer, I think you're 
  6   making my point.  And I agree with you totally that 
  7   the risks faced by Manitoba Hydro that it should take 
  8   a hard look at its particular risks.  And the second 
  9   part of your argument was that it should recognize 
 10   that it has to share the profits.  And I agree 
 11   exactly.  So it should be looking at its benefits 
 12   versus its risks.  And your point, it should be 
 13   looking at the risks that its benefit -- excuse me.   
 14               Given that it's the primary risk taker, 
 15   the evaluation of whether that risk is worthwhile has 
 16   to be based upon the benefits that it will receive.  
 17   What point will be served by assessing its risk based 
 18   upon the benefits of the partnership?  Because the 
 19   benefits of the partnership are higher.  Hydro 
 20   Wuskwatim enjoys a -- or NCN enjoys a 
 21   disproportionate share of the benefits.  
 22               So, Mr. Mayer, if you want to evaluate 
 23   the risks you face, you should be weighing it against 
 24   your potential benefits, not the potential benefits 
 25   of someone else.
07336
  1               MR. MAYER:  I have your point.
  2               MR. WILLIAMS:  Now, in Mr. Bedford's 
  3   polite cross-examination of my witness, or my 
  4   client's witness, Mr. Harper, he tried to suggest, I 
  5   believe, that it was okay because while the economic 
  6   analysis was done from a partnership perspective, the 
  7   financial analysis was done from a Hydro perspective. 
  8   But I guess there's two problems with that.  The 
  9   first is, as Mr. Harper pointed out, risk analysis is 
 10   about comparing and the economic viability analysis 
 11   is about comparing one alternative against another.  
 12   And even to the extent that some financial risk is 
 13   considered in the financial evaluation, it's not a 
 14   comparison against other alternatives.  
 15               Moreover, as Ms. Wray pointed out at page 
 16   975 of the transcript, financial analysis does not 
 17   involve her rates.  And that's a key point.  
 18               So while Mr. Adam noted that it would be 
 19   imprudent to address the benefits of a project from 
 20   anyone else's perspective but Hydro's own, financial 
 21   analysis does not truly assess the risks and benefits 
 22   of the project versus other alternatives. 
 23               Mr. Chair, I'm giving myself about seven 
 24   more minutes on this point and then I'm going to turn 
 25   to my friend, Ms. Pollitt-Smith.  I think we can 
07337
  1   finish our arguments.  Is that appropriate?
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  You're very close.
  3               MR. WILLIAMS:  If I take eight, will you 
  4   let me get away with it, sir? 
  5               We certainly don't intend to address all 
  6   the alternatives referenced in the Hydro analysis.  
  7   But in my client's perspective, there are two that 
  8   are worthy of note.  And the first, not surprisingly, 
  9   is DSM.  
 10               From my client's perspective, there are 
 11   some truth about DSM that are self-evident.  The 
 12   first is that there's material potential for greatly 
 13   enhanced DSM and a consequent positive contribution, 
 14   both to the objectives of efficiency and economy.  
 15   And it's notable that at page 5696 of the transcript, 
 16   Mr. Torrie seems to appear to agree with Dr. Higgin 
 17   in terms of the potential of DSM.  He appears to 
 18   agree that three times DSM is an achievable stretched 
 19   target.  So that's a figure that we would recommend 
 20   to the panel for its consideration.  
 21               I think Dr. Higgin and Mr. Torrie also 
 22   agree on another important conclusion, observation.  
 23   And that is that DSM is not receiving the priority 
 24   from Hydro that it deserves.  From my client's 
 25   perspective, in terms of the Need For and 
07338
  1   Alternatives analysis, the performance of Hydro's DSM 
  2   panel was a most disappointing aspect of that element 
  3   of the hearing, both in providing clarity to the 
  4   issues and in providing confidence that there is a 
  5   strong sense of direction within the corporation.  
  6   And we offer those comments with respect.  
  7               And we will refer you to the transcript 
  8   from the first week, Mr. Abra's attempt to garner 
  9   information on DSM or the transcript of the second 
 10   week, Mr. Torrie's attempt.  
 11               And whether the performance of that panel 
 12   is merely the function of inexperience or reflective 
 13   of Hydro's priorities, it's not clear.  What is clear 
 14   is that for a variety of reasons, and some of these 
 15   are set out at pages 1031 to 1033 of the transcript, 
 16   a DSM plan that is to be reviewed and updated 
 17   annually is now two to three years out of date.  And 
 18   there is a general rate application to my horror that 
 19   is starting next week and it doesn't appear that a 
 20   DSM plan will be ready and available for that either. 
 21               And this is ironic from my client's 
 22   perspective and also deeply distressing given the 
 23   vast potential that DSM offers and also the positive 
 24   social aspects it offers in terms of efficiency. 
 25               So from my client's perspective, it's 
07339
  1   important that clear direction or recommendations 
  2   flow from this Commission to the government, applying 
  3   pressure to Hydro to address DSM on an urgent basis 
  4   in order to address the lost opportunities that 
  5   exists. 
  6               I want to turn finally to wind, or almost 
  7   finally to wind.  And in my client's respectful view, 
  8   the arguments surrounding wind as an alternative of 
  9   Wuskwatim is notable for the disconnect between the 
 10   objective evidence and the rhetoric in this 
 11   proceeding.  And as a starting point, though, I think 
 12   we can probably all agree with Dr. Higgin that wind 
 13   is desirable for many environment and social reasons. 
 14               And if you look at the record carefully 
 15   at the expert evidence rather than the opinions, I 
 16   think you will find a surprising degree of consensus 
 17   on the economics of wind and on the best way to 
 18   promote wind generation.  
 19               And if you look to Mr. Wojczynski's wise 
 20   comments at page 1092 to 1100 of the transcript, I 
 21   think it's fair to say that Mr. Wojczynski and Dr. 
 22   Higgin would agree that there are a number of large 
 23   uncertainties relating to wind that make wind a much 
 24   riskier prospect than Wuskwatim.  They relate to 
 25   capital costs, to transmission costs, uncertainties 
07340
  1   relating to firming and shaping costs, the nature and 
  2   extent of the federal subsidy and the level of 
  3   output.  These are all uncertainties surrounding 
  4   wind.  
  5               And as Dr. Higgin and Mr. Harper 
  6   concluded, wind generation is a medium to high risk 
  7   venture requiring at least a 10 hurdle rate.  And if 
  8   you refer to Exhibit CAC/MSOS 1008, you'll see that 
  9   nowhere, even under the most optimistic of 
 10   assumptions does the internal rate of return for wind 
 11   come within the range of that 10 per cent minimum 
 12   level. 
 13               For those still harboring the view that 
 14   wind is financially, economically realistic is a 
 15   sum-up comment.  Ask them to point and look at the 
 16   comments of wind advocates such as Mr. Hornung who 
 17   notes at pages 4077, 4085 and 4088 that there is a 
 18   gap in terms of wind economics that is likely to 
 19   persist for another 10 to 20 years. 
 20               Mr. Chairman, in my right that I can turn 
 21   it over to my friend, Ms. Pollitt-Smith?  Okay.  My 
 22   clients, just in summary from CAC/MSOS's perspective, 
 23   they presented comprehensive evidence on May 12th 
 24   with a comprehensive series of recommendations which 
 25   they recommend for your consideration.  Rather than 
07341
  1   go through those recommendations today, we chose to 
  2   highlight some of the key points of the argument 
  3   which we wish the panel to consider and we'd leave 
  4   those to your consideration.  And I turn it now to my 
  5   friend, Ms. Pollitt-Smith.  
  6               MS. POLLITT-SMITH:  How much time do I 
  7   have?  
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  Go ahead.
  9               MS. POLLITT-SMITH:  Okay.  I think I 
 10   should get some penalty time for all the questions 
 11   that were driving me nuts while I was sitting here 
 12   suffering. 
 13               What I am proposing to do is I've 
 14   prepared a written argument that will be available 
 15   hopefully at the break and this is more serving as 
 16   the coming attractions to the main show that you'll 
 17   be getting.  Oh, no.  It's longer than that, Mr. 
 18   Mayer, it's much longer.  This is what I'm going to 
 19   be presenting now.  It should take me about 10 
 20   minutes to go through or maybe a minute or so more 
 21   because I don't want to drive the court reporter 
 22   nuts.  So I shall commence.  But it is basically an 
 23   overview of my main written argument.  
 24               Ultimately, the questions concerning the 
 25   environmental impacts of this project may not be 
07342
  1   answered until the hydroelectric dam is built and 
  2   operations commence. 
  3               Despite the accumulation of data and  the 
  4   qualifications of those interpreting it, predicting 
  5   what will happen to the environment when it is 
  6   disrupted by development is inherently uncertain.  
  7   While the proponents have presented many volumes of 
  8   material and analysis which they feel demonstrates 
  9   that the project will have no significant adverse 
 10   effects on the region, there always remains an 
 11   element of uncertainty in the process, variables that 
 12   cannot be deciphered with complete accuracy or 
 13   consequences that remain unimagined until the 
 14   detrimental effects are felt. 
 15               While uncertainty is infused in the 
 16   process of prediction, the degree of uncertainty may 
 17   be bolstered by the methodologies employed in 
 18   conducting studies or analysing the information 
 19   obtained.  For this project, there is some question 
 20   concerning whether the cumulative effects methodology 
 21   was ultimately the best analytical framework.  
 22   Ultimately, the analysts employed to conduct the 
 23   assessment must use their best professional judgment, 
 24   but such judgment relies on subjective opinion.  
 25   While there is a certain amount of professional 
07343
  1   expertise and experience involved which would 
  2   mitigate uncertainty, it must be acknowledged that 
  3   experts often disagree on what's best sometimes. 
  4               These uncertainties may be mitigated 
  5   somewhat through a thorough and transparent review 
  6   process before the project is approved.  Any failings 
  7   in professional judgment may be corrected or at least 
  8   brought to light through a process where concerned 
  9   members of the public can produce evidence or 
 10   cross-examine the evidence provided by the proponent. 
 11   Where such a process exists and has been fairly 
 12   carried out, uncertainty may be tempered. 
 13               Should doubts remain concerning the 
 14   proponent's plans, the ultimate failsafe is the 
 15   implementation of extensive mitigation measures, 
 16   monitoring and adaptive management.  Such measures 
 17   may be imperative and of necessity applied with 
 18   greater rigour if the information provided by the 
 19   proponents is not thoroughly tested during the 
 20   hearing process and questions still remain as to its 
 21   adequacy.
 22               While we have heard from many 
 23   participants during the course of this hearing, two 
 24   views have predominated: the future promise of the 
 25   Wuskwatim project, and the cataclysmic impacts of big 
07344
  1   Hydro.  While the proponents have focused their 
  2   presentation of evidence on the examination of the 
  3   former, many participants have opted to push the 
  4   outer boundaries of the scope this hearing and 
  5   advocate the latter view.  These views may seem 
  6   diametrically opposed at first glance, however they 
  7   are only peripherally related and the consequences 
  8   has been a genuine lack of meaningful dialogue at 
  9   times.
 10               Both views are relevant and may offer 
 11   valid perspectives for the Commission's consideration 
 12   but the lack of substantial interrelation of these 
 13   themes has resulted in two very different and 
 14   oft-times one-sided conversations taking place.  
 15   While this has resulted in a good deal of information 
 16   being presented to the Commission, the value of much 
 17   of the information to this process is lost due to the 
 18   lack of critical engagement and assessment of the 
 19   information.  
 20               While the historical background of the 
 21   Hydro development in the region and its ongoing 
 22   detrimental impacts has served as a valid warning 
 23   concerning future development, it speaks only 
 24   tangentially about the specific environmental and 
 25   socioeconomic impacts that the project under review 
07345
  1   will have and fails to evaluate the information 
  2   presented in the EIS itself.  
  3               In the end, there has been no real case 
  4   for why this dam should not be built.  The 
  5   participants have adequately set the stage concerning 
  6   the impacts of past projects on the region and its 
  7   people but they have not established that this 
  8   project will breach a critical environmental or 
  9   socioeconomic threshold.  
 10               While public concerns may be perfectly 
 11   valid, there has been presented no evidentiary case 
 12   to substantiate the concerns that the project will 
 13   further exacerbate the effects of the CRD or 
 14   challenge the proponent's assertions that the project 
 15   will operate within the parameters of the already 
 16   existing regulated system and have no impacts on that 
 17   system.  
 18               The Terms of Reference set out that there 
 19   are essentially two areas where this Commission must 
 20   make recommendations.  The Commission must consider 
 21   whether or not to recommend the issuance of 
 22   environmental licence and the Commission must 
 23   consider whether to recommend any measures designed 
 24   to mitigate or any monitoring measures that should be 
 25   employed.  
07346
  1               In determining the question of whether an 
  2   Environment Act licence should be issued, it should 
  3   be noted that the EIS has stated and the proponents 
  4   have affirmed throughout the process that any adverse 
  5   effects from the project will be insignificant or 
  6   rendered negligible through the employment of planned 
  7   mitigation measures.
  8               Further, there has been little evidence 
  9   put on record by the participants that puts the 
 10   quality or content of the EIS itself or its 
 11   conclusions into question.  
 12               On the balance of information presented, 
 13   the proponents may need to be taken at their word.  
 14   Ultimately, as set out in the EIS, the Wuskwatim 
 15   Generation Station will be a small project.  It is 
 16   operating within a regulated system and will work 
 17   within the operational paramaters of that system.  
 18   There is on the record no clear evidence that it will 
 19   impact upon the system operations in a significantly 
 20   detrimental manner.  
 21               As to the question of any follow-up 
 22   mitigation or continuing research, it should be noted 
 23   that the information contained in the EIS has not had 
 24   to withstand the rigour of a thorough competition of 
 25   ideas, as was discussed by Mr. Williams in his 
07347
  1   closing statement.  
  2               If the EIS is to be accepted at face 
  3   value, it is imperative that there be further testing 
  4   and monitoring of its assumptions.  This is 
  5   especially important given the issues of trust and 
  6   credibility that have come up during the course of 
  7   this hearing. 
  8               There must be regular evaluation of the 
  9   performance of adaptive management measures as well 
 10   as regular evaluation of the success of mitigation 
 11   measures.  The proponents should not be left alone to 
 12   do this monitoring.  Some third party oversight 
 13   should be provided.  
 14               There has been plenty of discussion 
 15   concerning the model of Independent Monitoring being 
 16   utilized in the Northwest Territories.  This model 
 17   should be investigated to determine whether it could 
 18   be adapted to the resource development activities 
 19   that continue to blossom in Northern Manitoba's 
 20   boreal forest. 
 21               An independent monitoring agency would 
 22   serve many vital functions.  Such an agency could 
 23   review the design of monitoring programs and examine 
 24   the results of the environmental management systems 
 25   in place, testing their ability to respond to 
07348
  1   problems as they arise. 
  2               It could also serve as a watch dog, 
  3   preparing an annual report of the monitoring programs 
  4   in place and their results and ensure that 
  5   information concerning the project is made publicly 
  6   available.  In this regard, such an agency could be 
  7   tasked with holding regular forums to educate the 
  8   public about continuing developments concerning this 
  9   project and also elicit participation and input from 
 10   the public in order to enhance the development of 
 11   monitoring programs.  This may also go to addressing 
 12   the issues of trust and credibility that have come up 
 13   during this hearing. 
 14               Given the concerns expressed during the 
 15   hearing by participants regarding the Cumulative 
 16   Effects Assessment, this independent monitoring 
 17   agency could also be tasked with preparing periodic 
 18   reports on cumulative effects, essentially taking a 
 19   longer view of environmental effects monitoring and 
 20   reviewing the performance of project activities as 
 21   compared to the predictions made in the EIS. 
 22               Due to the persistent concerns regarding 
 23   the cumulative effects assessment, the cumulative 
 24   effects methodology relied upon by the proponents 
 25   should be rigorously tested and regularly reviewed.  
07349
  1   This could occur as part of the independent 
  2   monitoring program activities.  Regardless of who is 
  3   doing this monitoring, there should be some regular 
  4   reporting as to both the adequacy of the methodology 
  5   chosen as well as the incidence of cumulative 
  6   effects, the degree of mitigation required and the 
  7   success of mitigation measures implemented. 
  8               Further, Dr. Duinker, who has lately 
  9   become a star of this hearing, should be contacted 
 10   and a report based on his assessment of the 
 11   cumulative effects process in the EIS should be 
 12   requested.  It would be instructive for the 
 13   evaluation of this project and future project 
 14   planning to know what praise or criticisms he had 
 15   concerning the methodology chosen. 
 16               It should also be considered whether 
 17   large scale land use planning is appropriate for this 
 18   region as it is undoubtedly going to see further 
 19   resource development in the future.  Land use on a 
 20   broader scale than the resource management area may 
 21   need to be considered and other interests may need to 
 22   be invited to the discussion table.  Given the 
 23   difficulty in determining thresholds for VECs, 
 24   perhaps it is wise to start developing acceptable 
 25   thresholds for resource development and change in the 
07350
  1   northern boreal region before the die is 
  2   irretrievably cast and some unmitigable threshold 
  3   crossed.  Having a design incorporating the concerns 
  4   and advice of many stakeholders may help to control 
  5   the extent of environmental change in the area and 
  6   avoid any future problems. 
  7               As suggested by Dr. Shaeffer, the 
  8   benefits of this project should be more than just 
  9   economic given the environmental and social problems 
 10   occurring in the region due to past Hydro 
 11   developments.  There exists an opportunity to 
 12   contribute to science and to further the 
 13   understanding of the various VECs as well as other 
 14   important environmental issues.  Extensive applied 
 15   research as well as peer-reviewed research should be 
 16   performed.  Such research should be made publicly 
 17   available either by the proponents, through an easily 
 18   accessible medium, or by an independent monitoring 
 19   agency.  
 20               And as I said, the main attraction is 
 21   coming.  
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  Does that complete your 
 23   presentation?  Mr. Mayer.
 24               MR. MAYER:  Just on the issue of the 
 25   independent monitoring, I recognize that the system 
07351
  1   set up in the NWT appears to be an energy type or at 
  2   least a resource type monitoring system.  How would 
  3   your client look upon an expanded role for the Clean 
  4   Environment Commission, with the added extra 
  5   resources that would obviously be necessary, as the 
  6   independent monitor for all projects which affect the 
  7   environment?
  8               MR. WILLIAMS:  We would have to undertake 
  9   an answer to that, Mr. Mayer.  I see looks of neither 
 10   puzzlement nor bemusement back there so I'm not sure 
 11   we have instructions.  
 12   
 13   (UNDERTAKING CAC/MSOS 96:  Advise of client's views 
 14   to an expanded role for the Clean Environment 
 15   Commission as the independent monitor for all 
 16   projects which affect the environment)
 17   
 18               MR. MAYER:  Just one quick follow-up 
 19   then.  When you're considering the answer which 
 20   you've just undertaken to give us on your client's 
 21   position in that regard, you do make, on the NFAAT 
 22   side, a very clear recommendation that the PUB should 
 23   monitor the economic advantages, et cetera.  And I'm 
 24   wondering why it would be different, on the 
 25   environmental side, if the CEC were put in a position 
07352
  1   and given the necessary resources to monitor such 
  2   follow-up.
  3               MS. POLLITT-SMITH:  I haven't addressed 
  4   my mind to it.
  5               MR. WILLIAMS:  We'll get instructions, 
  6   Mr. Mayer, and we'll reply in writing by the end of 
  7   the day.  
  8   
  9   (UNDERTAKING CAC/MSOS 97:  Advise why it would be 
 10   different, on the environmental side, if the CEC were 
 11   put in a position and given the necessary resources 
 12   to monitor the economic advantages)
 13   
 14               MR. WILLIAMS:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman 
 15   and members of the panel.  Oh, sorry.
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  Ms. Avery Kinew.  
 17               MS. AVERY KINEW:  Thank you for your 
 18   thoughtful recommendations, presentation.  I'm just 
 19   wondering in your recommendations on the environment 
 20   about large scale land use planning and your 
 21   peer-reviewed applied research, where is traditional 
 22   knowledge, Treaty and Aboriginal rights?
 23               MS. POLLITT-SMITH:  Well, I can't speak 
 24   to exactly the model but I mean one would assume that 
 25   would be applied in terms of bringing certain 
07353
  1   stakeholders to the table in land use planning.  You 
  2   would be including interested parties such as -- 
  3               MS. AVERY KINEW:  More than stakeholders?
  4               MS. POLLITT-SMITH:  Yeah, people that are 
  5   like interested in the region.  Like it's just a 
  6   matter of finding people that have an interest at 
  7   stake there and bringing them to the table to I think 
  8   design a plan for how that region should progress 
  9   instead of willy-nilly putting operations in there 
 10   and then finding out what happens.
 11               MS. AVERY KINEW:  Did your clients happen 
 12   to see conflict between applied research and western 
 13   research and traditional knowledge during the course 
 14   of the hearings?  Did they discuss it at all?
 15               MS. POLLITT-SMITH:  I don't think that's 
 16   been addressed.  But we can provide an answer to 
 17   that.
 18               MS. AVERY KINEW:  Okay, thank you.
 19   
 20   (UNDERTAKING CAC/MSOS 98:  Advise if the CAC/MSOS 
 21   clients happened to see conflict between applied 
 22   research and western research and traditional 
 23   knowledge during the course of the hearings, if they 
 24   discussed it at all)
 25   
07354
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Mr. Grewar.
  2               MR. GREWAR:  Mr. Chairman, just a few 
  3   numbers to assign to keep the record straight.  We 
  4   will assign the closing argument of CAC/MSOS Book of 
  5   References as CAC/MSOS 1012.  
  6   
  7               (EXHIBIT CAC/MSOS 1012:  Closing Argument 
  8               - June 8, 2004 - Book of References)
  9   
 10               MR. GREWAR:  We'll refer to the 
 11   "Overview: Uncertainty" as just presented as CAC/MSOS 
 12   1013.  
 13   
 14               (EXHIBIT CAC/MSOS 1013:  Speaking Notes:  
 15               Overview: Uncertainty)
 16   
 17               MR. GREWAR:  And I think for continuity 
 18   sake, and for the record, we could perhaps assign an 
 19   exhibit number to what we know is coming, which is 
 20   the full document on the EIS as CAC/MSOS 1014.
 21   
 22               (EXHIBIT CAC/MSOS 1014:  Written          
 23               Commentary on Environmental Impact
 24               Statement - CAC/MSOS)
 25   
07355
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  
  2               MR. GREWAR:  And we have it now, Mr. 
  3   Chairman.  So we'll have that assigned and we'll 
  4   distribute that document.  
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  We have one more closing 
  6   statement this morning.  Because the Boreal Forest is 
  7   not presenting until tomorrow, perhaps we can have 
  8   the luxury of a little longer break.  We can adjourn 
  9   for the break at reconvene at quarter to 11:00.  
 10   
 11               (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 10:27 A.M. and
 12               RECONVENED AT 10:51 A.M.)
 13   
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  Ladies and gentlemen, 
 15   getting ready to carry on with Dr. Miller.  Dr. 
 16   Miller, you may proceed. 
 17               MR. MILLER:  All right.  Thank you again 
 18   for the opportunity.  You have written documents 
 19   there and basically, because some of the points are 
 20   somewhat detailed, I wanted you to have a written 
 21   record of this.  There may be points where I skip the 
 22   text.  And one editing principle I had was if the 
 23   word "gigawatt hour" appears in the paragraph, I'll 
 24   probably skip it, but there's one exception which is 
 25   to that principle. 
07356
  1               So TREE and RCM are non-government 
  2   organizations committed to the advancement of a more 
  3   sustainable society in which our planet's natural 
  4   endowments of living and non-living systems and 
  5   resources are valued, respected and conserved.  
  6   Recognizing that this natural legacy is finite and 
  7   subject to degradation and depletion, we promote 
  8   eco-efficiency, improving the ratio of social 
  9   benefits to environmental harms and resource 
 10   depletion, as an essential pillar of a sustainable 
 11   society. 
 12               In our presentation on May 13th, we 
 13   argued that concern for the environment and long-run 
 14   sustainability generate a social imperative first for 
 15   energy conservation and efficiency measures, and 
 16   second, for least-impact generation options. 
 17               We also noted that Canada's standing, 
 18   relative to other OECD countries, in per capita 
 19   energy consumption, 27th out of 28th -- ranked from 
 20   lowest to highest, Mr. Mayer -- and energy 
 21   efficiency, 28 out of 29, ranked from least to most 
 22   energy used per dollar of GDP, indicates that we are 
 23   global energy hogs.  Canada's energy use is 50 per 
 24   cent higher than countries with similar climates, 
 25   such as Sweden.  These figures intensify the 
07357
  1   conservation imperative and pose the question, to 
  2   what extent is our socioeconomic climate well-adapted 
  3   to promote energy conservation? 
  4               High energy usage should provide a 
  5   powerful incentive and opportunity for energy 
  6   conservation.  But we concluded on the basis of our 
  7   experience in the 2002 Manitoba Hydro rate hearing 
  8   before the PUB that Manitoba's poor showing is not 
  9   simply owing to our physical climate and geography,  
 10   rather it is attributable in part to perverse 
 11   economic incentives, inadequate conservation 
 12   investments and regulations and policy failures.  
 13               To simplify somewhat, as a society, 
 14   instead of looking at our high usage and asking how 
 15   can we achieve the same social benefits more 
 16   efficiently with less energy consumption, we have 
 17   asked instead how can we keep rates low?  To do this, 
 18   we have been prepared to divert great sums of 
 19   Manitoba's wealth in the form of foregone taxes and 
 20   allocation of export earnings to subsidize domestic 
 21   energy rates.  Indeed, part of the Wuskwatim 
 22   justification is to be able to maintain that subsidy 
 23   in order to keep rates low.  Because low rates to 
 24   consumers have trumped and to some extent replaced 
 25   energy efficiency goals, it is no wonder that 
07358
  1   Canada's energy profile has continued to worsen 
  2   relative to other OECD countries. 
  3               Despite the above shortcomings in 
  4   application, we note more optimistically that in 
  5   Manitoba, the social imperative to conserve is 
  6   enshrined in the Manitoba Hydro Act and the 
  7   Sustainable Development Act, as we discuss in the 
  8   next section.  Thus TREE and RCM have intervened in 
  9   these hearings in response to the social imperative 
 10   and legal requirement to prioritize conservation and 
 11   least-impact generation alternatives.  Our 
 12   determination to intervene was strengthened by 
 13   consideration of Canada and Manitoba's poor showing 
 14   in global comparisons and failures in resource 
 15   pricing and energy policies to promote conservation. 
 16               I'll now discuss that legal framework.  
 17               In Section 2 of the Manitoba Hydro Act, 
 18   which provides a legal foundation for Manitoba Hydro, 
 19   it is stated, 
 20                  "The purposes and objects of this Act 
 21                  are to provide for the continuance of 
 22                  a supply of power adequate for the 
 23                  needs of the province, and to engage 
 24                  in and to promote economy and 
 25                  efficiency in the development, 
07359
  1                  generation, transmission, 
  2                  distribution, supply and end-use of 
  3                  power."  
  4               The Sustainable Development Act in 
  5   Section 2 indicates that, 
  6                  "The purpose of this Act is to create 
  7                  a framework through which sustainable 
  8                  development will be implemented in the 
  9                  provincial public sector and promoted 
 10                  in private industry and in society 
 11                  generally."  
 12               And the public sector includes, in the 
 13   definition following, Manitoba Hydro, the CEC and the 
 14   Public Utilities Board.  So all have a legislated 
 15   obligation to assess their activities by the 
 16   principles of sustainability. 
 17               Appended to the Sustainable Development 
 18   Act are principles and guidelines of sustainable 
 19   development, two schedules.  The one that may be most 
 20   relevant to our intervention is the guideline for the 
 21   efficient use of resources.  Which means, 
 22                  "Encouraging and facilitating 
 23                  development and application of systems 
 24                  for proper resource pricing, demand 
 25                  management and resource allocation 
07360
  1                  together with incentives to encourage 
  2                  efficient use of resources; and 
  3                  employing full-cost accounting to 
  4                  provide better information for 
  5                  decision makers." 
  6               There is a stewardship principle which 
  7   speaks of the long run and intergenerational equity.  
  8               And finally a principle of global 
  9   responsibility.  Manitobans should think globally 
 10   when acting locally.  
 11               Take these three principles together and 
 12   they lead to this implication, that Manitoba Hydro's 
 13   energy planning should be developed against a 
 14   backdrop of global long-run energy scenarios that 
 15   include analyses of resource availability, limits and 
 16   constraints, environmental loadings and impacts, and 
 17   socioeconomic consequences of alternative paths that 
 18   can be taken.  Planning should identify the preferred 
 19   sustainable futures to which the utility can 
 20   contribute.  Efficiency improvements will be a 
 21   primary component of any preferred path. 
 22               Because ever-rising trends in energy 
 23   consumption and production cause incremental harms 
 24   and face global limits, a sustainable scenario must 
 25   contemplate the levelling of and possible decline in 
07361
  1   available energy and thus in aggregate customer 
  2   consumption.  Therefore, we argued in our May 13th 
  3   testimony that it's not too soon for Manitoba Hydro 
  4   to sketch an end-game for the province once 
  5   hydroelectric potential on the Nelson is fully 
  6   installed.  3,700 megawatts of the existing Nelson 
  7   River capacity came on line in the short period from 
  8   1974 to 1990.  A similar building binge currently 
  9   contemplated by Manitoba Hydro and the provincial 
 10   government could come close to completing the job in 
 11   a comparably short time.  Long-range planning should 
 12   address that issue. 
 13               For these reasons, alternative resource 
 14   plans are to be assessed for their sustainability and 
 15   eco-efficiency.  That is achieving the greatest 
 16   long-run human benefits with the least degradation of 
 17   resources and the environment, both locally and 
 18   globally.  We also believe that conservation 
 19   alternatives hold the best prospects for long-run 
 20   economic stimulation and jobs and the improvement of 
 21   Manitobans' homes, institutions and businesses. 
 22               So those are the broad principles that 
 23   have guided our intervention.  Now I'd like to refer 
 24   more particularly to the body of evidence that we 
 25   have presented and this will be done in a bullet form 
07362
  1   combining our various points of evidence, some 
  2   observations on them and conclusions. 
  3               We asked Torrie Smith Associates to 
  4   provide an analysis of the Need For and Alternatives 
  5   To Wuskwatim to see if a case could be made for more 
  6   aggressive DSM programs and policies combined with 
  7   distributed generation, including non-utility 
  8   generation, which might provide a viable alternative 
  9   to the Wuskwatim advancement project and would better 
 10   satisfy the principles of sustainability.  We also 
 11   provided evidence from our 2002 intervention before 
 12   the Public Utilities Board. 
 13               What I've done is to try to summarize 
 14   various points under the headings of the NFAAT 
 15   analysis and sustainability, load forecasting, DSM 
 16   and non-utility generation analysis and programming, 
 17   alternatives to Wuskwatim and perverse incentives and 
 18   subsidies. 
 19               First, the NFAAT analysis.  Regardless of 
 20   possible future energy requirements of Manitobans, 
 21   Wuskwatim advancement is not needed at this time for 
 22   domestic power supply as indeed Manitoba Hydro 
 23   acknowledges.  
 24               The need for Wuskwatim advancement, as 
 25   defined in the filing, is to maintain, in the face of 
07363
  1   rising domestic consumption, sufficient electricity 
  2   surplus to domestic use to supply what they call the 
  3   estimated on-peak export market which is represented 
  4   as a line of 10,500 gigawatt hours.  There is my 
  5   exception.                  
  6               Thus an NFAAT analysis of Wuskwatim 
  7   advancement should examine, compare and evaluate in 
  8   some depth alternative portfolios containing 
  9   conservation and generation options capable of 
 10   meeting this need, some of which might include 
 11   Wuskwatim and some not. 
 12               Manitoba Hydro, in one of its responses, 
 13   gave a definition of "alternatives to" and it 
 14   involves a demonstration that the project is more 
 15   beneficial than other projects, either similar in 
 16   nature or significantly different but in all cases, 
 17   serving to meet the same need.  And we accept that.  
 18   But we claim that they haven't done that.  Hence, 
 19   they haven't done an NFAAT analysis by their own 
 20   definition. 
 21               What they have provided instead are 
 22   sensitivity analyses to show that Wuskwatim is still 
 23   viable under a range of assumptions but that's not a 
 24   substitute for an NFAAT analysis that shows it is the 
 25   preferred option or part of a preferred portfolio. 
07364
  1               In the most recent Manitoba Hydro 
  2   rebuttal of TREE/RCM's interrogatory responses, there 
  3   is considerable new information and analysis but 
  4   there is nothing new in the thinking or approach to 
  5   the NFAAT question.  No alternative strategies for 
  6   meeting the objective of Wuskwatim advancement are 
  7   identified or analyzed, except to the extent the 
  8   rebuttal does contain comments on the one alternative 
  9   that was put before the CEC, our illustrative 
 10   scenario. 
 11               The identification and comparative 
 12   analysis, including risk analysis of such 
 13   alternatives, should be an important element of 
 14   Manitoba Hydro's investment planning strategy as well 
 15   as the basis for the analysis of the Need For and 
 16   Alternatives To Wuskwatim advancement.  What is 
 17   needed is a proactive and thoughtful approach to the 
 18   market, focused on the horizon, driven by the 
 19   Principles of Sustainable Development and informed by 
 20   a deep understanding of the business and 
 21   technological possibilities on the demand side. 
 22               So those are a summary of points in the 
 23   evidence and I've interjected a comment here.  We 
 24   think that that critique is essentially correct, that 
 25   an NFAAT analysis has not been done and it is 
07365
  1   confirmed by the CAC/MSOS witness which presented a 
  2   description of the process in terms of an analysis of 
  3   alternative portfolios relying on a document which I 
  4   believe came from the B.C. Utilities Commission.  
  5               What we would like to add to that general 
  6   picture of what an NFAAT analysis is is a linkage to 
  7   the principles of sustainability.  We remind you of 
  8   the earlier part of the brief that these are legally 
  9   mandated principles for the operation of the utility 
 10   and so the NFAAT analysis should be well-grounded in 
 11   them. 
 12               This should include longer range energy 
 13   scenarios that address limits to global energy 
 14   supplies, limits to Manitoba's hydroelectric capacity 
 15   and transitions from increasing energy consumption 
 16   and production trends to a more sustainable 
 17   containment of consumption within long-run 
 18   sustainable supplies. 
 19               We realize that you can't attach precise 
 20   numbers to some of these longer range things but you 
 21   can certainly consider them and do order of magnitude 
 22   estimates and do some strategic planning in terms of 
 23   them.
 24               Moreover, Manitoba conceives that 
 25   Wuskwatim is the first in a series of dams to provide 
07366
  1   a succession of construction employment opportunities 
  2   which would rapidly use up the remaining sites with 
  3   hydroelectric potential on the Burntwood and Nelson 
  4   rivers.  Thus, it is not too soon to ask Hydro to 
  5   provide an end-game analysis for energy supply and 
  6   demand when the feasible and economic potential is 
  7   exhausted.  The continuous growth in energy 
  8   production and consumption is not a sustainable 
  9   trajectory. 
 10               Likewise, the CEC review of any 
 11   submission by Hydro should attend to the same 
 12   principles and guidelines. 
 13               While the export of power is contemplated 
 14   in the Manitoba Hydro Act, provision of power for 
 15   export must adhere to these same principles of 
 16   sustainability.  And we note that the case for export 
 17   would be stronger if power were to be sold into 
 18   jurisdictions likewise committed to sustainability 
 19   including adherence to the Kyoto protocol for 
 20   greenhouse gas reduction.  Otherwise, there is a 
 21   concern that the exported power might be incremental 
 22   to unsustainable fossil fuel generation rather than 
 23   displacing it, alleviating a potential crunch. 
 24               Likewise, the case for export would be 
 25   stronger if Manitoba Hydro increased export capacity 
07367
  1   was to be used to firm wind generation.  Otherwise, 
  2   there is a concern that the exported power might 
  3   displace wind generation in export markets rather 
  4   than supporting this relatively low impact 
  5   technology.  However, the operational design of 
  6   Wuskwatim precludes significant storage and thus 
  7   firming capacity at this site. 
  8               In addition, the case for providing 
  9   socioeconomic benefits to Manitoba through export 
 10   earnings would be stronger were the export earnings 
 11   not to be used to subsidize the wastage of energy in 
 12   Manitoba, which the current rate design and cost 
 13   allocation methods encourage.  
 14               For example, the largest customers pay 
 15   less than 2 cents a kilowatt hour for incremental 
 16   energy consumed as long as it does not add to demand 
 17   from their rate schedules.  This is far from the 
 18   marginal cost of new generation and transmission and 
 19   of export earnings foregone and less than a third of 
 20   the 6.15 cents a kilowatt hour which Manitoba Hydro 
 21   values DSM savings. 
 22               Do we want to increase subsidies when 
 23   they are of that magnitude or even maintain them at 
 24   that level? 
 25               The next topic is load forecasting.  
07368
  1   Manitoba Hydro adopts a forecasting approach to 
  2   planning which extrapolates the future on the basis 
  3   of high level econometric trends as opposed to a 
  4   scenario approach based on end-use analyses under 
  5   varying assumptions about changing relationships 
  6   between trends like population GP and end-use 
  7   variables like how much electricity is used in a 
  8   manufacturing plant or to light an office.  
  9               The very term "load forecasting" reflects 
 10   the passive approach to electricity demand, something 
 11   to be forecast, like the weather, that characterizes 
 12   the traditional utility business culture.  Ideally, 
 13   load forecasting should be based upon scenario 
 14   analyses as an end-use model.  
 15               The electricity market is in a very 
 16   dynamic state and once stable relations between 
 17   demographic and economic activity and electricity 
 18   demand are changing rapidly.  Business planning for 
 19   sustainable development requires thinking about 
 20   alternative futures, backcasting rather than 
 21   forecasting, as a central element of investment 
 22   planning strategies. 
 23               The latter approach is to be preferred 
 24   because it is less deterministic, provides a richer 
 25   understanding of the factors affecting energy 
07369
  1   consumption and can guide energy service 
  2   opportunities and DSM interventions. 
  3               When Manitoba Hydro produces variations 
  4   in the load forecast, medium low and medium high for 
  5   example, they do so by varying the underlying 
  6   demographic and economic inputs to the forecast.  
  7   They do not look at variations in the relationship 
  8   between those inputs and the demand for electricity, 
  9   even though these variations are of equal or greater 
 10   importance to the economic input variables in 
 11   determining the final demand for electricity. 
 12               A low, medium low forecast is based on 
 13   expectations of a flagging economy, not greater 
 14   efficiency.  
 15               A basic prerequisite for improved 
 16   electricity demand analysis at Manitoba Hydro is the 
 17   development of a fully calibrated end-use model of 
 18   energy demand in Manitoba.  It should be 
 19   comprehensive, including all sectors and all fuels 
 20   and electricity.  It should be designed to support 
 21   both strategic planning and scenario analysis and the 
 22   development of integrated customer-focused marketing 
 23   strategies. 
 24               The rebuttal contains, for the first time 
 25   from Manitoba Hydro, a detailed subsector breakdown 
07370
  1   of the 2002 load forecast.  While this is the first 
  2   step toward an end-use analysis of the load forecast 
  3   and to the development of alternative scenarios of 
  4   future electricity demand, Manitoba Hydro has not 
  5   taken those next steps.  Instead the subsector 
  6   disaggregation is used only for a defence of the 
  7   status quo, the same old approach to load forecasting 
  8   and the same old assumptions about indefinite growth. 
  9               There is nothing in Manitoba Hydro's 
 10   rebuttal that refutes our conclusion that the 2002 
 11   General Service Mass Market Forecast, which is all 
 12   the commercial and industrial customers minus what 
 13   they call the top customer group, the really heaviest 
 14   users, is relatively high given the economic forecast 
 15   that is driving it.  Manitoba Hydro would have 
 16   conceded this point if they had tried to do a 
 17   complete end-use calibration of this forecast.  They 
 18   would have found, as TSA did, that the load forecast 
 19   is high for the level of activity in the economic 
 20   forecast.  Unless commercial and institutional floor 
 21   area suddenly starts growing faster than output, 
 22   combined with a simultaneous reversal in the 
 23   long-term trend to higher electricity productivity in 
 24   general manufacturing, the level of electricity 
 25   demand in the 2002 basic forecast does not correspond 
07371
  1   to the demographic and economic growth assumptions 
  2   that are driving it. 
  3               One of the central reasons for presenting 
  4   the adjusted load forecast was to illustrate the 
  5   sensitivity of the final demand for electricity to 
  6   changes in the assumed relationships between economic 
  7   activity and electricity demand.  While Manitoba 
  8   Hydro's medium low forecast is driven by a fairly 
  9   strong negative economic projection, an equally low 
 10   future demand for electricity could come about 
 11   without assuming an economic slowdown but by making a 
 12   few modest, and we would argue, justifiable changes 
 13   in the activity and energy intensities of the 
 14   commercial and general manufacturing sectors.  
 15               The point is not whether the particular 
 16   assumptions made in our illustrative scenarios are 
 17   precisely correct, the point is that any attempt to 
 18   produce an end-use calibration of Manitoba Hydro's 
 19   load forecast will lead to the conclusion that the 
 20   2002 load forecast is relatively high for the level 
 21   of economic activity assumed.  This in turn leads to 
 22   the conclusion that the size of the projected export 
 23   gap that Manitoba Hydro has put forward as the 
 24   underlying justification for Wuskwatim advancement 
 25   has been overstated. 
07372
  1               Now I'll skip to my comment.  The load 
  2   forecast is the most contentious and technical point 
  3   of divergence between Manitoba Hydro and Torrie Smith 
  4   Associates.  Unfortunately, we have been unable to 
  5   resolve these difficulties.  Mr. Torrie notes that 
  6   Manitoba Hydro's second rebuttal brings to bear new 
  7   data subsequent to the integration of Winnipeg Hydro 
  8   and there are also dubious mathematical methods and 
  9   assumptions in the new material that are untested in 
 10   the CEC process and which we are not in a position to 
 11   thoroughly analyze.
 12               So I wish we could have a stronger 
 13   conclusion there but that's our current assessment of 
 14   where the situation lies. 
 15               On to DSM analysis and programming.  
 16   There are more technically feasible economic 
 17   opportunities than Manitoba Hydro has captured in its 
 18   analysis of DSM economic potential because, first, a 
 19   higher threshold price than 6.15 cents per kilowatt 
 20   hour for conservation measure is warranted because of 
 21   ancillary benefits of DSM.  And secondly, because 
 22   savings are cost -- additional savings are cost 
 23   effective even at the 6.15 cent threshold. 
 24               The gap between the economic DSM 
 25   potential and what Manitoba Hydro deems to be 
07373
  1   achievable reflects a large pent-up opportunity for 
  2   more aggressive state-of-the-art DSM programming that 
  3   could achieve several times the energy savings 
  4   projected in the current resource plan. 
  5               Contrary to the implication in Manitoba 
  6   Hydro's rebuttal to TREE/RCM interrogatories, the 
  7   TREE/RCM analysis takes full account of the impact on 
  8   DSM potential of adjustments to the business as usual 
  9   or reference projection.  Higher demand in the 
 10   reference projection also means higher DSM potential, 
 11   providing a dampening effect of load forecast 
 12   adjustments.  In other words, their model does adjust 
 13   the DSM estimates as the basic forecast goes up and 
 14   down. 
 15               State-of-the-art or third generation 
 16   demand-side management programming has the following 
 17   features and is elaborated in the indicated 
 18   interrogatory replies.  Manitoba Hydro's commitment 
 19   is compared to other North American utilities.  In 
 20   their rebuttal, Manitoba Hydro argues that recent and 
 21   projected increases in their DSM programming should 
 22   be compared with the commitments made by other 
 23   utilities in 2000 and earlier.  But clearly, 
 24   comparisons will be more meaningful when data for the 
 25   same years are compared as was done in our TREE/RCM 
07374
  1   NFAAT-9.  
  2               The spending on DSM in the leading North 
  3   American utilities has been steadily increasing but 
  4   the year 2000 was the most recent for which 
  5   comprehensive comparative statistics were available. 
  6               Skip the gigawatt hours.  
  7               The deployment of the maximum economic 
  8   potential for electricity efficiency improvement is a 
  9   fundamental prerequisite for any sustainable energy 
 10   future.  Yet Manitoba Hydro is seeking permits to 
 11   expand on the supply side without committing to 
 12   development of the full economic potential for DSM in 
 13   Manitoba and without offering any formal assurances 
 14   or convincing arguments that there could not be 
 15   another ebb in the utility's commitment to DSM after 
 16   the dam is under construction and more is known about 
 17   the timelines of other developments in the power 
 18   market.  Even the incremental updating of the Power 
 19   Smart plan is not scheduled for completion until 
 20   later this summer.
 21               At the same time, the announcement of 
 22   Efficiency Manitoba has introduced significant 
 23   uncertainty with respect to the future structure of 
 24   public investment, business organization and delivery 
 25   channels for DSM in Manitoba.  For example, 
07375
  1   Efficiency Manitoba has a mandate to deliver an 
  2   integrated program of resource conservation and 
  3   efficiency and there are strong arguments for folding 
  4   at least some aspects of the current Power Smart 
  5   program into this new approach.  While this may be a 
  6   desirable structure for public investment in 
  7   demand-side management, the transition from Hydro to 
  8   Efficiency Manitoba holds the potential to be 
  9   disruptive of DSM delivery capacity in the short 
 10   term.  
 11               In addition, long-term business planning 
 12   at Manitoba Hydro will be or should be profoundly 
 13   influenced by the definition of the relationship 
 14   between the utility and Efficiency Manitoba.  And 
 15   until that definition is made clear, it represents an 
 16   impediment to business planning for Manitoba Hydro. 
 17               One approach to the problem of Manitoba 
 18   Hydro's failure to specify the level of contribution 
 19   of DSM or to explore scenarios for maintaining export 
 20   capability with increased reliance on DSM would be 
 21   simply to wait for that analysis to be done.  If the 
 22   update Power Smart program is on schedule for 
 23   completion in August, which itself is a test of the 
 24   seriousness of Manitoba Hydro's commitment, then it 
 25   will soon be possible for the CEC to assess the 
07376
  1   quantitative role of DSM on the Need For and 
  2   Alternatives To Wuskwatim advancement.  The DSM 
  3   resource option could be protected from the 
  4   downgrading it has received in the past from Manitoba 
  5   Hydro by making Wuskwatim advancement conditional on 
  6   a binding commitment to specified DSM investment and 
  7   performance targets and timetables.  
  8               In addition to the analysis of potential 
  9   electricity savings and their costs, it is also 
 10   important to examine the social aspects of DSM 
 11   programming.  These include the employment 
 12   opportunities from energy retrofits, the changes in 
 13   quality of life from living in an energy efficient 
 14   home rather than one that is cold and draughty and 
 15   the barriers to assessing DSM programming for various 
 16   constituencies, including renters, Northern 
 17   Aboriginal communities and the poor.  At present, 
 18   there is, in practice, little or no Power Smart 
 19   programming appropriate for First Nation communities 
 20   and low income communities. 
 21               Recent Hydro-funded research initiatives 
 22   such as Healthy Housing in West Broadway are 
 23   important first steps to examine these issues but 
 24   these need to guide much more extensive and 
 25   appropriately tailored conservation opportunities for 
07377
  1   the poor.  While Manitoba Hydro has several energy 
  2   saving programs aimed at residential consumers in 
  3   general, many of these programs are not effectively 
  4   reaching community groups and low income earners in 
  5   First Nation communities or inner city 
  6   neighbourhoods.  
  7               I'll add some comments to these points. 
  8               In its two rebuttals, Hydro has given the 
  9   strongest defence of its programming that we have 
 10   seen far beyond the perfunctory treatment in the 2002 
 11   PUB hearing.  And that pleases us that there are so 
 12   many measures recently adopted or under consideration 
 13   and hope that the momentum will not again be lost as 
 14   it was in the early 1990s.  We are disappointed that, 
 15   after all these years, so few houses are constructed 
 16   to the cost effective R2000 standard and lament the 
 17   many lost opportunities in new construction.  
 18               Visible signs of a longer range corporate 
 19   and provincial commitment to DSM, and many of these 
 20   remarks apply to provincial policies, would be first 
 21   an investment in training for the building trades to 
 22   conduct retrofits comparable to the level of training 
 23   investment for Wuskwatim.  And two, an investment in 
 24   innovation design and demonstration for 
 25   cost-effective conservation measures comparable to 
07378
  1   the engineering investment in Wuskwatim.  We haven't 
  2   seen these signs yet. 
  3               There follows, in bullet form, a list of 
  4   actions that Hydro could take to improve the 
  5   acceptance and utilization of DSM programs.  I'll 
  6   just leave those for your attention.  They had been 
  7   reiterated a number of times in the evidence. 
  8               A related topic is non-utility 
  9   generation.  We were looking at DSM and wind.  Most 
 10   of our focus has been on the DSM issue but we tried 
 11   to attend to what was being said about the NUG, the 
 12   non-utility generation options including wind.  
 13               And given that 99 megawatt is right there 
 14   in the verge of being built and that the estimates 
 15   have been conservative and looking at the Minnesota 
 16   experience and the growth in wind developments in 
 17   other places, we don't think it's unreasonable to 
 18   contemplate five times that Sequoia development, 500 
 19   megawatts over the next decade.  We are not 
 20   predicting it but in planning future scenarios, it's 
 21   not an unreasonable scenario to include. 
 22               We note that the CAC/MSOS witnesses were 
 23   critical of the idea of Hydro investing its own 
 24   money, or our money, however you want to look at it, 
 25   in wind.  And presumably there are certain 
07379
  1   advantages, tax advantages or otherwise.  I mean if 
  2   we're not paying taxes in our utility, that's part of 
  3   the subsidy, then there wouldn't be the same tax 
  4   advantages I suppose.  So they recommended that Hydro 
  5   not undertake wind development themselves.  But they 
  6   did not recommend against adding wind to the Manitoba 
  7   system.  And in fact, encourage Hydro to develop a 
  8   wind development plan in corresponding detail to the 
  9   DSM planning process. 
 10               They also acknowledge that corporate 
 11   learning regarding wind generation would be valuable 
 12   and could be accommodated through a joint venture 
 13   arrangement with a private sector which would reduce 
 14   Hydro's risk exposure.  
 15               And we also heard the presentation from 
 16   MIPUG indicate they were looking somewhat jealously 
 17   at the arrangements that Sequoia had with the utility 
 18   to buy it at export-related prices whereas they only 
 19   get for their non-utility generation the tailblock 
 20   rate which, as we've already indicated, is heavily 
 21   subsidized at less than 2 cents.  So it's not 
 22   economic at that price.  But if they could be offered 
 23   a price closer to what the wind generation folks are 
 24   being offered, it might prove attractive. 
 25               This is a direct link between subsidies 
07380
  1   and non-utility generation, just as there's a link 
  2   between subsidies and DSM.  What's cost effective 
  3   from the standpoint of the customer depends on the 
  4   rates they are paying.  
  5               Next, alternatives to Wuskwatim.  In 
  6   various combinations with each other and with the 
  7   adjusted load forecast, a number of plausible 
  8   resource portfolios exist to supply the estimated 
  9   on-peak export market of 10,500 gigawatt hours.
 10               And this would be during the period of 
 11   Wuskwatim advancement and before because you can 
 12   launch your DSM initiatives much before the period is 
 13   when the dam would start generating. 
 14               So there are alternatives that have not 
 15   been identified and analyzed in Manitoba Hydro's 
 16   proposal. 
 17               These alternatives have a number of 
 18   advantages over the construction of Wuskwatim, the 
 19   value of which can only be properly assessed in an 
 20   integrated scenario analysis.  Of particular note in 
 21   comparison to Wuskwatim advancement is the ability of 
 22   the scenarios to deliver results beginning 
 23   immediately as compared with a lengthy construction 
 24   period for Wuskwatim, during which time it has only 
 25   negative cash flow for the utility.  Because of the 
07381
  1   present value of the DSM distributed generation based 
  2   alternatives, they compare favourably with Wuskwatim 
  3   advancement even at levels smaller than Wuskwatim's 
  4   output. 
  5               The TSA, Torrie Smith Associates, 
  6   scenarios are, as have been indicated a number of 
  7   times, illustrative and basically do demonstrate that 
  8   plausible alternatives exist.  But it's up to the 
  9   corporate resources of Hydro in its modelling to 
 10   develop these scenarios in full and provide the 
 11   comparative analyses. 
 12               I'll simply comment that the readjustment 
 13   of Mr. Torrie's baseline for its reference scenario, 
 14   this is in response to the most recent rebuttal for 
 15   Manitoba Hydro, may reduce somewhat the surpluses 
 16   achievable for export from the original estimations 
 17   that were made.  There is a need to re-estimate 
 18   these, which we are unable to do, and that our 
 19   undertakings 84 and 85 illustrate possible adjustment 
 20   downwards of the existing resources after subtracting 
 21   400 gigawatt hours from the baseline in their 
 22   original adjusted forecast.  And so that gives you a 
 23   partial somewhat adhoc analysis.  And basically at 
 24   this point, we were out of resources and that's as 
 25   far as we could take it. 
07382
  1               Finally, I want to address the topic of 
  2   perverse incentives and subsidies which has been 
  3   mentioned several times and which are the topics of 
  4   our interventions before the Public Utilities Board 
  5   in 2002 and currently.  And I'll simply make the 
  6   point that subsidy is counter -- subsidizing rates, 
  7   unless you do it in the right way, is counter to 
  8   conservation objectives.  It's part of that climate, 
  9   that social climate, that economic climate that is 
 10   hostile to conservation that may be a contributing 
 11   factor in explaining our level of energy usage and 
 12   wastage.  
 13               It is possible to stop subsidizing 
 14   wastage of energy while still trying to reduce 
 15   customer energy costs.  Two principal ways of doing 
 16   this are to redirect subsidies from rates to 
 17   conservation measures and from tailblock rates to 
 18   initial block rates and fixed charges.  It is thus 
 19   possible to do this in a revenue neutral way that 
 20   will lower the bills of conservers, raise the bills 
 21   of larger consumers, bring tailblock rates closer to 
 22   the marginal cost of energy and thus increase the 
 23   incentives and cost-effectiveness to consumers of 
 24   conservation measures.  
 25               So those are a series of observations 
07383
  1   drawing on the evidence, and in some cases, with 
  2   additional comment.  
  3               Finally, our recommendations.  First, 
  4   ensure that the principles and guidelines of 
  5   sustainability are integral to the Manitoba Hydro 
  6   mandate in all resource planning and operations.  
  7   These should guide the formulation of corporate and 
  8   program goals, strategic planning, investments and 
  9   performance measures.  As we indicated, this should 
 10   lead to an examination of long-range global energy 
 11   futures and Manitoba Hydro's role and 
 12   responsibilities in contributing to the more 
 13   sustainable of these. 
 14               In particular, Manitoba Hydro should 
 15   address the challenge of converting ever-rising 
 16   consumption and production trends to a course that 
 17   reflects the limits of renewable and non-renewable 
 18   energy supplies. 
 19               The NFAAT exercise, which Manitoba Hydro 
 20   failed to conduct for these hearings, should become 
 21   an integral part of resource planning, whether or not 
 22   it must be defended in a formal hearing. 
 23               Proper resource planning requires 
 24   appropriate models and databases with as much end-use 
 25   data for various energy sources as possible to 
07384
  1   integrate forecasting and scenario creation, 
  2   strategic planning, DSM programming and 
  3   sustainability review. 
  4               Manitoba Hydro should continue its recent 
  5   development of initiatives to create state-of-the-art 
  6   DSM programming with more ambitious targets that 
  7   reflect the urgency of getting rising consumption 
  8   trends under control and generate the accompanying 
  9   social and economic co-benefits. 
 10               Manitoba Hydro should also create a 
 11   detailed wind and NUG development plan with 
 12   appropriate policies and incentives attractive to 
 13   potential investors, as recommended by CAC/MSOS and 
 14   MIPUG. 
 15               As noted in earlier testimony, one 
 16   feature of the Wuskwatim project that RCM and TREE 
 17   applaud is the partnership with Nisichawayasihk Cree 
 18   Nation, past hydroelectric projects which benefitted 
 19   southern communities with energy, had 
 20   disproportionate negative impacts on northern 
 21   Aboriginal communities and ecosystems located near 
 22   projects, a partnership that exercises greater care 
 23   over local ecosystems and promises a share in the 
 24   dividends is certainly an improvement over the past. 
 25               At the same time, we note that 
07385
  1   partnership in dam building is a divisive issue 
  2   within and between Aboriginal communities.  We 
  3   believe that partnerships and training opportunities 
  4   built around community building and conservation 
  5   projects provide an alternative and less divisive 
  6   foundation for community development and improved 
  7   relations.  
  8               In any case, there is a need for more 
  9   effective targeted programming to benefit a variety 
 10   of customers who are unable to avail themselves of 
 11   current DSM programming. 
 12               Finally, it is important to stop 
 13   subsidizing the waste of energy in Manitoba.  Proper 
 14   resource pricing and incentives are an integral part 
 15   of sustainability strategies which have not yet 
 16   penetrated deeply into energy policy in Manitoba. 
 17               Now, these hearings are about Wuskwatim, 
 18   so I can't avoid saying something about that topic. 
 19               There is a lot of unfinished business 
 20   before Wuskwatim could proceed, even if it were 
 21   approved by this Commission.  There is need for 
 22   further collar data on the caribou range in areas 
 23   potentially affected by the dam and transmission 
 24   corridors.  There are needed consultations and 
 25   negotiations with a variety of affected communities 
07386
  1   including those centred at South Indian Lake and the 
  2   Manitoba Metis.  There is still a need for NCN to 
  3   decide if they wish to proceed and the federal and 
  4   provincial governments must complete their 
  5   constitutionally required consultations with affected 
  6   Aboriginal peoples.  
  7               Our evidence and arguments, and those 
  8   from the Consumers and Seniors as well, have also 
  9   indicated deficiencies in resource planning and the 
 10   absence of a proper NFAAT analysis.  Thus our 
 11   position is that while the unfinished business in 
 12   consultation and environmental assessment is being 
 13   completed, the unfinished business in resource 
 14   planning and NFAAT analysis should also be done and 
 15   reviewed by the CEC later this year.  The analysis 
 16   should incorporate as many of the elements of 
 17   recommendations 1 to 7 as possible and update the 
 18   planning of additional transmission and intertie 
 19   capacity, because that 10,500 gigawatt hour figure 
 20   was a defining limit to this process. 
 21               There are also appended a few other brief 
 22   comments from Mr. Torrie which we take to be more by 
 23   way of argument than evidence because he didn't do 
 24   recalculations and so on, but is addressing some of 
 25   the points in the rebuttal that he was unable to do 
07387
  1   on the stand when he was here.  
  2               So with that, I conclude my testimony or 
  3   argument.
  4               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Miller.  
  5   Mr. Mayer. 
  6               MR. MAYER:  Mr. Miller, firstly, thank 
  7   you for the presentation and thank you for proving 
  8   that you don't need a lawyer in order to properly 
  9   present a closing argument. 
 10               I am a little bit mystified, however, by 
 11   your comment on page 5 which says the operational 
 12   design of Wuskwatim precludes significant storage, 
 13   and thus firming capacity.  You're not recommending 
 14   the high head proposal, are you, that would in fact 
 15   provide the storage and firming capacity that you say 
 16   is missing?
 17               DR. MILLER:  No.  I think my concept of 
 18   eco-efficiency, the concept of eco-efficiency would 
 19   preclude that if you may gain additional 
 20   hydroelectric benefits but there would be a 
 21   significant environmental cost and it may not be 
 22   worth that cost.
 23               MR. MAYER:  But your discussion talks 
 24   about using hydroelectric power to firm and shape 
 25   wind energy and there's a lot of evidence before this 
07388
  1   Commission about that.  In your suggestion that you 
  2   need a storage facility in order to do that as 
  3   opposed to a run-of-the-river or even in this case a 
  4   modified run-of-the-river facility, have you 
  5   considered the possibility that Wuskwatim generation 
  6   displacing generation from facilities that have 
  7   storage capacities such as Grand Rapids and Kettle 
  8   Rapids, for example, which I believe not to mention 
  9   Lake Winnipeg Regulation, but have you considered 
 10   that in your whole process of using Hydro power to 
 11   firm and shape wind generation?
 12               DR. MILLER:  I would simply defer to 
 13   Hydro's experts on that and indeed I may get a 
 14   comment in their closing.
 15               MR. MAYER:  I have nothing further.
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Miller.  We 
 17   thank you for a well-presented closing statement.  
 18   This concludes the final presentations for this 
 19   morning.  We see ourselves as a bit ahead of time 
 20   here but I guess that doesn't mean that lunch is 
 21   available.  So I guess we will reconvene at one 
 22   o'clock.  But before we leave, Mr. Grewar, you have 
 23   some filings to do?
 24               MR. GREWAR:  Yes, Mr. Chairman, one or 
 25   two.  First of all, for the record, the closing 
07389
  1   statement of TREE and RCM regarding the Need For and 
  2   Alternatives To Wuskwatim Advancement as TREE/RCM 
  3   1011.  That's TREE/RCM 1011.  
  4   
  5               (EXHIBIT TREE/RCM 1011:  Closing          
  6               Statement from TREE and RCM Regarding the 
  7               Need for and Alternative to Wuskwatim     
  8               Advancement)
  9   
 10               MR. GREWAR:  In addition, Mr. Chairman, 
 11   there were two documents that were supplied by the 
 12   Manitoba Metis Federation yesterday.  They were in 
 13   response to undertakings.  I did check the record, 
 14   though, and no undertaking numbers were assigned to 
 15   either one of these items.  These were items that 
 16   were requested and MMF agreed to provide them to the 
 17   panel.  One is the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation 
 18   v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority.  It's 
 19   a citation.  It appears to be an Internet or an 
 20   electronic version of the document.  But this is the 
 21   decision of the Federal Court of Appeal.  And that 
 22   would be MMF 1005.  That was referred to during the 
 23   presentation on May 14th by the Manitoba Metis 
 24   Federation.  
 25   
07390
  1               (EXHIBIT MMF 1005:  Athabasca Chipewyan   
  2               First Nation v. British Columbia (Hydro   
  3               and Power Authority) 2001)
  4   
  5               MR. GREWAR:  And finally as MMF 1006 
  6   would be the excerpt from the Aboriginal Plant Use in 
  7   Canada's Northwest Boreal Forest.  This is the book 
  8   that was presented to the Commission.  And the 
  9   reference is a particular outline of the content of 
 10   the book and the table of contents and the specific 
 11   plants presumably that are discussed in the book.  
 12   And that would be MMF 1006.
 13   
 14               (EXHIBIT MMF 1006:  Aboriginal Plant Use  
 15               in Canada's Northwest Boreal Forest       
 16               (excerpt) Robin J. Marles, Christina      
 17               Clavelle, Leslie Monteleone, Natalie      
 18               Tays, Donna Burns. Natural Resources      
 19               Canada)
 20   
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  That completes 
 22   your comments, Mr. Grewar?  
 23               MR. GREWAR:  Yes, Mr. Chairman.  Thank 
 24   you.
 25               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Therefore, we 
07391
  1   will adjourn and be back to continue at one o'clock. 
  2   
  3               (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 11:47 A.M.
  4                AND RECONVENED AT 1:00 P.M.)
  5   
  6               THE CHAIRMAN:  Ladies and gentlemen,
  7   if we all find our places we will be able to
  8   proceed with this afternoon's presentations.
  9               I call upon Mr. Baker.  You are going
 10   to be making the presentation -- or closing
 11   statement, I should say.
 12               MR. BAKER:  This is the
 13   O-Pipon-Na-Piwin closing remarks to the Clean
 14   Environment Commission with regards to the
 15   Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission projects.
 16   Good afternoon to Chairman Lecuyer, Commissioners,
 17   Ms. Kinew, Mr. Nepinak, Mr. Mayer and
 18   Mr. Sargeant.  It has been an interesting journey
 19   we have shared since these hearings began on
 20   March 2nd.
 21               First, let me recognize the
 22   Nisichawayasihk Cree sovereignty within their
 23   traditional lands, which are today known as their
 24   Resource Management Area.  While we respect the
 25   Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation's right of self
07392
  1   government, their sovereignty, their economic
  2   development ambitions, and their right to decide
  3   what is best for their future; no one's
  4   sovereignty should negatively impact on that of
  5   another.
  6               During these hearings we have taken
  7   the opportunity to inform the Commission and those
  8   interested in these proceedings of our
  9   relationship with the proponents.  We have also
 10   advised you of our concerns with the Environmental
 11   Impact Statement and provided you with a summary
 12   of our unique community history, socioeconomic
 13   situation, and the culture of the O-Pipon-Na-Piwin
 14   Cree Nation.
 15               The manner in which the Government and
 16   Manitoba Hydro have treated our Cree Nation
 17   community is certainly not one of the good news
 18   stories in Manitoba's history.  The bottom line is
 19   that we are fully committed to our objectives of
 20   having our Cree Nation Government recognized and
 21   our long outstanding reserve established, and we
 22   are certainly not moving away from South Indian
 23   Lake.
 24               We would truly like to redirect the
 25   considerable energy we currently expend seeking
07393
  1   our formal recognition to the social economic
  2   development of our community.  While we proceed
  3   through the final steps of this frustratingly slow
  4   process of recognition, we firmly believe that the
  5   respect for our Cree Nation community should not
  6   be a future event that will only start on some
  7   magical day when the Minister of Indian Affairs
  8   signs his Ministerial Order.
  9               We believe it is time to turn over a
 10   new leaf with Manitoba Hydro and develop a new
 11   relationship.  It is the only way.  After all,
 12   they are not leaving either, so we shall be
 13   neighbors forever.  The big challenge is how to go
 14   about accomplishing a more positive relationship?
 15               If Manitoba Hydro is sincere with its
 16   stated intentions to enter into relationships with
 17   Northern Cree Nations regarding future hydro
 18   development, it is only logical that this begin
 19   with the Cree Nation community that lives on the
 20   reservoir that supplies the water to drive their
 21   turbines.  If not, the whole approach lacks
 22   credibility, and will not become the priceless
 23   relationship they hope it to be.
 24               The concept of Cree Nation communities
 25   benefiting directly from the profits produced by
07394
  1   Hydro developments sure sounds a lot better than
  2   their past way of doing business.
  3   O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation supports economic
  4   development.
  5               If Hydro's intentions with the
  6   Wuskwatim Power Development Agreement is to offer
  7   the people of South Indian Lake the opportunity to
  8   become business partners, their approach needs to
  9   be rethought, because that objective will not be
 10   realized through Manitoba Hydro/Nisichawayasihk
 11   Cree Nation partnership.
 12               What has been presented and described
 13   is a proposed partnership between Manitoba Hydro
 14   and the people of Nelson House.  To know in your
 15   hearts that our people in South Indian Lake will
 16   not realize any beneficial effects; but to mask
 17   this reality by including South Indian Lake in a
 18   Local Region, and then concluding that the
 19   beneficial effects will be felt evenly throughout
 20   the Local Region is wrong.  It simply adds to our
 21   people's mistrust.
 22               So how does the O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree
 23   turn over a new leaf and develop a new
 24   relationship with Manitoba Hydro?
 25               Well, first we believe that a new
07395
  1   relationship must be built on mutual respect.
  2               Second, we believe it must recognize
  3   the severe harm that the Churchill River Diversion
  4   caused to our lake, ecosystem, and people, and
  5   take positive action to heal and mitigate the
  6   damage.  The needs of our environment cannot
  7   simply be ignored.  That will not result in our
  8   people trusting Manitoba Hydro enough to develop a
  9   positive future relationship.
 10               Third, a new relationship must ensure
 11   that the future projects do not adversely affect
 12   our lives again.  This requires proper analysis;
 13   not a socioeconomic study that essentially ignores
 14   our community and our people's perspective and
 15   culture, by amalgamating us with the proponents
 16   and overshadowing our distinct views and concerns.
 17               Fourth, we believe this relationship
 18   must be built directly with our distinct
 19   community, not through the leadership of another
 20   community over a hundred miles away in a different
 21   resource area.  We believe a new relationship must
 22   recognize and respect the path we are on to
 23   independent recognition, and the commitments that
 24   Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro, and Nisichawayasihk have
 25   made to ensure our formal recognition is finally
07396
  1   successful.  We believe these commitments should
  2   be supported through their current actions, and
  3   the current relationship with our community, and
  4   not be on hold until some future date.
  5               Finally, we believe that the
  6   consultation should be directly with our people.
  7   Our people should have an opportunity to consider
  8   and make a fully informed independent decision
  9   regarding a future development relationship with
 10   Manitoba Hydro.  Major initiatives and projects
 11   relating to our water, people, and lands should
 12   respect and support formal independent recognition
 13   right now.  We believe this is the appropriate
 14   manner of proceeding, given our unique historical
 15   relationship and the principles and the
 16   understandings that lead to the commitments that
 17   are currently in place.
 18               This is not the first time we have
 19   advised the Government of this.  We have written
 20   to and met with Hydro's President Brennan,
 21   Minister Lathlin, Minister Robinson, Minister
 22   Nault, Deputy Minister Bostrom, and the Regional
 23   Director Generals of Indian Affairs, and always
 24   emphasized that only when we are consulted
 25   directly and represent ourselves, do we believe
07397
  1   that our unique interests are adequately
  2   protected.
  3               We are a distinct Cree Nation
  4   community, and Canada, Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro,
  5   and Nisichawayasihk have previously acknowledged
  6   and recognized our path, and committed to us their
  7   best efforts to ensure it is successful.
  8               We believe these commitments of the
  9   past should be reflected in the relationships we
 10   have today, in order to best accomplish the
 11   objectives we mutually agreed to accomplish
 12   together.
 13               Our people who live on the reservoir
 14   that drives Manitoba Hydro turbines all the way
 15   down to the Burntwood and Nelson Rivers should be
 16   the first people approached and consulted about
 17   potentially partnering and sharing in the equity
 18   stream of any development that is powered by the
 19   water in our lake.  An equity position in
 20   Wuskwatim would go a long way toward establishing
 21   a new relationship with Manitoba Hydro that I
 22   referred to earlier.  We should not be further
 23   punished due to lack of actions by others through
 24   no fault of our own, or by Manitoba Hydro
 25   policies, which are of course simply policies.
07398
  1               Our current relationships with the
  2   Governments and Manitoba Hydro should fully
  3   support the goals that have been mutually agreed
  4   upon and committed to.  In our view, that would be
  5   much closer to the commitments to "use best
  6   efforts to ensure the success of the process
  7   leading to recognition in an expeditious manner."
  8               We would like to summarize the
  9   recommendations that we respectfully submitted to
 10   this Commission during our presentation.
 11   1.  Recognition that the O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree
 12   Nation community of South Indian Lake has unique
 13   interests and these cannot be accurately
 14   represented by the proponents who have different
 15   interests, aspirations, and goals.
 16   2.  That Manitoba Hydro's conversion of South
 17   Indian Lake into a reservoir means that we will be
 18   neighbors forever; and therefore Hydro must
 19   develop a relationship with the O-Pipon-Na-Piwin
 20   Cree immediately to add reality to their First
 21   Nation partnership strategy.
 22   3.  Recognition that adverse effects from the
 23   Churchill River Diversion are ongoing outstanding
 24   business, that needs to be dealt with to protect
 25   the Honour of the Crown and the Crown
07399
  1   Corporations, and to restore the lost trust
  2   between Cree Nation communities and the utility.
  3   4.  That the Augmented Flow Program conditions set
  4   out by the Minister of Conservation every year for
  5   the past 12 years should be enforced.  That is a),
  6   fully mitigate any effects on the altered levels
  7   and flows; and b), regulate our lake in such a
  8   manner as to minimize adverse impacts on our
  9   people.
 10   5.  That the O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree culture and
 11   socioeconomic setting in the South Indian Lake be
 12   accurately portrayed in the Environmental Impact
 13   Statement, so that we are able to monitor change
 14   and determine effects, especially in relation to
 15   our commercial fishery, our other traditional
 16   harvesting, and culture.  We need this
 17   socioeconomic baseline established to enable
 18   adequate monitoring to follow.
 19   6.  That the proposed employment monitoring within
 20   the Local Region needs to separate the effects
 21   experienced by South Indian Lake and Nelson House,
 22   and so that we can precisely analyze the results
 23   and determine appropriate follow-up action.
 24   7.  Recognition that a social and cultural effect
 25   of the proposed Wuskwatim project is a further
07400
  1   division of communities and families and increased
  2   financial disparity between communities.  At
  3   present the Environmental Impact Statement does
  4   not recognize this effect or analyze it.  If the
  5   equity cash flow to a community is a significant
  6   effect, the social disparity that will be created
  7   between communities is a significant adverse
  8   effect.
  9   8.  That our people should be directly consulted,
 10   and have an opportunity to consider and make a
 11   fully informed independent decision regarding a
 12   future development relationship with Manitoba
 13   Hydro.  This would include the potential sharing
 14   of the equity stream resulting from Manitoba Hydro
 15   developments that are powered by the water from
 16   our South Indian Lake.  We believe this should
 17   take place in advance of our formal recognition by
 18   the Minister of Indian Affairs, and not to be
 19   dependent upon implementation of actions committed
 20   by the Federal Minister.
 21               Before I thank everybody,
 22   Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the audience
 23   and the people that are here today in regards and
 24   in respect to my personal observation of these
 25   proceedings through the CEC, and some of the
07401
  1   things that I can reflect on, and some of the
  2   things that I would like to share with you, if I
  3   could and if I may.
  4               As you heard in our presentation, in
  5   some regards to the effects that we have felt and
  6   that we continue to live with in my community, who
  7   are approximately maybe 12 to 1,400 people, they
  8   are mostly -- as I stated in my presentation, we
  9   are band members of NCN.  But I think that we
 10   should be recognized that we are a distinct
 11   people, that we are far different from other
 12   northern communities, that we have our own ways of
 13   dealing with things.
 14               We lived for the last approximately
 15   almost 30 years through some stuff that probably
 16   none of you will ever witness.
 17               I'm not against Nelson House.  I'm not
 18   against the Chief and the Council of Nelson House.
 19   I support them in what they are trying to do for
 20   their people.  But I think and I believe,
 21   Mr. Commissioner, Mr. Chairman, that we should
 22   have the right too, to speak on our behalf, and to
 23   lay out our interests, and to protect the rights
 24   of our children that will ultimately have to live
 25   with the results of any future hydro development
07402
  1   that occurs in this Province or anywhere else in
  2   the neighboring provinces, such as Saskatchewan.
  3               I think we sometimes forget in the
  4   process of progress what happens and what occurs.
  5   The things that we do not see, the things that we
  6   do not witness unless you are there yourself,
  7   those things are not mentioned.  I have lived
  8   there all of my life.
  9               You know, through this process I've
 10   seen adverse effects right from day one, you know,
 11   particularly with the leadership that I'm part of
 12   as a band member.  History has shown that the
 13   community of South Indian Lake and the people
 14   there are always subject to things that we have no
 15   say in.  We are branded as squatters.  We were
 16   there before Treaty, we have shown that.  We have
 17   worked for many years to prove that point.  We
 18   brought forward evidence, not only to this
 19   Commission, but to the Ministers that are
 20   respectfully responsible to recognize us.  Again,
 21   we are here because they tell us that we are NCN
 22   band members.
 23               Again, I tell you, I have no
 24   disrespect for NCN, but we should have the right
 25   to talk for ourselves.  We should have the right
07403
  1   to protect the interests of our children and the
  2   environment that we live in.
  3               And the things that have happened in
  4   my community, that I've seen and I have witnessed
  5   and I live in each and every day, as a leader, an
  6   officially elected leader -- the people have voted
  7   me to be there -- I sometimes am very frustrated.
  8   Because, you don't know what it is like to be
  9   kicked around.  We feel like sometimes, in my own
 10   way, I feel like an orphan because nobody wants to
 11   protect my interests.
 12               So some of us, we stand up and we will
 13   fight, because if we don't fight, then we have
 14   given up what is rightfully ours that God gave us,
 15   not Manitoba or Canada, but he put us there to
 16   live there.  We must protect the interests of
 17   ourselves, our community, our environment, where
 18   we live, where we must teach our children how to
 19   live, we must build hope for them.
 20               I know a lot of you have children in
 21   this room.  My office is situated directly outside
 22   of the playground of our school.  And when I look
 23   out -- and when the children come out for recess
 24   or dinner, I stop what I'm doing and I look at
 25   them and I wonder what is in hold for them, what
07404
  1   is their future?
  2               I have lived through some pretty hard
  3   times, my generation.  When I was a kid lots of
  4   weird things happened, lots of terrible things
  5   happened.  I have never seen any good yet, not
  6   yet, but I hope and pray that there will be
  7   change, positive change, because when we come to
  8   think about it, you know, when people prosper for
  9   something, from something, on other people's
 10   benefit and suffering, that is not right.  Aren't
 11   we all Manitobans?  Aren't we all Canadians?
 12   Shouldn't we all benefit from the resources that
 13   are within our Provinces or within our own
 14   country?  That is what I believe.
 15               You know, one day I was Treaty, in
 16   less than a month I put an application in, and
 17   before I went back to school, I was Treaty.  I'm
 18   still the same person, the day I was born, but the
 19   Federal Government changed me.  They gave me a
 20   number.  Is that what is going to happen to my
 21   community?  Are we going to wait until the
 22   governments have decided, yeah, these poor people
 23   have to be protected?  If they don't, can you
 24   blame us for not speaking out on the interests of
 25   our own people?  Is it wrong?  I don't think so.
07405
  1   It would be wrong for me to sit by and agree with
  2   Manitoba Hydro, and agree with Nisichawayasihk.  I
  3   would not be doing the rightful duty that I got
  4   elected for.  It is to fight to protect the
  5   interests of the people of South Indian Lake, the
  6   O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree.
  7               So I hope that people understand that
  8   I don't dislike you, it is not that.  It is the
  9   fact that we have to stand up for our rights and
 10   protect them, or we have no rights at all.
 11               And another thing too I wanted to
 12   mention -- and I don't know where Elvis is,
 13   Councillor Thomas.  We used to talk lots at one
 14   time, but through this process, we don't share
 15   many words anymore.  And that bugs me, that hurts
 16   me inside.  He has been my friend since the first
 17   time we went out bush whacking at the Ruttan Mine,
 18   that was many, many years ago.  That is an adverse
 19   effect that is unseen.  That is not in here.
 20   Maybe sometimes we should go back and realize that
 21   we are humans, and tell one another that we should
 22   help each other and not fight.
 23               I'm not looking for a fight with Hydro
 24   or NCN or with anybody.  I want my community to
 25   advance, to prosper, so that those children that I
07406
  1   look at will have a future and something to look
  2   forward to.  That is all I'm asking for.  That is
  3   all I'm fighting for.
  4               But, anyway, Mr. Chairman, I want to
  5   thank you for the opportunity to summarize the
  6   views of the O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation.  We
  7   have participated in this CEC hearing process in
  8   order to ensure that our independent voices and
  9   concerns would be heard clearly.  We look forward
 10   to your report and recommendations.  And I would
 11   like to thank each and every one of you.  And I
 12   thank the people that have took the time to come
 13   and listen, and to bring their concerns, and to
 14   bring light to hopefully come together and work
 15   together and prosper together.  (SPEAKING CREE).
 16               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Baker.
 17               MR. GREWAR:  Mr. Chairman, if we might
 18   enter the O-Pipon-Na-Piwin closing remarks as OPCN
 19   1003.
 20   
 21               (EXHIBIT OPCN 1003: O-Pipon-Na-Piwin
 22               Cree Nation closing remarks - Manitoba
 23               Clean Environment Public Hearing -
 24               Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission
 25               Projects)
07407
  1   
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Grewar.
  3   Thank you, Mr. Baker.
  4               I will now call upon the Community
  5   Association of South Indian Lake to make their
  6   closing statement.
  7               MS. PHARE:  I would just like to ask
  8   the Chair, we have three procedural points of
  9   clarification that we were wondering if we could
 10   either deal with now or after close, whatever you
 11   prefer?
 12               THE CHAIRMAN:  Without knowing what
 13   they are, it is hard to decide.
 14               MS. PHARE:  I wasn't sure if this is
 15   an appropriate time to bring up procedural
 16   matters.
 17               THE CHAIRMAN:  Try us.
 18               MS. PHARE:  The first, we have two
 19   points within the transcripts that we feel need to
 20   be clarified as misstatements by counsel to the
 21   Commission, that we think will impact the
 22   decisions that you may make.
 23               One is I was referred to by counsel
 24   for CEC as legal counsel to CASIL, and that has
 25   previously been clarified that I'm not legal
07408
  1   counsel to CASIL, I'm legal counsel to CIER, and
  2   CIER was hired as a technical support to CASIL.
  3   So if that affects testimony, I just need to make
  4   that clear.
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  So you are legal
  6   counsel for?
  7               MS. PHARE:  The Centre for Indigenous
  8   Environmental Resources, which is a non-legal
  9   body, it is a research and consulting
 10   environmental organization.
 11               THE CHAIRMAN:  Go on to the second
 12   point.
 13               MS. PHARE:  The second point is that
 14   we just would like to remind the Commission and
 15   seek clarification about the fact that Manitoba
 16   Conservation has two outstanding undertakings, MSW
 17   78 and 79, and they pertain directly to our
 18   cross-examination of them, and we were wondering
 19   whether they would be submitted in time for us to
 20   question, as we have the right and may have the
 21   desire to question on those undertakings?
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  They are numbered --
 23               MS. PHARE:  MSW 78 and MSW 79.
 24               THE CHAIRMAN:  The first point that
 25   you make is I think in itself established by the
07409
  1   fact that you have clarified that for the record.
  2   The second point, I have to look to my colleagues,
  3   but perhaps -- in particular to Mr. Grewar here
  4   for enlightenment whether these undertakings have
  5   been received and have not been filed or --
  6               MR. GREWAR:  Mr. Chairman, I'm not
  7   aware just off the top of my head which the
  8   undertakings were, and they are for Manitoba
  9   Conservation, is that the --
 10               MS. PHARE:  The undertakings were -- I
 11   can read them -- MSW 78 is to advise on the
 12   position of whether Manitoba Hydro is meeting
 13   requirements of Missi Falls license regime on a
 14   regular basis, and that is MSW 78.  MSW 79 is,
 15   advise if Hydro notifies Water Branch re adverse
 16   impacts on Community of South Indian Lake each
 17   year?
 18               MR. GREWAR:  I don't recall having
 19   received those.  Perhaps Manitoba Conservation
 20   could perhaps advise us as to whether they could
 21   provide those undertakings now, or at what point?
 22               MR. MAYER:  Could somebody tell me
 23   what MSW means?
 24               MS. PHARE:  I think it is Manitoba
 25   Water Stewardship.
07410
  1               THE CHAIRMAN:  The third point that
  2   you were raising?
  3               MS. PHARE:  The third point is another
  4   clarification on what is I'm sure an unintentional
  5   misstatement of testimony that CASIL gave.
  6               On transcript page 6779 -- and this is
  7   subject to check, I don't want to use up time here
  8   but we can deal with it after, I just will state
  9   what the issue is.  Mr. Abra stated that the
 10   assertion was made by CASIL that Hydro was in
 11   violation of the levels, the maximum levels of
 12   847.5 for three months.  And in fact I couldn't
 13   find anything in our testimony that stated that.
 14   Specifically we stated at page 6231 that we were
 15   referring to only lower license limits.  And so
 16   the questioning on that point, and the answers
 17   given by Hydro, we feel were a misstatement of the
 18   evidence that we actually tendered.  If I have
 19   missed it, we stand to be corrected, but I just
 20   want to make very clear that our evidence was on
 21   lower limits, not higher limits.
 22               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  And perhaps
 23   by making these comments now, maybe that clarifies
 24   and satisfies the record.  If not --
 25               MR. MAYER:  I could have sworn that I
07411
  1   saw a graph that you tendered that showed three or
  2   four specific points of upper level violation.  It
  3   was a graph --
  4               MS. PHARE:  Yes.  The evidence that we
  5   submitted gave exact numbers of both the higher
  6   and the lower license limits violations, in our
  7   view, of how many there were at the one measuring
  8   station.  What I'm referring to is subsequent
  9   questioning, when Mr. Dysart was here and I
 10   wasn't, where Mr. Abra asked specifically Mr.
 11   Cormie about whether or not Manitoba Hydro's
 12   opinion was that there were in fact over three
 13   months of higher elevation violations.  And our
 14   evidence was only for three months was a lower
 15   license violation.  It is just a misstatement of
 16   the higher versus lower is the only clarification.
 17   So Manitoba Hydro's answer makes sense in that
 18   context.  They did not violate their license for
 19   over three months at the higher limit.  We were
 20   talking about a lower limit.
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  I think
 22   that clarifies that point.  Mr. Grewar.
 23               MR. GREWAR:  Mr. Chairman, I correctly
 24   was advised that the undertaking was not Manitoba
 25   Conservation undertaking, but Manitoba Water
07412
  1   Stewardship.  What I would propose to do is I will
  2   try to reach Mr. Topping of Water Stewardship and
  3   inquire as to when he thinks he may be able to
  4   file these two undertakings.  I had missed that
  5   they had not been filed, so they are outstanding,
  6   and we will have to determine from him when he
  7   perhaps is planning on filing those.
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  If Mr. Grewar
  9   undertakes to follow up on that with Water
 10   Stewardship.  As I have indicated yesterday, there
 11   will be a two week period from the time these
 12   hearings close whereby you can submit in writing
 13   comments in regards to the issue that you raised,
 14   in regards to the undertakings that you have
 15   referred to.
 16               MS. PHARE:  Thank you.  Very good.
 17               THE CHAIRMAN:  That would be the
 18   opportunity to do it.
 19               When you are ready, Mr. Dysart?
 20               MR. DYSART:  Leslie Dysart,
 21   representating the Community Association of South
 22   Indian Lake.
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  Perhaps you will wait a
 24   few seconds.  I understand that you have documents
 25   you have available for this submission.  All
07413
  1   right.  Now I think we have everything straight.
  2   You may proceed.
  3               MR. DYSART:  Thank you.  First of all,
  4   I would like to thank the Clean Environment
  5   Commission for allowing us to make our
  6   presentation and closing arguments in this
  7   process.  Also I would like to acknowledge the
  8   patience the Commission has showed throughout this
  9   three and a half month process.
 10               Our closing statements probably won't
 11   take the full hour, it will be close, as long as
 12   there is no interruptions.
 13               You will notice images on the
 14   projector as I speak.  These are images of South
 15   Indian Lake, taken by myself as I boated around
 16   the lake last June.  They are images of slumped
 17   shorelines, the destruction of islands, debris
 18   clogging access to the shores, and other
 19   destruction of Southern Indian Lake environment.
 20               I ask you to watch these images as I
 21   speak, and remember that these are the effects
 22   that we are talking about when we are talking
 23   about Southern Indian Lake and the CRD, and the
 24   effects that Wuskwatim and other dams rely on.
 25   Wuskwatim will rely upon this destruction
07414
  1   continuing.
  2               Our closing statement will focus upon
  3   three areas.  First, we will summarize the
  4   adequacy of cumulative effects assessment
  5   conducted by the co-proponents.  Second, we will
  6   explain what should be fundamental requirements
  7   regarding licensing of the water regime for
  8   Wuskwatim.  Third, we will put forward our
  9   perspective regarding the sharing of revenue that
 10   is made as a result of the CRD, the AFP, or the
 11   use of Southern Indian Lake as a resevoir.
 12               The people of South Indian Lake were
 13   not involved in the Wuskwatim Generation Protect
 14   EIS.  Our involvement is required for two reasons,
 15   both related to best practices:  Best practices
 16   for consulting with all members of a nation when
 17   the nation is a co-proponent of the project, and
 18   best practices for cumulative effects assessment.
 19               Manitoba Hydro and NCN are the
 20   proponents of the Wuskwatim Generation Project.  I
 21   am an NCN band member, as are approximately
 22   90 percent of the residents of South Indian Lake.
 23   We are not involved in the EIS in a meaningful
 24   way, the same way that NCN residents of Nelson
 25   House were involved.  It is true that we live in a
07415
  1   different location and that there are unique
  2   political realities in our nation.  But these are
  3   not valid excuses for excluding the residents of
  4   South Indian Lake from participating.  Faced with
  5   challenges, it is the proponents' duty to find a
  6   way for meaningful participation to occur, to ask
  7   the people they need to work with how to make
  8   participation possible.  Based on the research
  9   that we conducted in the communities, where we
 10   asked people if they have any concerns about
 11   Wuskwatim, it is clear that the answers we
 12   received demonstrated that the people who
 13   participated do not understand the implications of
 14   Wuskwatim on them and are very concerned.  It is
 15   also clear that it is essential to involve the NCN
 16   members at South Indian Lake in the EIS at all
 17   stages.  They need to be involved and to
 18   understand what will or will not happen in their
 19   community.
 20               Manitoba Hydro tells us that there
 21   will be no effects from the Wuskwatim Generation
 22   Station on our people.  So why are many residents
 23   of our lake still worried?  Because they were not
 24   involved in the EIS, and as a result, they either
 25   do not understand or do not believe that another
07416
  1   hydro development will take place without any harm
  2   to their land or families.  This fault in the EIS
  3   public consultation process has continued the fear
  4   and distrust that began with the construction of
  5   the CRD and continues to exist in our community.
  6   The Wuskwatim project has made our relationship
  7   with NCN worse.  It has pitted family against
  8   family, leaders against leaders.  There is a fear
  9   that exists regarding this project and that fear
 10   is tangible.  This is a very real effect of
 11   Wuskwatim and of these hearings that has not been
 12   discussed or researched in the Manitoba Hydro EIS.
 13   It is a distinct and serious social effect of
 14   Wuskwatim.  It has not been mitigated and will
 15   create social problems in our community for years
 16   to come.  Even if this project doesn't go ahead,
 17   this is a legacy it has created for us, not you,
 18   not Manitoba Hydro, it is my community that is
 19   affected.  We are the ones who live on the largest
 20   reservoir for this project.
 21               Even if we weren't members of NCN, the
 22   people of South Indian Lake, the Lake, and the CRD
 23   should have been included in the environmental
 24   assessment process through the cumulative effects
 25   studies.  We live on the shores of South Indian
07417
  1   Lake.  This lake is at the centre of the Churchill
  2   River Diversion, an existing project that
  3   continues to affect the natural environment and
  4   lives of my people, as well as many other
  5   communities.  Best practices require that the
  6   effects of a proposed project be assessed in
  7   combination with other existing projects, as well
  8   as past and future projects, to determine if it
  9   will result in significant cumulative effects.
 10   But the Churchill River Diversion and its
 11   operations, including the Augmented Flow Program,
 12   which are probably the most influential projects
 13   existing in the immediate area of the Wuskwatim
 14   Generation Station, were excluded from the
 15   cumulative effects assessment.  This is
 16   unacceptable practice, which has resulted in
 17   questionable judgments and the potential for
 18   missed effects and missed opportunities for
 19   mitigation.  This decision to exclude the CRD and
 20   AFP as existing projects allowed Manitoba Hydro to
 21   avoid studying a regional area as required by a
 22   proper cumulative effects assessment.  Further,
 23   this approach has the result of totally excluding
 24   the residents of South Indian Lake from the
 25   cumulative effects assessment.
07418
  1               In our presentation on May 25th, we
  2   demonstrated that by excluding the CRD, the EIS
  3   cumulative effects assessment has missed
  4   activities that may occur at the same time as the
  5   project and affect the same water that the project
  6   uses.  The potential for sediment to travel from
  7   Southern Indian Lake during debris removal
  8   activities, downstream to Wuskwatim Lake during
  9   the first five years of operation, when the total
 10   suspended solids will exceed the Manitoba Water
 11   Qulaity Standards, Objectives and Guidelines in
 12   the near shore zone, could push this parameter
 13   beyond the point of recovery.  TSS affects the
 14   dissolved oxygen level in the water, the nutrient
 15   level in the water, light penetration, in fact,
 16   the overall health of the aquatic system.  This
 17   parameter that is already predicted to be beyond
 18   the environmental threshold, as defined by the EIS
 19   itself, could experience a cumulative effect.
 20               The fact that the EIS judges this
 21   effect on the TSS of the Wuskwatim Lake as not
 22   significant is unbelievable.  If a parameter that
 23   is essential to the valued ecosystem component
 24   "water quality" can exceed its defined
 25   environmental threshold for five years and still
07419
  1   be insignificant, what is significant?  Nothing
  2   apparently.  Not this, and not the permanent loss
  3   of Taskinigup Falls.  Adjusting the assessment of
  4   significant to meet the needs of the proponent by
  5   choosing not to apply drinking water quality
  6   standards to the waters that are not apparently
  7   being used for drinking is unbelievable and
  8   disregards the intent of environmental assessments
  9   to support sustainable development.  Deeming all
 10   effects insignificant to ensure project approval
 11   by the regulators and a comfort level among the
 12   uninformed public makes a mockery of environmental
 13   assessment.
 14               Many other extremely significant
 15   aspects of the environment were totally excluded.
 16   To think that an environmental assessment could be
 17   done in this day and age and that it would
 18   completely omit any study of the biodiversity of
 19   the region is unacceptable practice.  Biodiversity
 20   is a critical component of the environment.  It
 21   deals with relationships, interdependencies, and
 22   thresholds.  This EIS looked at bits and pieces
 23   and not necessarily the most logical ones.  Four
 24   fish species and water quality in the aquatic
 25   volume is all that is assessed for significance.
07420
  1   What about water as fish habitat, what about the
  2   key indicator fish species for ecosystem health in
  3   Wuskwatim Lake?  What about other species in the
  4   food chain?  What about any other species that
  5   inhabit the water?  That there are so many gaps in
  6   the EIS is further evidence in support of a recent
  7   statement made by the esteemed Dr. David
  8   Schindler, one of Canada's most respected
  9   scientists and a professor at the University of
 10   Alberta.  He was recently assisting the Mikisew
 11   Cree intervene in environmental public hearings
 12   dealing with oil sands development in Northern
 13   Alberta.  These developments threaten to impact
 14   the Mikisew seriously and directly.  Dr. Schindler
 15   was interviewed by David Suzuki on The Nature Of
 16   Things.  When asked about the quality of the EIS
 17   produced by the major oil sands proponent and
 18   reviewed by a joint Federal/Provincial panel,
 19   Dr. Schindler stated,
 20               "We have gotten into a real rut with
 21               environmental impact assessment in
 22               this country.  It might look like
 23               science to an outsider, but it's got
 24               huge flaws that mean it will never be
 25               publishable.  They turn out several
07421
  1               thousand pages with maybe ten pages of
  2               good science, and the results always
  3               say, 'Yes, it's okay for the company
  4               to proceed.'  As a result, for page
  5               after page, they just declare that
  6               this aspect and that aspect are
  7               insignificant.  They give long lists
  8               of useless information that give the
  9               illusion that a lot of science has
 10               been done.  This isn't a scientific
 11               process that we have.  I don't know
 12               what you call it, but these companies
 13               like to think they've thrown the cloak
 14               of science over their projects and
 15               claim that this will not affect the
 16               environment.  It's just not the case.
 17               To see these Aboriginal people
 18               continually thrust aside and
 19               marginalized in these developments is
 20               something that I don't like to see.
 21               We have a very unbalanced segment of
 22               society dictating how this project
 23               will be developed.  I think that this
 24               generation will be okay, but I think
 25               the next generation will have some
07422
  1               pretty severe regrets."
  2   Elizabeth May, Executive Director of the Sierra
  3   Club of Canada talking about the same problem at
  4   the same public hearing said,
  5               "There really isn't a project that I
  6               can conceive of that could not get
  7               through an environmental assessment if
  8               you are willing to pay the consultants
  9               to write the umpteen volumes, which
 10               are ofter redundant and not well
 11               organized and don't present the data
 12               in a coherent fashion.  And it's very
 13               much the current style of big, big,
 14               big companies in Canada that crank
 15               these out."
 16   CASIL believes that these quotes should be said of
 17   the Wuskwatim proceedings as well.
 18               As a final point on cumulative
 19   effects, I want to remind the CEC that you made a
 20   decision regarding Pimicikamak's motion requesting
 21   that the CRD be included as part of the definition
 22   of the Wuskwatim project.  You said no to PCN on
 23   their request, and I will quote for you.
 24               "The CEC considers the development
 25               under consideration to be the
07423
  1               Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission
  2               project, not the generation and
  3               transmission system developed in
  4               Manitoba over the past 50 years."
  5   But you also said something else very important.
  6   You gave very specific direction that you would
  7   consider the effects of the project on existing
  8   projects, this is what you said:
  9               "However, in keeping with past
 10               practice, the CEC will broadly
 11               interpret the terms of reference
 12               provided to it by the Minister and
 13               will consider cumulative impacts of
 14               the development in accordance with the
 15               Environmental Impact Statement
 16               Guidelines on existing and future
 17               projects and activities, as well as
 18               alternatives."
 19   What exactly does this mean?  This means that the
 20   CEC will consider the cumulative effects of
 21   Wuskwatim on existing projects.  In order to do
 22   this, you need to define or describe the existing
 23   projects, and then you evaluate the additional
 24   effects of Wuskwatim.  So, has Manitoba Hydro
 25   actually done this?  When we looked at how
07424
  1   Manitoba Hydro described existing projects in the
  2   EIS, we noticed that they treated the CRD
  3   different from other existing projects.  For
  4   example, when Manitoba Hydro reviewed the existing
  5   INCO operations at Thompson, the EIS says that
  6   they began by summarizing information pertaining
  7   to historical studies of emissions and the effects
  8   of the emissions.  They relied on past studies
  9   that describe the damage to soil, vegetation,
 10   aquatic environment, and terrestrial mammals as a
 11   result of INCO operations.  This is taken directly
 12   from volume 3, page 14.  Then Manitoba Hydro
 13   analyzed that there will be no significant
 14   increase of emissions in the study area.
 15               So the steps they followed were:
 16   1. Review past information on effects of the
 17   existing project, for example, the effects of
 18   emissions on wildlife.
 19   2.  Look at projections regarding the existing
 20   project for the future, for example, what are the
 21   future projected emissions?
 22   3.  Determine significance of these future effects
 23   of the existing project.  Regarding INCO, Manitoba
 24   Hydro said there would be a relatively small
 25   increase in emissions in the future in the study
07425
  1   area, so they didn't assess the effects of those
  2   increases in the study area.
  3   4.  As a final step, Manitoba Hydro should have
  4   asked, how will Wuskwatim add to the effect of
  5   these current and future emissions?  They didn't
  6   ask this because they didn't think the emissions
  7   in the future would be large.
  8               CASIL reviewed the cumulative effects
  9   assessment to see what Manitoba Hydro did
 10   regarding the CRD, which is also an existing
 11   project.  Did Manitoba Hydro go through any of the
 12   steps they went through regarding INCO, for
 13   example?  This is what Manitoba Hydro said about
 14   the CRD, word for word, in the cumulative effects
 15   section of the EIS:
 16               "The current operation of the CRD is
 17               described in volumes 3 and 4.  CRD is
 18               expected to continue to operate as it
 19               does today under current rules and
 20               regulations.  In the long term, CRD
 21               inflow conditions are expected to be
 22               higher than the observed historic CRD
 23               inflows.  This long term change was
 24               incorporated into the assessment of
 25               the post project environment."
07426
  1   That is it, that is all Manitoba Hydro had to say
  2   about the cumulative effects of Wuskwatim on the
  3   CRD.
  4               So, did Manitoba Hydro review past
  5   information on the effects of the existing project
  6   as they did with INCO?  No.  They incorporated the
  7   effects of the CRD as baseline, which means they
  8   ignored those effects.  They absolutely refused to
  9   describe any effects of their existing CRD
 10   project, even though they recognized that this is
 11   exactly what they are supposed to do when doing a
 12   cumulative effects assessment.  And this is what
 13   they did regarding INCO.  Why did they use a
 14   different approach regarding their own projects
 15   than they did regarding the projects of others?
 16   In fact, it would be easier for Manitoba Hydro to
 17   review their own existing projects than it would
 18   be to review the projects of other companies.  We
 19   have heard about numerous studies that have been
 20   done regarding the effects of the CRD.  CASIL even
 21   submitted one of the best known ones in our
 22   evidence book, yet Manitoba Hydro didn't provide
 23   any information about that.
 24               So, did Manitoba Hydro look at
 25   projections regarding the existing CRD project for
07427
  1   the future?  They did, but only regarding inflows.
  2   They said they will increase, but didn't tell us
  3   what the effects of that increase would be.  And
  4   they didn't look at any other types of projections
  5   regarding the effects of the CRD.
  6               Did Manitoba Hydro determine
  7   significance of future effects of the existing
  8   project?  No, not even regarding inflows, and
  9   definitely not regarding any other effect of the
 10   CRD.
 11               Did Manitoba Hydro ask, how will
 12   Wuskwatim add to the effect of the current and
 13   future effects of the CRD?  No, even though this
 14   is the key question to ask regarding cumulative
 15   effects assessment, and Manitoba Hydro didn't ask
 16   it.
 17               So there are some good questions that
 18   the CEC needs to ask itself.  You need to ask
 19   yourself whether or not you are going to accept
 20   such a flagrant double standard about which
 21   effects are looked at and which are not.
 22   You need to ask if you will accept it is okay that
 23   the information you have asked for regarding the
 24   effects of the development on existing projects
 25   like the CRD has not been provided to you.
07428
  1   You must ask yourself if you can in good
  2   conscience make a decision when it is very clear
  3   that Manitoba Hydro did everything they could to
  4   avoid defining the effects of the CRD.
  5               Now, you agreed with Manitoba Hydro as
  6   they defined the CRD out of the project
  7   definition, but you did not agree with them
  8   regarding the cumulative effects.  You said that
  9   you wanted to consider the effects of Wuskwatim on
 10   existing projects in the cumulative effects
 11   assessment.  And Manitoba Hydro has not done that
 12   regarding the CRD.  It has not described the
 13   effects of the CRD, nor how Wuskwatim will
 14   increase, decrease, or change those effects.
 15   Manitoba Hydro has not given you the information
 16   that you have said you wanted.  These are a few
 17   reasons why you must not ignore this -- there are
 18   a few reasons why you must not ignore.  First, you
 19   are charged with reviewing the EIS and you can't
 20   review information that you don't have.  Second,
 21   the public, in particular South Indian Lake
 22   members and PCN have repeatedly stated that they
 23   are very concerned.  As a public hearing body, you
 24   can not just ignore the huge concerns presented to
 25   you.  And you shouldn't, particularly when they
07429
  1   have been so strongly expressed.  Third, Manitoba
  2   Hydro has stated that they have other upcoming
  3   projects in the planning process, Gull, Notigi,
  4   and Conawapa.  If you allow this approach to
  5   cumulative effects assessment now, then you will
  6   set a terrible precedent in environmental
  7   assessment practice in this province.  As the
  8   public hearing body charged with reviewing
  9   projects, this goes to the very core of your
 10   mandate.
 11               To conclude our thoughts on cumulative
 12   effects, CASIL does not accept this EIS as
 13   adequate.  It is also very inconsistent with what
 14   is required by best practice, but in particular
 15   for environmental assessment, public involvement
 16   and Aboriginal consultation and cumulative effects
 17   assessment.  We ask the Commission to recommend
 18   the following:
 19   A meaningful cumulative effects assessment must be
 20   completed and subject to independent external peer
 21   review selected by Manitoba Conservation before
 22   the Wuskwatim project is approved.  This
 23   cumulative effects assessment must properly review
 24   the Wuskwatim project and its effect on existing
 25   and future projects.  The review must include
07430
  1   describing the effects on the environment and the
  2   people of existing projects such as the CRD, and
  3   other projects, and it must do so on the regional
  4   study area basis.
  5               Manitoba Hydro must fulfill its
  6   obligations to CASIL and its members for
  7   meaningful public participation in the EIS,
  8   including the cumulative effects assessment study.
  9   We need Manitoba Hydro and its consultants to have
 10   community workshops to explain the project to
 11   CASIL members.  Manitoba Hydro must document our
 12   concerns, utilize our traditional knowledge, and
 13   demonstrate how Manitoba Hydro will mitigate any
 14   residual social, cultural, economic,
 15   environmental, and spiritual effects on us, our
 16   lands and resources.
 17               Further, we want the CEC to recommend
 18   that the evaluation of significance be totally
 19   revisited.  For one thing, all communities and
 20   people that should have been involved in the EIS
 21   must contribute to the judgments of significance.
 22   We were not included and we are the people who
 23   have to live with the effects of the project,
 24   whether they are significant or not.  Our lands
 25   are within the study area of this project and we
07431
  1   should have been involved in a definition and
  2   determination of significance.  Given that the
  3   entire EIS process occurs to be able to make the
  4   determinations of significant or not significant
  5   residual impacts, the fact that Manitoba Hydro
  6   excluded our community from the definition of
  7   significance, the analysis and evaluation, the
  8   creation of mitigation measures, and the final
  9   determination of significance demonstrates that
 10   the most fundamental part of the EIS is flawed.
 11               I will now move on to our second
 12   topic, the water regime.
 13               Manitoba Hydro says that the water
 14   regime and the operation of the CRD will not
 15   change.  CASIL took great care to explain to the
 16   Commission what we see as serious problems with
 17   this statement, and in particular the way that
 18   Manitoba Hydro currently operates and reports on
 19   water regime in the north.  We did this based upon
 20   the limited information that we could find,
 21   because even though the PAT required Manitoba
 22   Hydro to provide detailed information about the
 23   water regime along the river, Manitoba Hydro did
 24   not.  They only provided it for a small section of
 25   the river.  So despite this critical lack of
07432
  1   information and what it could have told CASIL, the
  2   public, and the CEC about Manitoba Hydro
  3   operations, we want to make a few things very
  4   clear.
  5               We know that Manitoba Hydro uses what
  6   they call accepted engineering techniques to
  7   measure and report on the level of Southern Indian
  8   Lake.  Manitoba Hydro averages the numbers from 3
  9   or 4 locations on Southern Indian Lake, and then
 10   they also average the numbers from a week of
 11   readings from those locations.  While CASIL did
 12   not ever accept the validity of these techniques,
 13   we were never even asked if these techniques were
 14   acceptable to us.  Maybe they are acceptable to
 15   Manitoba Hydro, but they are not to us.
 16               Both of these techniques allow
 17   Manitoba Hydro to do one thing, keep the water
 18   levels at the absolute highest or the absolute
 19   lowest that they possibly can, even if it means
 20   they actually go outside the numbers provided in
 21   their licenses.  As long as the average numbers
 22   complies, Manitoba Hydro thinks it is fine as far
 23   as compliance with its license goes.  Actually,
 24   regarding Missi Falls flows, the number just has
 25   to be close, within 100 cubic feet per second
07433
  1   actually.  And Manitoba Hydro says this is okay.
  2   I'm not sure if you realize this, but during the
  3   open water period, which is about five months on
  4   Southern Indian Lake, the CRD license says a
  5   minimum Missi outflows of 500 cubic feet per
  6   second, and the allowance that Manitoba Hydro
  7   wants us all to accept is 20 percent -- 100  cubic
  8   feet per second is 20 percent of 500 cubic feet
  9   per second.  That is a large range for
 10   exceedances.  According to Mr. Bedford, if
 11   Manitoba Hydro achieves the license limits
 12   regarding Southern Indian Lake levels 99 percent
 13   of the time, that seems to be okay with Manitoba
 14   Hydro, or if Manitoba Hydro is located far away
 15   from their station, that is another reason that
 16   Manitoba Hydro doesn't have to be totally
 17   compliant with their licenses.  Manitoba Hydro
 18   also said on April 13 that even if they don't
 19   exactly hit their target, that is their license
 20   figure, that Manitoba Hydro will deem that to be
 21   in compliance.  This might make sense to someone
 22   or seem lawful to someone, but it doesn't to us.
 23               On that note, I want to talk to you
 24   about our belief that Manitoba Hydro has
 25   deliberately mislead this Commission regarding
07434
  1   operations at Missi Falls, in particular the level
  2   of control they have or don't have over these
  3   facilities.  I will get to that later on in my
  4   argument.
  5               Manitoba Hydro says an averaging
  6   approach is required.  They said this on May 28th.
  7   Why is it required?  The daily water levels data
  8   already averages all the readings for that
  9   particular day.  Why then average again with a
 10   seven day moving average?  Because averages get
 11   rid of highs and lows, and if your goal is to
 12   exploit the resource, that resource being Southern
 13   Indian Lake, to the absolute fullest extent
 14   possible, then you have got a really big interest
 15   in getting rid of the high and low water
 16   measurement peaks.  But if the high and low peaks
 17   must be included within the limits of Manitoba
 18   Hydro's license, then it would not want to push
 19   the lake level so close to the edge of the license
 20   limits, would it?  It would be a little more
 21   cautious to stay a little further away from the
 22   edge.  For example, at Missi Falls, Manitoba Hydro
 23   could build in a risk factor, keep the flows high
 24   enough that given the full range of historical
 25   events, there is no risk of violating the license
07435
  1   terms.  But does Manitoba Hydro do this?  It
  2   prefers to run the risk?  Why?  Because that is
  3   how it makes a lot of money.  And Manitoba Hydro
  4   is in the business of making a lot of money off of
  5   Southern Indian Lake.
  6               The problem with this, of course, is
  7   that the license doesn't allow Manitoba Hydro to
  8   use these averaging techniques.  Manitoba Hydro
  9   thinks it is a fine technique, and maybe it is a
 10   fine technique to determine an average level of a
 11   huge lake, if that is what one is trying to do.
 12   But that is not what we are trying to do.  We are
 13   trying to ensure that the level of the lake is not
 14   above or below a certain limit, and that means
 15   everywhere.
 16               Further, even Manitoba Hydro says
 17   using one number to measure an entire lake isn't
 18   accurate.  So it is not accurate just to look at
 19   one gauge near Southern Indian Lake, you have to
 20   look at a number of gauges around the lake.
 21   Manitoba Hydro says that is why it uses three or
 22   four stations, it is more accurate.  So why then
 23   does it lump all of the stations together and then
 24   average them again into one number?  It doesn't
 25   make sense.  Either it is okay to use one number
07436
  1   or it isn't.  You can't have it both ways.  The
  2   reality is that it is okay to do whatever Manitoba
  3   Hydro says it is okay to do.  And it makes perfect
  4   sense to take four readings around the lake in the
  5   name of accuracy and then obscure all the accuracy
  6   by averaging out the data, if it means that you
  7   can make more money.
  8               Manitoba Hydro says it also needs to
  9   use a seven day moving average.  They say, oh, but
 10   there is wind and waves, and then something about
 11   a slope at the south end of the lake.  We don't
 12   disagree, there are those things.  We live there,
 13   we experience them every day and they affect us.
 14   In fact, we know these things so well that we
 15   agree with you, your numbers need to take into
 16   account wind and wave and every other thing that
 17   might affect levels.  Canada Water Survey says
 18   they do take into account wind and wave.  The
 19   daily numbers already represent an average of all
 20   of the highs and lows that occur each day, whether
 21   that is a windy, wavey day or not.  The final
 22   number that is posted on the Canada Water Survey
 23   website has already been adjusted to eliminate
 24   daily wind and wave.  What Manitoba Hydro wants to
 25   do is average it again one more time, using all of
07437
  1   the numbers from an entire week worth of
  2   measurements.  This is not accuracy, this is the
  3   opposite of accuracy, it is obscuring data.  More
  4   importantly, it is obscuring the meaning of the
  5   data.
  6               What we say though is this:  Manitoba
  7   Hydro needs to be compliant with its license terms
  8   at all times.  All four stations on the lake need
  9   to be compliant.  Be accurate, use all four
 10   stations and comply with the license limits at all
 11   four stations.  If the Manitoba Hydro license says
 12   it can't go under 843 feet, which the license
 13   does, then all four stations must never go under
 14   843 feet, each and every day, on a daily basis.
 15   Yes, we know that this might mean that on certain
 16   days one or two of your stations might be a bit
 17   more above 843 feet than Manitoba Hydro would
 18   like, even quite a bit above 843 feet,  but an
 19   approach based upon accuracy means look at all
 20   four stations and stick to the license at all four
 21   stations.  Conversely, if Manitoba Hydro doesn't
 22   want to use all four stations, then use the
 23   station nearest where the people are.  After all,
 24   the license limits are set primarily to ensure
 25   that we are not adversely affected by Manitoba
07438
  1   Hydro operations.
  2               We know that this approach means that
  3   there will be times when some areas of the lake
  4   could have been kept higher or lower without
  5   violating the license.  On certain days Manitoba
  6   Hydro could have raised or lowered the entire lake
  7   a bit.  We also know that maintaining this safety
  8   zone in the levels of our lake means Manitoba
  9   Hydro might lose some profits.  And we suspect
 10   they don't like that.  After all, Manitoba Hydro
 11   has demonstrated that it will use any technique it
 12   can to allow it to push the envelope on how it
 13   operates the water regime, at least as far as
 14   Southern Indian Lake and Missi are concerned.  But
 15   we don't care about whether Manitoba Hydro loses
 16   money.  Southern Indian Lake has already lost more
 17   than anyone can imagine in the last 30 years, more
 18   than anything Manitoba Hydro could lose.  Enough
 19   is enough.  Manitoba Hydro says the water regime
 20   won't change, but we say it must change.
 21               We believe that our approach is the
 22   only lawful approach to maintaining the Southern
 23   Indian Lake water regime.  We understand that our
 24   approach is contrary to the approach used by
 25   Manitoba Hydro whereby their engineers interpret
07439
  1   their licenses.  Manitoba Hydro might characterize
  2   our approach as legalistic, but it is actually
  3   just lawful.  The CRD interim license and the
  4   approval for AFP state average limits when they
  5   mean it is okay to average the measurements such
  6   as regarding the flows out of the Notigi Control
  7   Structure.  In other places, the approval does not
  8   say average, it gives an actual number, a minimum
  9   or a maximum number.  It is clear when the
 10   regulator means average they say it.  The term
 11   average is in the CRD interim license and AFP
 12   approvals in some places and not others.  Contrary
 13   to the testimony of Mr. Cormie on May 28, it does
 14   not make sense that a license means average when
 15   it says average, and also means average when it
 16   doesn't say average.  And it doesn't say average
 17   when it refers to South Indian Lake water levels.
 18   Nothing allows Manitoba Hydro to average that
 19   data, let alone twice, except relying upon
 20   accepted engineering techniques, and possibly the
 21   decisions of the executives who maximize profits
 22   without no apparent regard for the environment.
 23   But relying on accepted engineering techniques to
 24   interpret and satisfy legal requirements creates a
 25   illegality for Manitoba Hydro and demeans
07440
  1   engineering standards.  Engineering best practices
  2   must not be used to legitimize non-compliance with
  3   license terms and conditions.
  4               Near the start of these hearings, Mr.
  5   Adams categorically, clearly, unequivocally stated
  6   that Manitoba Hydro never violates its licenses.
  7   He was very firm and very clear on this point.
  8   Mr. Cormie said that if Manitoba Hydro is off from
  9   its targets, that it will deem the actual flows
 10   from Missi to be in compliance.  Later on May 28,
 11   Mr. Cormie said they are compliant 99 percent of
 12   the time.  Which is the real answer?  Why is
 13   Manitoba Hydro views different depending on who
 14   you talk to?  Whose statements do you or should
 15   you believe?  Manitoba Hydro has tried to
 16   discredit the points that CASIL has made in these
 17   hearings, implying that we don't understand the
 18   operations or how the lake works, or the license
 19   terms.  Now, Mr. Cormie admits that Manitoba Hydro
 20   actually complies with their license only
 21   99 percent of the time.  Which is it, 99 percent
 22   or 100 percent?
 23               And who is watching any of this
 24   anyway?  Does anyone care?  Well, CASIL cares
 25   greatly.  We don't believe that violating a
07441
  1   license sometimes is okay or proper.  We have a
  2   settlement agreement that is directly linked to
  3   these licensed water levels.  Mr. Abra, legal
  4   counsel for the Commission, asked us for our
  5   position on section 9 of the CRD, which provides
  6   Manitoba Hydro with a course of action if Southern
  7   Indian Lake rises over 847 feet.  As we stated
  8   during our presentation, this level is a maximum
  9   level.  What the CRD interim license does is
 10   provide for a course of action in the case that
 11   this maximum level is exceeded.  This course of
 12   action has not been modified by the annual AFP
 13   approvals, therefore, it still stands as the
 14   required course of action should Manitoba Hydro go
 15   over their agreed upon new level of 847.5 feet.
 16   The AFP approvals state the levels as maximum
 17   levels when they permit, which they all do, the
 18   maximum level of Southern Indian Lake to be
 19   increased from elevation 847.0 to 847.5 feet.
 20   This is the exact wording used for the minimum
 21   levels of Southern Indian Lake as well.  The AFP
 22   states that Manitoba Hydro agrees to terminate its
 23   program and decrease diversion flow if, and I
 24   quote, "At any time it appears that the above
 25   noted conditions may be violated."
07442
  1   The AFP approval specifically uses the term
  2   "violated."
  3               Manitoba Hydro can determine how it is
  4   going to operate its facilities to ensure that it
  5   stays within the terms of its license.  It is not
  6   up to Manitoba Hydro to interpret its licenses.
  7   It should ask the regulator for clarification or
  8   direction if Manitoba Hydro is uncertain about the
  9   terms of its license.  Does Manitoba Hydro do
 10   this, or does it just decide itself what it thinks
 11   the license means?  We aren't sure.  But when
 12   asked in cross-examination if the regulator had
 13   approved the levels that Manitoba Hydro has
 14   interpreted from its Missi Falls Environment Act
 15   license, Mr. Cormie stated, "The regulator hadn't
 16   said anything about that, no."
 17               So Manitoba Hydro should not, in
 18   essence, change license terms by adding 100 cubic
 19   feet per second leeway.  And when Manitoba Hydro
 20   reports on the water data, it must not average
 21   lake levels to one number, when by its own account
 22   it is more proper to measure at numerous
 23   locations.  It may seem that these issues are, and
 24   I quote Mr. Cormie, "of no consequence to anyone
 25   except if you were taking a legalistic, very
07443
  1   specific interpretation."
  2               But Mr. Cormie is wrong.  CASIL cares
  3   greatly about the lake levels down to the very
  4   last millimetre.  Maybe if the people within
  5   Manitoba Hydro that were making these judgments
  6   lived on the lake or had settlement agreements
  7   that they had to fight 20 years to get, maybe it
  8   would be of consequence to them as well.
  9               It is a travesty that Manitoba Hydro
 10   would state publicly, but we thank them for at
 11   least this one honesty, that it views its license
 12   limits as targets.  Maybe Manitoba Hydro needs
 13   direction by a judge to understand that a license
 14   limit is in fact a firm limit, a legal limit with
 15   a statutory foundation.  A license is not a
 16   guideline.  And sticking to the terms of a license
 17   is not being legalistic, it is being lawful.  We
 18   ask ourselves, is this the approach that Manitoba
 19   Hydro will use regarding their Wuskwatim license?
 20               It has been disheartening to observe
 21   how Manitoba Hydro has dealt with license related
 22   questions in these hearings.  Despite numerous
 23   requests, we still don't know Missi Falls licensed
 24   flow rates.  On April 13th, Mr. Cormie said the
 25   Missi flow rates that he had given us as his
07444
  1   answer to undertakings 49 and 50 were not actually
  2   license terms, they were Manitoba Hydro
  3   interpretations of licensed terms.  On May 11th
  4   Mr. Topping, the Director of Waters Branch, said
  5   that the Environment Act 2327 terms did not apply
  6   to Missi flow rates, that it was actually the CRD
  7   term that applied.  Then Mr. Bedford re-examined
  8   Mr. Topping, who agreed that the original terms of
  9   the CRD regarding Missi flows were supplanted by
 10   Environment Act 2327, which is therefore the
 11   proper license to follow because it is more
 12   stringent than the CRD and later in time.  But
 13   then on May 28th, Mr. Cormie said that actually
 14   both CRD and the Environment Act 2327 operate at
 15   the same time.  So after all of this conflicting
 16   testimony, are you confident that anybody knows
 17   the actual license flow rates for Missi?
 18               When you look at the historic flows
 19   out of Missi Falls provided by Manitoba Hydro on
 20   May 28th, you see that they comply with the CRD
 21   sometimes, and other times they comply with the
 22   Environment Act 2327, and sometimes they violate
 23   one or the other or both.  I urge the Commission
 24   to take the time to compare the numbers given to
 25   you by Manitoba Hydro to both the CRD license
07445
  1   levels and the daily levels that Manitoba Hydro
  2   says are required by their Environment Act license
  3   2327.  Ask yourself whether or not over 100
  4   violations of Environment Act 2327 in the month of
  5   January in various years, and approximately 70
  6   violations of the CRD license occurring in April
  7   of various years is okay with you?
  8               So the question remains, do we know if
  9   Manitoba Hydro is complying with the license terms
 10   that govern flows out of the Missi Control
 11   structure?  You asked for this information.  Did
 12   you get it?  And more importantly, to the extent
 13   that this information will affect your
 14   recommendations, can you defend your decisions
 15   publicly?  Are you fully confident that you can
 16   advise the Minister on this matter?  Manitoba
 17   Hydro can't or won't give us a clear answer on a
 18   number of license related matters, and no one else
 19   seems to be watching.  We keep asking ourselves,
 20   what does this mean for Wuskwatim, given that
 21   these are the Manitoba Hydro operations that will
 22   not change?  And we urge you to ask yourselves, is
 23   the standard of compliance that Manitoba Hydro is
 24   putting forward a standard that you are in support
 25   of, or do you feel that much more has to be done?
07446
  1   Is it the standard that will apply to Wuskwatim?
  2               Manitoba Hydro states that one of the
  3   reasons it can't ensure strict compliance with
  4   whatever the Missi terms actually are is because
  5   it is a remote and unmanned station.  This
  6   demonstrates Manitoba Hydro's approach perfectly.
  7   To it, licenses are guidelines.  Strict compliance
  8   is not compulsory.  Well, this is an approach that
  9   Manitoba Hydro has chosen, and Missi is a perfect
 10   example.  The truth is that the Missi Control
 11   structure was manned for 10 years or so, there is
 12   a bunk house there, and you can get to the Missi
 13   control structure in one and a half hours from
 14   Thompson by float plane, or if weather is a
 15   factor, you can get there in seven hours by
 16   vehicle or boat.  The reason that the Missi
 17   Control structure is unmanned is because Manitoba
 18   Hydro doesn't want to man it.  And maybe that is
 19   because there seems to be no reason to man it,
 20   because no one actually cares about what happens
 21   there.  No one except my community members that
 22   is.  This is what I was talking about when I said
 23   earlier that the Commission is being mislead.
 24   Manitoba Hydro made it sound like it is very
 25   difficult, very onerous to manage that station.
07447
  1   So difficult in fact that it is forced to exceed
  2   its license terms.  This is not true.  Manitoba
  3   Hydro makes the choice to neglect Missi Falls, and
  4   therefore both the people and the ecosystems that
  5   depend upon the flows of the lower Churchill
  6   River.
  7               CASIL is very concerned with what
  8   seems to be a hands off approach by Government in
  9   dealing with Manitoba Hydro.  Unlike regarding
 10   other proponents, the Manitoba Government seems to
 11   be comfortable with a very high level of ambiguity
 12   regarding license terms and compliance, preferring
 13   to trust that Manitoba Hydro has got it right and
 14   is doing the right thing.  The testimony of
 15   Mr. Topping seems to indicate that he doesn't
 16   ensure that all aspects of his licenses and
 17   approvals are complied with.  Yet, the Manitoba
 18   Government put a number of terms into the AFP
 19   approvals, including some very particular terms
 20   regarding minimizing impacts on Southern Indian
 21   Lake members, for example.  They did this because
 22   they care, or cared, about regulating Manitoba
 23   Hydro's behaviour on those items.  Yet now they
 24   appear to do nothing to ensure that these terms
 25   are fulfilled.  There are no reports on whether or
07448
  1   how these terms are fulfilled, and CASIL has not
  2   been involved or included at any time in ever
  3   defining impacts, let alone assuring that they
  4   have been minimized.
  5               As CASIL has stated before, we have a
  6   settlement agreement that confirms that CASIL will
  7   not oppose the AFP to 847.5 feet, article 6.02.
  8   The AFP is defined in our agreement as the program
  9   described in schedule D.  The program described in
 10   schedule D is word for word the AFP annual
 11   approval.  This is the AFP that we were
 12   compensated for, and our compensation agreement is
 13   dependent entirely upon its terms.  So when
 14   Manitoba Hydro violates any term of AFP approval,
 15   whether it is regarding water levels, water flows,
 16   reporting requirements, or obligations to minimize
 17   impacts on Southern Indian Lake members, they are
 18   also violating our settlement agreement.
 19   Regarding this we are considering our options.
 20               Which leads me to the final point that
 21   we have to make about the use of Southern Indian
 22   Lake as a reservoir.  Manitoba Hydro recognized
 23   that the way it has done business in the past has
 24   not worked for the people of the north.  Most
 25   communities have had to fight for a very long time
07449
  1   to be heard by Manitoba Hydro and to be
  2   compensated for their losses.  And for many this
  3   money doesn't begin to repair the true damage that
  4   has been done.  So it becomes clear to me that the
  5   system really isn't fair.  Why is it right for
  6   Manitoba Hydro and Manitobans to benefit so
  7   greatly from northern rivers, when we in the north
  8   continue to suffer loss after loss.  In
  9   particular, why does my community not receive any
 10   of the financial benefits that are made off the
 11   reservoir that is our lake and our home?  This
 12   money is made year after year by all of you and we
 13   receive nothing.  The people of Southern Indian
 14   Lake desperately need to begin the process of
 15   restoring our environment and we need resources to
 16   do this.  Ultimately, the environment and
 17   minimizing the destruction of the environment by
 18   the ongoing options of Manitoba Hydro is Southern
 19   Indian Lake's priority.  We need assurances that
 20   revenue sharing, economic benefits and employment
 21   opportunities will flow directly to us to ensure
 22   that we can accomplish this priority.
 23               We need to remember that the
 24   compensation is a totally different matter.  Even
 25   with the deal with NCN regarding Wuskwatim,
07450
  1   Manitoba Hydro and NCN state that revenue sharing
  2   is different than compensation.  The co-proponents
  3   have set out compensation for NCN losses.  In
  4   addition to this, NCN will receive a financial
  5   benefit.  They will share in the revenue from the
  6   ongoing use of their lands in Wuskwatim Lake.
  7               Manitoba Hydro has recognized that its
  8   past approach does not work.  Partnership with
  9   First Nations is key to the long term viability of
 10   its projects.  Yet the people of Southern Indian
 11   Lake have never received any revenue from the use
 12   of their lake, revenue that is critical to
 13   protecting our environment.  We believe the
 14   situation must change.  The community of South
 15   Indian Lake must receive an equitable share of the
 16   revenue that is generated by using Southern Indian
 17   Lake, so it can create the programs that it needs
 18   to protect itself, its lands, waters and
 19   resources.
 20               In conclusion, we want to make it very
 21   clear what CASIL wants to see regarding the
 22   operating regime that underlies the proposed
 23   Wuskwatim project.  It is critical for the CEC to
 24   make recommendations on this matter because of the
 25   foundation of the proposed project.  Wuskwatim is
07451
  1   completely dependent upon the existing water
  2   regime.  Therefore, certain aspects of the
  3   existing regime must be clarified prior to the
  4   construction of the project.  If plans to apply
  5   for a final CRD license were imminent, then our
  6   recommendations may not be as critical.  But
  7   Manitoba Hydro has stated that it does not know
  8   when it will apply for the CRD final license.  It
  9   provided no assurances to the CEC on this matter
 10   in these hearings.  CASIL, the public, the
 11   Government, and you, the Commission, have no idea
 12   when or if these license terms will be permanently
 13   clarified and complied with.  Therefore, they must
 14   be clarified now, in order to add stability and
 15   some certainty to the system.  Manitoba Hydro has
 16   not changed in terms of their basic approach.  You
 17   will have to recommend to the Government that they
 18   make Manitoba Hydro change.  Therefore, we ask the
 19   CEC to recommend:
 20   That Manitoba Government clearly redefine the
 21   terms of the Environment Act license 2327 dealing
 22   with Missi flows, in particular that,
 23   - the flows should be subject to always ensuring
 24   the basic needs of the ecosystem, for example,
 25   ensuring minimum fluctuations during spawning, and
07452
  1   the safety of the community members who use the
  2   area.
  3   - The human ecosystem requirements must be set by
  4   using actual numbers in the license, such as the
  5   maximum percentage flow changes, rather than
  6   having Manitoba Hydro to make judgments.
  7   The augmented flow program be eliminated given
  8   that the fundamental terms of our agreement and
  9   the AFP approvals are not being complied with.
 10   Strict and transparent compliance with all license
 11   terms involving the entire CRD system.
 12   Consistent, accurate, transparent and agreed upon
 13   by all parties including CASIL, measurements
 14   regarding both flows and levels regarding Southern
 15   Indian Lake, particularly regarding the use of
 16   average.
 17   CASIL community involvement in monitoring the
 18   compliance of Manitoba Hydro with license terms.
 19   CASIL community involvement in environmental
 20   monitoring of Southern Indian Lake, including the
 21   lake levels, Missi Falls flows, and Notigi flows
 22   and forebay levels.
 23   Transparent reporting by Manitoba Hydro and
 24   Manitoba Conservation to all parties on compliance
 25   by Manitoba Hydro with all CRD license terms.  All
07453
  1   compliance reports on public registry.
  2   Manitoba Hydro annual report to include compliance
  3   issues based upon agreed upon measuring and
  4   reporting of water levels and flows along the
  5   entire CRD.
  6   The creation of a community advisory committee
  7   chaired by Manitoba Conservation and involving
  8   CASIL to provide input and oversight on ongoing
  9   Manitoba Hydro operational decision making
 10   regarding the CRD.
 11   That the Government require Manitoba Hydro to
 12   formulate and adopt a policy for ensuring
 13   effective involvement of all Aboriginal
 14   communities potentially affected each new proposed
 15   project.
 16               CASIL wants the CEC to recommend the
 17   following specifically regarding the Wuskwatim
 18   license.
 19   * Clearly defined minimum and maximum daily limits
 20   of Wuskwatim Lake levels.
 21   * Clearly defined flow rates, daily and weekly
 22   * A measurement approach specifically defined for
 23   both flows and levels.  Levels:  Daily averages
 24   are acceptable but there must be no additional
 25   smoothing of the daily average measurements.
07454
  1   Flows must be subject to always ensuring the basic
  2   needs of the ecosystem and the safety of the
  3   community members who are users of the lake.
  4   (Examples include ensuring minimal fluctuation
  5   during spawning, by using actual numbers rather
  6   than having Manitoba Hydro determine what the
  7   basic needs of the ecosystem are regarding flow
  8   fluctuations.)
  9   * Transparent, frequent, and consistent reporting
 10   all operations to CASIL members, the Manitoba
 11   Government and the Federal Government.
 12   * Immediate notification to CASIL members by NCN,
 13   Manitoba Hydro, and Manitoba Conservation of any
 14   exceedances of license flows or levels.
 15   * Prior notification of any requests to Government
 16   for any after the fact approvals of deviations or
 17   exceedances by Manitoba Hydro/NCN of license terms
 18   and conditions.
 19   * A transparent and documented government process
 20   to ensure Manitoba Hydro/NCN compliance with
 21   license terms and conditions.
 22   * A requirement of Manitoba Hydro/NCN to report
 23   weekly to CASIL members, the Manitoba Government
 24   and the Federal Government on operational
 25   constraints facing Wuskwatim and the decisions
07455
  1   taken in response to these requirements or
  2   constraints.
  3   * The creation of a community advisory committee
  4   chaired by Manitoba Conservation, involving CASIL,
  5   to provide input and oversight on Manitoba Hydro
  6   operations regarding Wuskwatim.
  7   * The creation and implementation of systemic and
  8   documented follow-up monitoring to ensure the
  9   accuracy of Manitoba Hydro's predictions that
 10   there will be no change to the CRD operations as a
 11   result of Wuskwatim.
 12   * CASIL's ongoing involvement in any such program
 13   as required.
 14   * And as a final requirement, CASIL strongly urges
 15   the CEC to recommend that Manitoba require
 16   Manitoba Hydro to prepare and publicly disclose as
 17   a specific condition of any license for Wuskwatim
 18   a preliminary full cost accounting of the project
 19   after the first five years of operation, a more
 20   refined accounting after ten years of operation,
 21   and a final accounting after 20 years of
 22   operation.  At minimum, this accounting must
 23   include all direct and indirect capital operations
 24   and maintenance, mitigation, compensation,
 25   monitoring, consultation, and documentation costs
07456
  1   for Wuskwatim, and utilize the most current state
  2   of the art accounting techniques for estimating
  3   environmental damage and values.
  4               To conclude, you have a decision to
  5   make.  The issues are complex and important, and
  6   many of them go beyond this particular project.
  7   You will either decide to perpetuate the current
  8   operating regime with it inherent inequities and
  9   social and environmental destruction, or you can
 10   decide to remedy inequities and hold Manitoba
 11   Hydro accountable for its operations.  We urge you
 12   in the strongest possibly terms to choose the
 13   latter.  Your decisions have grave implications
 14   for the future.
 15               For this reason we recommend that you
 16   do not recommend the licensing of the project as
 17   proposed.  If you decide to recommend that the
 18   project be licensed, then you do so only on the
 19   condition that Manitoba Hydro satisfies all
 20   deficiencies we have listed above, including those
 21   regarding cumulative effects assessment,
 22   termination of the Augmented Flow Program,
 23   enhanced Manitoba Hydro monitoring and disclosure,
 24   strict Manitoba Hydro compliance with all
 25   licenses, Aboriginal involvement policy.
07457
  1               You will now formulate your
  2   recommendations to the Minister.  CASIL will now
  3   be watching the CEC and will be carefully
  4   considering its options.  Thank you.
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Dysart.
  6               MR. GREWAR:  Mr. Chairman, if we might
  7   enter the closing remarks of the Community
  8   Association of Southern Indian Lake, CASIL as
  9   CASIL 1015.
 10   
 11               (EXHIBIT CASIL 1015:  Closing remarks
 12               of CASIL)
 13   
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Grewar.
 15   It is now just past 20 to 3:00.  We will reconvene
 16   at 3:00 o'clock.
 17   
 18               (EXAMINATION RECESSED AT 2:40 AND
 19               RECONVENED AT 3:00 P.M.)
 20   
 21               THE CHAIRMAN:  We are now ready
 22   proceed with the final closing statement for this
 23   afternoon.  This is the Association of Displaced
 24   Residents of South Indian Lake.  I understand part
 25   of the presentation will be made in Cree.  Just so
07458
  1   we can record all of this, I ask the presenters
  2   just to have a little break in between so that we
  3   can allow the recorder to switch hearing
  4   apparatus.
  5               MR. TRONIAK:  Before we proceed, we
  6   are missing one presenter.  We are now ready to
  7   proceed.
  8               THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, Mr. Troniak.
  9               MR. TRONIAK:  Thank you.  Good
 10   afternoon, my name is Dennis Troniak, legal
 11   counsel for the Association of Displaced Residents
 12   of South Indian Lake.
 13               I have this afternoon starting to my
 14   immediate right, Angus Dysart, the president of
 15   the association.  Vern Anderson, vice-president
 16   for south.  The Reverend Nelson Hart, an elder
 17   from the community of Nelson House and Carol
 18   Kobliski, who is a spokesperson for the elders and
 19   people of South Indian Lake and is part of the
 20   Community Justice Seekers group.
 21               Reverend Hart and Ms. Kobliski will
 22   convey their serious concerns and reservations
 23   that the people of Nelson House have with the
 24   Wuskwatim projects.
 25               Prior to proceeding, I would ask
07459
  1   Reverend Hart to say a prayer in Cree and after
  2   that, Mr. Dysart will make his presentation in
  3   Cree as well.
  4   
  5               (PRAYER)
  6   
  7               MR. TRONIAK:  I will ask Mr. Dysart to
  8   say his presentation in Cree.
  9               THE CHAIRMAN:  You have to go fairly
 10   slow so that we can get the translation.
 11               Can we find out -- Mr. Spence, can you
 12   talk into the system to see if we can get the
 13   sound here.
 14   
 15   (INTERPRETER:  MR. JIMMY D. SPENCE)
 16   
 17               MR. DYSART:  (Through the interpreter)
 18               Ladies and gentlemen, welcome here to
 19   this meeting, the hearings on the Wuskwatim
 20   project.  I want to be speaking in the Cree
 21   language to be able to convey my message.  It is
 22   the way I was brought up and that's the way I
 23   talk.
 24               Mr. Dysart is my name.  I am the
 25   president of the Displaced People of South Indian
07460
  1   Lake.  I would like to speak a little bit on this
  2   project.  I want to be speaking a little bit and
  3   also Carol Kobliski and Mr. Nelson Hart will be
  4   speaking.
  5               Thank you for the opportunity to be
  6   able to speak to you this afternoon.  Our lawyer
  7   will be speaking before you with respect to the
  8   Hydro development.
  9               I would like to talk about the damages
 10   to the -- you saw the pictures in the previous
 11   presentation of some of the devastation that has
 12   taken place, (inaudible) tell Manitoba Hydro and
 13   we concede what has already taken place, what was
 14   indicated about this intent to go through and also
 15   speaking about our friends here in South Indian
 16   and Nelson House and it seems to -- it seems to
 17   me, he is only looking out for himself, including
 18   Manitoba Hydro.
 19               I spoke out at a hearing in Thompson
 20   (inaudible) what the same thing as I said in
 21   Thompson, that will be repeated some of those
 22   comments, (inaudible) brothers, sisters and those
 23   families of our brothers and sisters, there has
 24   been a lot of destruction that has happened with
 25   respect to Hydro development and I want to say
07461
  1   again that's what I heard.
  2               I would like to comment on what is
  3   going on with the Clean Environment Commission.  I
  4   would like to have had more people from South
  5   Indian Lake here today to be able to listen to
  6   what I said and what has happened with respect to
  7   Hydro development in the past.
  8               There are other things that Manitoba
  9   Hydro covers up, a lot of the things that they
 10   say, the history of the CRD.  It seems like that
 11   Manitoba Hydro doesn't want to take the
 12   responsibility of the destruction that is already
 13   happened, with respect to the CRD (inaudible)
 14   doesn't want to take the full responsibility to
 15   even see the destruction that has happened.
 16               In the past, compensations and -- they
 17   were not given the full compensation of everything
 18   that was destroyed by the flood, and it seems like
 19   the Commission should have travelled to other
 20   places to listen to the people of (inaudible) with
 21   respect to the feelings of this project.  And
 22   Manitoba Hydro, like when you want to buy
 23   something, it seems like that is the approach that
 24   Manitoba Hydro (inaudible) is like buying this
 25   project and if it goes through with respect to the
07462
  1   partnership, I guess, with NCN.
  2               One thing in the future when you talk
  3   about -- when you talk about money and when you
  4   talk about the people of the community, not
  5   everybody benefits from what money is available in
  6   the community, only a few.  And the same thing
  7   happened, the same thing happened in South Indian,
  8   that not all compensation benefits everybody.  It
  9   is only a few that benefit from it.  And the same
 10   goes from for the people of Nelson House.
 11               They also spoke (inaudible) Cree
 12   pretty loudly about this project.  Like, this year
 13   that when they talk about the Wuskwatim project,
 14   like for the displaced people of South Indian Lake
 15   and just a seeker of Nelson House and many
 16   (inaudible) we are trying our best to help them in
 17   whatever way to help them in what they are seeking
 18   for, and also that you know we would like to see
 19   good things happen of what we are doing and Carol
 20   and Nelson will be talking about (inaudible).
 21               And with respect to the referendum
 22   that will be coming up, that's when we will know
 23   whether the project will go through and also with
 24   respect to the talk that has been going on with
 25   respect to what happened in the past with CRD.
07463
  1   And also to talk about Nelson House and there is
  2   intention to go ahead with the project at
  3   Wuskwatim.
  4               Also that the work that they are doing
  5   with respect to the partnership seems to be going
  6   to the Wuskwatim project (inaudible).  At meetings
  7   when talking about if there is a referendum does
  8   come up, we will have to take a careful look at
  9   what is going on and what is happening and to have
 10   somebody oversee the project of referendum.
 11   Somebody that can be trusted to be there and to
 12   write everything down with respect to the
 13   Wuskwatim project and its proceedings.
 14               It should be there sitting there and
 15   watching and overseeing what goes on.
 16               Fundamentally, if it doesn't go
 17   through, we would have to take a good look at it
 18   again or make changes and to take -- I guess take
 19   a second look at the Agreement in Principle and to
 20   see that this -- it is done properly with no
 21   problems, and also to write letters to the leaders
 22   of the government, like the Premier, with respect
 23   to that.
 24               So, whatever can be written as to what
 25   we want (inaudible) like, I was very, very young
07464
  1   when this was first talked in the past and what
  2   Manitoba Hydro used to say when they used to come
  3   to the communities to speak to the people of the
  4   community.  And I used to understand a bit of what
  5   they were talking about and they used -- and what
  6   they said was, you know, the compensation that
  7   they would get for the destruction would be
  8   prosperous and from that compensation they did
  9   receive (inaudible).
 10   
 11   (SWITCHING INTERPRETERS - MR. CHARLIE JAMES SPENCE
 12   NOW INTERPRETING)
 13   
 14               MR. DYSART:  (Through interpreter)
 15               The future generation that I have not
 16   seen or will never have the opportunity to see
 17   what it was like before because Manitoba Hydro
 18   will continue developing dams all through the
 19   system like it was planned before.
 20               THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Thank you.
 21               MR. ANDERSON:  Do I need to be sworn
 22   in because I have never been sworn before?
 23               MR. GREWAR:  Yes -- you have not been
 24   sworn in, sir?
 25               MR. ANDERSON:  No.
07465
  1               MR. GREWAR:  Your name, please, for
  2   the record?
  3               MR. ANDERSON:  It is Vernon Anderson.
  4               MR. GREWAR:  Vernon Anderson?
  5               MR. ANDERSON:  Yes.
  6               MR. GREWAR:  Sir, are you aware that
  7   in Manitoba it is an offence to knowingly mislead
  8   this Commission?
  9               MR. ANDERSON:  Yes.
 10               MR. GREWAR:  Do you promise to tell
 11   just the truth in proceedings before this
 12   Commission?
 13               MR. ANDERSON:  Yes.
 14               MR. GREWAR:  Thank you, sir.
 15               MR. ANDERSON:  Hello, I am Vernon
 16   Anderson, Southern vice-president of the
 17   Association of Displaced Residents of South Indian
 18   Lake.
 19               I would like to talk about a couple of
 20   concerns we have with these hearings and some of
 21   the positions taken at these hearings.
 22               First of all, for the record, we still
 23   have concerns with the position of the CEC, in
 24   refusing to accept the questions I raised in my
 25   letter of December 17, 2003, concerning the
07466
  1   Wuskwatim Summary of Understanding to be included
  2   in the interrogatory process for these hearings.
  3   We did not receive information we are entitled to
  4   until after the filing deadline, thereby ensuring
  5   our questions and the response would not be put on
  6   the record for these hearings.
  7               This is an example of a double
  8   standard given that Manitoba Hydro and others in
  9   the process were allowed to file information late.
 10               To illustrate my point, I quote a
 11   February 17th, 2004 letter the Clean Environment
 12   Commission, Rory Grewar, to Elvis Thomas of NCN
 13   and Ed Wojczynski of Manitoba Hydro:
 14               "...please be advised that while the
 15               Commission expects all hearing
 16               participants to comply with the
 17               established following requirements,
 18               particularly those participants that
 19               have been involved in the prehearing
 20               process, a degree of flexibility has
 21               usually been applied in responding to
 22               late or even 'last minute' filings.
 23               The Commission is guided in this
 24               approach by an awareness that its
 25               public hearing process was designed to
07467
  1               be an accessible mechanism through
  2               which the general public could learn
  3               about and affect development
  4               proposals.
  5               The hearing is not intended as a
  6               device through which open discussion
  7               and the sharing of information can be
  8               curtailed by the rigid application of
  9               procedural guidelines.
 10               With this in mind, the Commission has
 11               always exercised considerable
 12               discretion when deciding whether or
 13               not to issue directives that might
 14               limit the right of any participant to
 15               bring forward information, regardless
 16               of the date or time in which that
 17               information is offered.  I suspect the
 18               Commission will apply this approach in
 19               the future."
 20               I would like an answer from the CEC
 21   why this fair and reasonable principle was not
 22   applied to my December 17th, 2003 letters as
 23   participants in this process.  We did not receive
 24   the information as others received it.  We only
 25   received a copy of the Wuskwatim Summary of
07468
  1   Understanding on December 8th through Carol
  2   Kobliski of Justice Seekers of Nelson House.
  3   Thereby, there is no way we could meet the
  4   original filing deadline of November 21, 2003.
  5               Having NCN Chief and Council and their
  6   legal counsel provide incomplete and superficial
  7   answers to the questions on the Summary of
  8   Understanding document raised in my letter outside
  9   of this process is not satisfactory or acceptable.
 10   I am still waiting for a response to my letter of
 11   January 21, 2004 to Mr. Lecuyer, Chair of the CEC
 12   panel, requesting that CEC reassess its decision
 13   to reject my interrogatory submission.
 14               As stated in my letter, I am also
 15   still waiting to have this letter be placed on the
 16   record for this hearing.  The refusal to accept my
 17   interrogatory request of December 17th, 2004 is,
 18   in my opinion, an example of a double standard and
 19   deference shown to the Manitoba Hydro and NCN
 20   Chief and Council as co-proponents for this
 21   project.
 22               We strongly dispute the position taken
 23   by Manitoba Hydro that the devastation they caused
 24   at Southern Indian Lake is not as severe as has
 25   been presented during these hearings.  We also
07469
  1   dispute that they have done more than enough to
  2   deal with the impacts they have created and have
  3   provided adequate compensation to those affected.
  4               To prove our point, I would like to
  5   quote the following excerpt from a book that I
  6   have come across that discusses South Indian Lake
  7   before its flooding and relocation.
  8               "We found what appeared to be a very
  9               happy native community, supported by
 10               fishing and trapping in the winter.
 11               At the time of our visit, the weather
 12               was superb and the lake pristine.  On
 13               one of the nights, and perhaps
 14               coincidentally, a movie was shown in
 15               the school hall that depicted the
 16               devastation cause in Africa by the
 17               building of the dam.  As we departed
 18               for home from the dock in front of the
 19               Hudson's Bay store, we were heavy with
 20               the knowledge that most of what we had
 21               seen would soon disappear.  In due
 22               course, I collated the assessments of
 23               others and wrote a summary statement.
 24               Then I added the personal opinion that
 25               'It would be unworthy of Manitoba
07470
  1               Hydro to destroy South Indian
  2               Community'.
  3               This opinion was not part of the
  4               mandate of the study and Donald
  5               Stephens, President of Manitoba Hydro,
  6               was furious when he read these
  7               gratuitous words, which appeared to
  8               criticize the whole grand scheme.
  9               The work proceeded and South Indian
 10               Lake was destroyed and public
 11               indignation has never completely
 12               subsided.
 13               A few years later, I flew with Premier
 14               Ed Schreyer of the New Democratic
 15               party over the entire area and saw for
 16               the first time the price that had been
 17               paid for 200 megawatts of energy.  In
 18               the protracted political controversy
 19               that followed the diversion of water
 20               from the Churchill system, reference
 21               was occasionally made to a University
 22               of Manitoba report.  This report was
 23               our report which was never made
 24               public; thus my emotional words never
 25               appeared in the newspaper or in other
07471
  1               ways added fuel to the fire."
  2               The above quotations are from a book
  3   published in 2000, entitled:  "One Version of the
  4   Facts:  My Life in the Ivory Tower", by Harry E.
  5   Duckworth, a former chancellor of the Univeristy
  6   of Winnipeg and one of the most distinguished
  7   scientists and university administrators in
  8   Canada.  I am sure that even Mr. Doug Bedford,
  9   Mr. Robert Adkins and Valerie Matthews Lemieux
 10   would admit that Dr. Duckworth is a person of
 11   integrity and impressive qualifications and a
 12   person's opinion that should be respected.
 13               In 1966, Dr. Duckworth was part of the
 14   team from the University of Manitoba, commissioned
 15   by The Government of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro.
 16   Their task was to estimate what financial damage
 17   would be done to Southern Indian Lake and the
 18   community of South Indian if the Churchill River
 19   Diversion was built for hydro development.
 20               Here, 30 years later, after the
 21   Churchill River Diversion and using the words of
 22   Dr. Duckworth, the destruction of South Indian
 23   Lake, the unaddressed issues and devastation of
 24   South Indian Lake are front and centre of these
 25   hearings.  Some have said that some are unfairly
07472
  1   using these hearings to get Manitoba Hydro and The
  2   Government of Manitoba to address grievances that
  3   are totally unrelated to Wuskwatim.
  4               In our view, this view is narrow and
  5   incorrect.  Much of the rationale for the project,
  6   including potential environmental and
  7   socioeconomic impacts and benefits and potential
  8   future profits for Wuskwatim are based upon
  9   forecast, assumptions and best estimates, promises
 10   of financial benefit and a pot of gold starting in
 11   2035 are being used to entice Nelson House band
 12   members to support this project.  However, this is
 13   only if Wuskwatim power is sold for export.  After
 14   all financing charges and loan costs are paid back
 15   to Manitoba Hydro, we are asked to trust studies,
 16   forecasts and work commissioned and controlled by
 17   Manitoba Hydro.
 18               Those of us who live and have lived in
 19   South Indian Lake and our parents and grandparents
 20   remember the inaccurate and incomplete studies and
 21   promises that were made to us and broken by
 22   Manitoba Hydro.  Many of these have been shared at
 23   these hearings.  The people of Nelson House First
 24   Nation, including those residing in South Indian
 25   Lake and the Displaced Residents of South Indian
07473
  1   Lake would be asked to agree to Wuskwatim.  This
  2   will be done through an iron clad partnership
  3   agreement with Manitoba Hydro largely based on
  4   trust and good faith.
  5               Trust and good faith must be earned
  6   and not demanded, expected or bought with
  7   taxpayers' money to do this -- excuse me.  Trust
  8   and good faith must be earned and not demanded,
  9   expected or bought with taxpayers' money to do
 10   this.  The past must not be forgotten or it will
 11   be repeated, as our lawyer Dennis Troniak stated
 12   at the September 30, 2003 CEC hearings on the
 13   motion by Pimicikamak Cree Nation to expand the
 14   scope of these hearings.  In our experience,
 15   Manitoba Hydro is a leopard that has not changed
 16   its spots.
 17               I would like to confirm the concerns
 18   on the sham and misleading consultations for this
 19   project raised by Carol Kobliski before this
 20   Commission on March 17th, 2004.  Personally, not
 21   one consultant hired to sell this project came to
 22   my door to talk to me or was any hand-out
 23   information provided to me prior to the start of
 24   these hearings.
 25               Valerie Matthews Lemieux was given my
07474
  1   name to send me a copy of the Wuskwatim Summary of
  2   Understanding document at or around November 20th.
  3   When I followed up with her, I asked again to be
  4   sent a copy of the Wuskwatim Summary of
  5   Understanding.  I did not receive a copy at this
  6   time.
  7               The second time I personally contacted
  8   her office, I was told that there was no more
  9   available.  I was also provided a copy of the
 10   Summary of Understanding document just prior to
 11   Christmas 2003.  I wonder if I should consider
 12   this a Christmas present?
 13               The consultation process for Wuskwatim
 14   continues to be one-sided with no real dialogue or
 15   discussion committed.  As Carol Kobliski said, the
 16   wining and dining of Nelson House members as part
 17   of the hard sell campaign is not an honest and
 18   appropriate consultation.
 19               We are also very concerned about the
 20   secrecy and the money being thrown around by the
 21   NCN Chief and Council and Manitoba Hydro to sell
 22   this project.  The guidebook for the Wuskwatim
 23   Summary of Understanding stated that every year
 24   Hydro approves a NCN budget and pays for these,
 25   including lawyers, consultant fees, set out in the
07475
  1   budget, some of the costs may be included in the
  2   project cost.
  3               Recently, I filed a Freedom of
  4   Information and Personal Privacy Act, FIPPA,
  5   requesting the amount of money Manitoba Hydro has
  6   provided to NCN and NCN Chief and Council for
  7   legal consulting fees related to the Wuskwatim in
  8   the past five years.  I was denied any information
  9   on my request on the grounds that the information
 10   requested was provided on a confidential basis and
 11   is treated consistently as confidential
 12   information.
 13               As a citizen of Manitoba and Nelson
 14   House band member, I wonder why this information
 15   was denied to me as no personal confidential
 16   information was being requested?
 17               Why is Manitoba Hydro hiding behind
 18   Section 18(1) of the FIPPA to deny this
 19   information?  This is taxpayer and ratepayer money
 20   being paid out with little or with no public
 21   accountability.
 22               Other similar information I have
 23   requested on legal costs pertaining to our NFA
 24   claims to both Manitoba Hydro and The Government
 25   of Manitoba and the information has been provided.
07476
  1               During her March 17th presentation,
  2   Carol Kobliski asked where the 4.2 million dollars
  3   Hydro provides annually to Nelson House future
  4   development portfolio every year goes to and what
  5   it is spent on today.  I raise the same concerns.
  6   Why are Manitoba Hydro and NCN Chief and Council
  7   and their legal counsel hiding this information
  8   from their own band members and the public?
  9               The question of integrity, trust and
 10   confidence are crucial in this CEC process and for
 11   the entire Wuskwatim project.
 12               Manitoba Hydro must not be allowed to
 13   do what they did to South Indian Lake again to the
 14   people of northern Manitoba.  To us, Manitoba
 15   Hydro has not earned or deserve the confidence and
 16   trust of those who bear the cost of impacts from
 17   hydro development.
 18               Cutting back-room deals with the NCN
 19   Chief and Council and their legal council and
 20   paying band members to publicly support the
 21   project in our opinion does not pass the litmus
 22   test of a fair, open and honest process.  We hope
 23   that the CEC will recommend and demand a fair and
 24   honest referendum vote on the Wuskwatim project
 25   development agreement to put these concerns to
07477
  1   rest.
  2               I will now turn to our legal counsel,
  3   Dennis Troniak, to state our position on a couple
  4   of issues raised in these hearings.
  5               MR. TRONIAK:  Thank you.  I will make
  6   my comments brief because I know time is important
  7   here.
  8               My clients wish to make it perfectly
  9   clear that they are not opposed to the development
 10   or to development up north.  They are not opposed
 11   to security and prosperity for all Nelson House
 12   band members and others impacted by Hydro
 13   development.
 14               However, they are strongly opposed to
 15   how it is being done for the Wuskwatim project and
 16   they do not trust the studies, promises and
 17   assurances being provided by Manitoba Hydro.
 18               Given Manitoba Hydro's track record
 19   with the Churchill River Diversion and other hydro
 20   development, they find it hard to believe that
 21   anyone objectively could believe or trust what
 22   they have been -- what they have to say.  Sadly,
 23   and we say this with deep disappointment, it
 24   seemed that little has changed with Wuskwatim.
 25               First of all, I will deal with the
07478
  1   issue of the contradictory statements made by
  2   Mr. Ken Adams, under oath, before these Clean
  3   Environments Commission hearings and the Jobs,
  4   Energy and Community Development Committee of the
  5   Minnesota Senate.  I raised this issue during my
  6   cross-examination on May 25th and Ms. Kempton also
  7   raised it during the closing statements of the
  8   Pimicikamak Cree Nation on May 28th.
  9               Despite what Mr. Adams stated in his
 10   letter to Minnesota Senator Gary Kubly, dated
 11   April 22, 2004, he was contradictory, unclear and
 12   arguably misleading in his testimony before either
 13   the CEC or the Minnesota State Senate Committee.
 14               While I stand to be corrected, I read
 15   Mr. Adam's statements to mean that Wuskwatim power
 16   will be blended entirely with the rest of the
 17   power system and displace other power used for
 18   domestic use, which in turn can be exported as
 19   surplus power.
 20               In the opinion of my clients, this is
 21   misleading since once any power generated enters
 22   Manitoba Hydro's general power system, it cannot
 23   be differentiated from other power generated from
 24   other hydro dams.
 25               This, in my client's opinion, is a
07479
  1   political shell game to avoid coming clean as to
  2   whether Wuskwatim and new hydro generation will
  3   indeed be used to export more power to the United
  4   States.
  5               In Manitoba, they can sell and justify
  6   increased Hydro development to the public by
  7   saying it is to capitalize on increasing demand in
  8   the United States.  While in Minnesota and other
  9   places who are concerned that their purchasing of
 10   new power from Manitoba will lead to more hydro
 11   dam construction, adverse impacts, they contend
 12   the power they are selling is not new power, but
 13   from previous Hydro projects.
 14               Our concern is, from what is happening
 15   in Minnesota, as Minnesota State Senators Kubly
 16   and Anderson presented in these hearings and
 17   statements in the press from Xcel Energy, Xcel is
 18   planning to buy less power from Manitoba Hydro in
 19   the future.
 20               My clients fear that with the public
 21   pronouncements in Minnesota and the actions of
 22   Manitoba Hydro, the shell game will explode in the
 23   faces of Manitoba Hydro and the Government in the
 24   near future.
 25               This will further tarnish the
07480
  1   reputation of Manitoba Hydro and Manitoba on the
  2   issue of hydro development and their treatment of
  3   the environment and the indigenous people that are
  4   impacted by it.
  5               If Xcel Energy and other utilities
  6   decide not to buy additional power from Manitoba
  7   Hydro, Wuskwatim or -- or other hydro dams, then
  8   will all Manitobans, in particular Nelson House
  9   members, be saddled with paying for an expensive
 10   hydro dam with little or no revenue?  If this
 11   happens, where will the one billion dollars, plus
 12   financing costs come from?
 13               We reaffirm the request made by Carol
 14   Kobliski during our presentation of March 17th
 15   that a letter be tabled with the Commission and be
 16   made public confirming that Xcel Energy or another
 17   U.S. utility will indeed increase their power
 18   imputs for Manitoba Hydro to cover the cost of
 19   construction and servicing Wuskwatim.
 20               Our interest in this issue is to have
 21   the truth told and for it to be made public.  It
 22   must be provided to Nelson House band members for
 23   them to make an informed, non-pressured decision
 24   on the Wuskwatim Project Development Agreement.
 25               Our second concern is the position of
07481
  1   Manitoba Hydro during these hearings that the
  2   Quebec Peace of the Brave Agreements and the
  3   Wuskwatim-type Partnership Agreement are not
  4   comparable and are like comparing apples and
  5   oranges.
  6               I have had the opportunity to review
  7   what I can only describe as a superficial
  8   comparison of the agreements provided to the CEC
  9   by Manitoba Hydro at these proceedings.  The main
 10   question is why are The Government of Manitoba and
 11   Manitoba Hydro only offering Nelson House a
 12   Wuskwatim-type equity investment type deal and not
 13   a more comprehensive nation-to-nation deal, like
 14   the Quebec Peace of the Brave type deal?
 15               In Quebec, the Cree are reimbursed
 16   with guaranteed returns for development of their
 17   traditional lands with great latitude of how they
 18   wish to use the funds with no equity risk
 19   investment.
 20               After 50 years, the Quebec agreements
 21   are reviewed and renegotiated to ensure that they
 22   are relevant and meeting their goals and
 23   objectives.
 24               This is not the lifetime
 25   Waskwatim-type deal that ties Nelson House to its
07482
  1   terms forever or at the discretion of Manitoba
  2   Hydro.
  3               I would like the Commission to just
  4   ask the people from South Indian Lake how willing
  5   Manitoba Hydro is to review and renegotiate
  6   agreements that are not adequately serving those
  7   impacted by Hydro development.
  8               I urge the Commission not to accept
  9   the analysis and report provided by Manitoba Hydro
 10   at face value.  It must be remembered that any
 11   analysis provided by them or NCN Chief and Council
 12   will have to be questioned objectively as they
 13   have an vested interest in having the Wuskwatim
 14   Partnership Agreement ratified.
 15               I am requesting that the CEC have an
 16   independent analysis done to determine if the
 17   concept and intent of both types of agreements are
 18   comparable.
 19               We ask that this be done properly.  I
 20   suggest that the big picture view must be taken
 21   and not only to focus on the minute specific
 22   details.
 23               Also, the impacts that Manitoba Hydro
 24   and The Government of Manitoba may not want to
 25   enter into a comprehensive Peace of the Brave type
07483
  1   of agreement with Nelson House and other Cree
  2   First Nations for future hydro development should
  3   not be a reason for dismissing its relevance for
  4   Manitoba.
  5               It is our position that following
  6   concepts are applicable to any jurisdiction or
  7   agreement:
  8               1.  Guaranteed royalties, indexed to
  9   inflation, with no equity risk investment needed.
 10               2.  Job guarantees for Cree youth,
 11   regardless of union control or hiring.
 12               3.  Board and management control by
 13   the Cree instead of Manitoba Hydro.
 14               4:  Having the Province of Manitoba
 15   enter into the agreement with Nelson House First
 16   Nation in a nation-to-nation agreement, instead of
 17   the strictly commercial Wuskwatim partnership
 18   deal.
 19               5.  Support for traditional hunting,
 20   trapping and fishing pursuits.
 21               6.  Increased provisions to have
 22   Nelson House First Nation protect and benefit
 23   economically from their land and resources.
 24               As confirmed in meetings held in April
 25   and May of this year in Winnipeg and throughout
07484
  1   Manitoba, the Association for Displaced Residents
  2   of South Indian Lake opposed the Wuskwatim project
  3   for the following reasons:
  4               1.  Manitoba Hydro should properly
  5   deal with all past damage and compensation claims
  6   from past Hydro development before starting new
  7   projects.
  8               2.  Nelson House First Nation should
  9   not have to invest millions of dollars and risk
 10   its future in a risky commercial venture.
 11   Manitoba Hydro should provide guaranteed royalties
 12   for the use of their traditional land and
 13   resources.
 14               3.  With the proposed Wuskwatim
 15   Limited Partnership Agreement as outlined in the
 16   non-binding Summary of Understanding document,
 17   there are no firm commitments regarding jobs or
 18   return on investment.
 19               4.  Manitoba Hydro is a major
 20   shareholder and holder of at least two-thirds of
 21   the seats of the management board, will control
 22   all aspects of projects, and all important
 23   decisions of Nelson House will have to no say in
 24   the day-to-day operations of project.
 25               5.  If the Wuskwatim Project
07485
  1   Development Agreement is not ratified by Nelson
  2   House members, then Manitoba Hydro and The
  3   Government of Manitoba will have to come back with
  4   a better deal like Quebec Hydro did after the Cree
  5   of Quebec rejected a Wuskwatim-type commercial
  6   deal.
  7               6.  Inadequate and arguably misleading
  8   consultation has resulted in much confusion and
  9   concern about Nelson House band members.
 10               7.  We have no faith or confidence in
 11   the studies undertaken by Manitoba Hydro and NCN
 12   for this project and strongly feel that Manitoba
 13   Hydro, in our experience, has no intention to live
 14   up to the promises and commitments it has made
 15   concerning the Wuskwatim project.  Our members
 16   feel that the history of the Churchill River
 17   Diversion will be repeated if the current process
 18   continues and the project is built.
 19               Thank you.  I will now yield the floor
 20   to Ms. Kobliski.
 21               MS. KOBLISKI:  Good afternoon.  My
 22   name is Carol Kobliski, spokesperson for the
 23   Justice Seekers of Nelson House and the
 24   traditional elders of Nelson House.
 25               First of all, I would like to
07486
  1   acknowledge all those who have attended and
  2   participated in these hearings.  I would also like
  3   to acknowledge the CEC committee members for their
  4   hard work and patience through this process.
  5               These hearings have been long, very
  6   emotional and stressful for many, especially
  7   Nelson House band members.  All five of you have
  8   the great responsibility and expectation of doing
  9   the right thing and not necessarily the popular
 10   thing or what Manitoba Hydro and the government
 11   wants you to do.
 12               I would like to thank everyone who has
 13   critically asked questions, critically questioned
 14   Manitoba Hydro, and the assumptions and promises
 15   that they have made on the Wuskwatim project.  All
 16   the Cree and Metis of Northern Manitoba impacted
 17   by the Churchill River Diversion were given
 18   similar promise 30 odd years ago and all we have
 19   to show for it is continuing devastation, misery
 20   and heartbreak.
 21               It is important that this be raised
 22   during these hearings.  As plans unfold for the
 23   second wave of hydro dam construction, starting
 24   with Wuskwatim, Justice Seekers and the elders of
 25   Nelson House pray that Manitoba Hydro is not
07487
  1   allowed to do what they have done in the past.  It
  2   is clear that Manitoba Hydro did not have a clue
  3   of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts
  4   that were expected with the Churchill River
  5   Diversion.  If they did, they deliberately kept it
  6   from all of us.  According to Manitoba Hydro,
  7   their mandate was to build dams and not wait for
  8   environmental and socioeconomic studies to be
  9   done.  The Governments of Manitoba and Canada did
 10   not care as long as Manitoba Hydro got what it
 11   wanted.
 12               We must not live in the past, but we
 13   also must not forget the past.  We understand that
 14   what we had once is gone, but this should make us
 15   more vigilant to make sure it does not happen
 16   again.  We have to inform and educate our people
 17   and look to bodies like the Clean Environment to
 18   ensure that the environmental and socioeconomic
 19   disaster of the Churchill River Diversion is not
 20   allowed to happen again.  We have to protect what
 21   little of our environment and traditional way of
 22   life that we have left.  We also cannot let our
 23   leaders and a few people benefit from inflicting
 24   greater misery and suffering among our people.
 25               I have lived most of my life in Nelson
07488
  1   House, I've seen the beauty of our land and water
  2   and how our people lived happily off the land.  I
  3   have experienced living at a fish camp in the
  4   summer as a child, seeing the abundance of healthy
  5   fish caught every day.  I remember being able to
  6   swim in clear water and not having to worry about
  7   debris in the water and going out in a boat, not
  8   worrying about hitting logs.  I remember our
  9   beautiful beaches and the high rocks we climbed
 10   are now under water because of the flood caused by
 11   the Churchill River Diversion.  I have experienced
 12   and seen the pain, sickness, sorrow and grieving
 13   for others for lost loved ones on our water or
 14   through suicide caused by despair and
 15   hopelessness.  This must stop and Manitoba Hydro
 16   must be stopped from doing this.
 17               In my presentation on March 17th,
 18   2004, during these hearings, I raised a number of
 19   strong concerns and reservations with the lack of
 20   openness and transparency and honesty of the
 21   entire process to sell Wuskwatim to our people.
 22               Consultation being done has been a
 23   sham and continues to be as the hard sell for the
 24   project continues.  The future development
 25   consultants are just handing out pamphlets and not
07489
  1   really explaining anything and only doing what
  2   they are told by Manitoba Hydro to sell the
  3   project as it is Hydro paying their salaries.  If
  4   it is such a wonderful deal, why has Jerry
  5   Primrose and our Council and their legal counsel
  6   refused requests for an open band meeting for the
  7   past year and a half?  Only after the pressure
  8   placed on them at these hearings did they agree to
  9   hold a meeting on May 17th, which I have just been
 10   told has been rescheduled for June 22nd.
 11               With all the suffering we have
 12   continued to go through at the hands of Manitoba
 13   Hydro, no amount of money will ever adequately
 14   compensate for what is being done to us and our
 15   way of life.  They have not even apologized to
 16   those whose lives have been seriously affected by
 17   past Hydro projects and their actions.
 18               In 1991, the Government of Canada
 19   issued a formal apology to all those who were
 20   forced to attend Indian and residential schools.
 21   When will Manitoba Hydro and The Government of
 22   Manitoba apologize for what they have done to the
 23   Cree, Metis and others whose lives have been
 24   devastated for cheap power and profit.  This will
 25   be an important second step to start the healing
07490
  1   process and possibly lead to building trust
  2   between us.  The first step will be for Manitoba
  3   Hydro to admit and accept responsibility for what
  4   they have done to the Cree and Metis of Northern
  5   Manitoba.
  6               For people like Bob Brennan, Premier
  7   Gary Doer, Hydro Minister Tim Sale and former
  8   Premier Edward Schreyer to continually say that
  9   Manitoba Hydro should not be blamed for the social
 10   and economic devastations after the Churchill
 11   River Diversion is despicable and must be stopped.
 12   To say that Manitoba Hydro bears little or no
 13   responsibility for what had happened to our
 14   communities and our people is bluntly untrue and
 15   only rubs salt into the wounds of our pain and
 16   suffering.  One only has to read the transcripts
 17   of the 1999 Interchurch Inquiry on hydro
 18   development and its report, let justice flow to
 19   get the true story.
 20               We are also requesting that Manitoba
 21   Hydro and The Government of Manitoba establish an
 22   independent and effective counselling intervention
 23   program for communities and people trying to cope
 24   with the emotional, psychological trauma and
 25   social impacts they have to deal with every day to
07491
  1   survive.  Despite what Manitoba President and CEO
  2   Bob Brennan and Hydro Minister Tim Sale might say,
  3   Suicides, alcohol abuse and violence are an
  4   aftermath of Hydro development and they should do
  5   something about it immediately.
  6               The Government of Canada has
  7   established counselling and intervention support
  8   for Indian residential school survivors and
  9   similar support should be available free of charge
 10   to victims of hydro dam development.  I am
 11   requesting the CEC include this as a
 12   recommendation in its report to the Minister of
 13   Conservation.
 14               Instead of helping us deal with the
 15   past damages that they inflict upon us, Manitoba
 16   Hydro has the audacity to come to our leaders and
 17   our community behind closed door to offer a deal
 18   to us.  It is like that by getting us to be
 19   partners with them, it will wipe the slate clean
 20   for what they have done to us.  In addition, they
 21   offer us a deal where we have to borrow money from
 22   them, underwrite a portion of the dam cost, and
 23   give up control of our future to them.
 24               Why haven't they or why don't they
 25   come to our people with openness and honesty?
07492
  1   Instead, they come the way they came 30 years ago,
  2   through our leaders, with their divide and conquer
  3   tactics.
  4               It is indeed sad and pathetic that our
  5   own Chief and Council are having to help Manitoba
  6   Hydro use our own people against one another to
  7   destroy our land and get what they want, cheap
  8   power and money.
  9               They throw taxpayers and ratepayers'
 10   money around like it was nothing.  They pat
 11   certain members of our community on the back, give
 12   them high paying jobs and titles with seemingly
 13   unlimited expense accounts paid by the taxpayers.
 14   One wonders what the rewards will be to these
 15   selected few if they deliver a positive vote on
 16   Wuskwatim and our future to Manitoba Hydro.  Is
 17   this what Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro
 18   Tim Sale meant when at the University of Winnipeg
 19   forum on February 23rd, 2004, he said he was proud
 20   that Wuskwatim was ushering a new way developing
 21   hydro dams with the participation of First Nations
 22   people.
 23               Starting with Wuskwatim, the
 24   Government of Manitoba has the opportunity to set
 25   a new high standard of ethical conduct and I
07493
  1   encourage the CEC to strongly recommend this to
  2   the Government.  This will mean public disclosure
  3   of all funding arrangements, expenditures, and
  4   costs funded by Manitoba Hydro to Nelson House,
  5   NCN Chief and Council, NCN Future Development
  6   portfolio and consultants and legal counsel
  7   related to the Wuskwatim projects.
  8               Especially distressing is how our
  9   Chief and Council are attempting to use our youth
 10   to help sell Wuskwatim to the public.
 11   Unfortunately, our youth have not had the
 12   experience of growing up on our land and water
 13   prior to it being destroyed by Manitoba Hydro.
 14   All they know is environmental and socioeconomic
 15   devastation that we are left with and have to live
 16   with.  We must never forget that we must pass
 17   along the widsom and teaching of our elders and
 18   the traditions and our way of life that make us
 19   Cree.  For this to happen, we must sell out to
 20   Manitoba Hydro what little we have left of our
 21   land and water.
 22               It has been made clear to me that
 23   Nelson House youth that made presentation at these
 24   hearings, primarily the children of NCN
 25   Councillors and Future Development consultants did
07494
  1   not present the feeling or position of our youth.
  2   They were only speaking on behalf of themselves.
  3   They are wined and dined and paid and are used to
  4   promote the project, like at these hearings.
  5   Manitoba Hydro and NCN Chief and Council are
  6   luring our youth with promises of training and
  7   good careers, when no jobs are guaranteed and most
  8   of them will be short-term construction jobs.
  9               The ATEC Training Centre is not even
 10   up in our community and how can they expect to
 11   start training construction when construction is
 12   to start in November of this year, just four
 13   months away.  The good jobs will require at least
 14   four to five years experience and will be
 15   controlled by the unions, as we are told by
 16   Manitoba Hydro at these hearings.  I fear that our
 17   youth will face the same disappointments and
 18   heartbreak that our youth of 30 years ago
 19   experienced.  I fear for our community when this
 20   happens.
 21               During cross-examination on the
 22   Wuskwatim Environmental Impact Statements, EIS, on
 23   May 25th, 2004, Elder Reverend Nelson Hart, Nelson
 24   House Traditional Chief Joshua Flett and Frank
 25   Moore asked Elvis Thomas how he and Manitoba Hydro
07495
  1   can say that the Wuskwatim EIS incorporated our
  2   traditional knowledge, when at the last meeting
  3   held at Nelson House all the elders strongly
  4   voiced their opposition to Wuskwatim.  They are
  5   still waiting for an answer.
  6               It was also raised as to why Nelson
  7   House band members had to read in the Winnipeg
  8   Free Press about the discovery of the 6500 year
  9   old human remains at Wuskwatim Lake?  How many
 10   other undiscovered findings and remains will there
 11   be in what may be sacred burial sites of our
 12   ancestors?  Will we only find out when the remains
 13   float to the surface or are exposed with the
 14   flooding of Wuskwatim Lake?  This area should be
 15   considered for designation as a historical burial
 16   site of our people and no flooding or hydro dam
 17   development should be allowed.  What else is being
 18   kept from us?
 19               As I stated in my presentation to the
 20   Commission on March 17th, 2004, many in our
 21   community want to speak out, but keep silent in
 22   fear of personal reprisals from our Chief and
 23   Council.  For example, our Chief and Council are
 24   taking vindictive action against Reverend Nelson
 25   Hart for participating in these hearings.  They
07496
  1   have taken formal action to try and have him
  2   removed as a Reverend in our community.  Where is
  3   our freedom of speech?
  4               This is an example of what will happen
  5   leading up to the Wuskwatim project development
  6   agreement vote.  The misinformation had already
  7   started as our Chief and Council tried to
  8   intimidate Nelson House band members to support
  9   Wuskwatim.
 10               These are only a few of many examples
 11   of how our elders and traditions have been
 12   disrespected, and in my view, violated during this
 13   whole process.  Who is protecting our Treaty
 14   rights and Aboriginal rights?  Even the guidebook
 15   to the Wuskwatim Summary of Understanding states
 16   that it would be hard to claim that the Treaty and
 17   Aboriginal rights of Nelson House members are
 18   being violated or infringed upon if our band is a
 19   partner or co-proponent in the project.  Who will
 20   be protecting our environment, what is left of
 21   that is liveable if any future profits or
 22   prosperity we have is tied to us destroying it?
 23   Already our community is being neglected and
 24   conditions worsen as our Chief and Council only
 25   focus on selling Wuskwatim as a saviour for all
07497
  1   our problems.
  2               There is much confusion, fear and
  3   distress in our community from the Wuskwatim
  4   projects which I fear will tear our community
  5   apart.  The majority have no understanding of the
  6   potential impacts of the project.  We fear where
  7   the money will come from to pay for our proposed
  8   33 percent equity position.  Will it come from our
  9   Health, Social Welfare and Education budget, which
 10   we have already indicated that it will be.  What
 11   type of arrangements are we asked to endorse?  A
 12   partnership, as we are being told by our Chief and
 13   Council, or only being allowed to be an investor?
 14               According to Mr. Ken Adams,
 15   vice-president of Manitoba Hydro, at the hearings
 16   in Thompson, it is the letter recorded on page
 17   3044 and 3045 in the transcripts.  Mr. Adams said,
 18               "I would like to clarify that we are
 19               not giving 33 and one-third percent to
 20               Nisichawayasihk.  We are giving NCN
 21               the opportunity to invest, to acquire
 22               the 33 percent and one third percent."
 23   If this is the case, then why do we have to enter
 24   into a limited partnership with Manitoba Hydro to
 25   enjoy any benefits?  Are we partners or not?  I
07498
  1   would like to Clean Environment Commission to have
  2   Manitoba Hydro clarify this for us.
  3               We have no faith, trust or confidence
  4   in our Chief and Council and legal counsel,
  5   Valerie Matthews Lemieux, to present our interest
  6   or to negotiate anything to do with Wuskwatim on
  7   our behalf.  We demand a truly independent
  8   qualified legal counsel to explain the Wuskwatim
  9   project development agreement to us and answer our
 10   questions.  We feel that they are all in conflict
 11   of positions as they advocate and push Wuskwatim
 12   on us.  Given the fiasco of our 2002 election for
 13   Chief and Council and the tainted, questionable
 14   and non-validated process followed or the
 15   Wuskwatim Agreement in Principle referendum, we
 16   have o faith in a fair and honest vote in the
 17   Wuskwatim Project Development Agreement, the PDA.
 18               If a secret ballot is held with no
 19   independent and qualified third party overseeing
 20   all aspects of the vote, even during these
 21   hearings, two different Wuskwatim Project
 22   Development Agreement votes results, both
 23   non-authorized, were tabled by Ms. Matthews
 24   Lemieux on behalf of Chief and Council.  We would
 25   like to see Elections Manitoba or another
07499
  1   independent respected body conduct the vote.
  2               Both our 2002 election for Chief and
  3   Council, where our traditional election code was
  4   broken and repeatedly, and the Wuskwatim Project
  5   Development Agreement vote provided ample evidence
  6   that our Chief and Council will break any rules or
  7   change the rules to get what they want.
  8   Therefore, we strongly feel that an independent
  9   body like Elections Manitoba must oversee all
 10   aspects of the referendum vote.
 11               Any referendum vote must only be held
 12   after all aspects of the Wuskwatim Project
 13   Development Agreement are carefully explained to
 14   all Nelson House Band members and a sufficient
 15   amount of time is given for the people to
 16   comprehend what is involved.  Enough time must be
 17   provided for a reasoned non-pressured decision.  A
 18   time period of two years seems reasonable for this
 19   from the time the Wuskwatim Project Development
 20   Agreement is distributed to Nelson House Band
 21   members.
 22               Before I finish, I would like to share
 23   comments with you made by our past leaders which
 24   reflect the position of Justice Seekers and the
 25   traditional elders of Nelson House on Wuskwatim
07500
  1   and further Hydro development.  I often refer to
  2   these remarks to provide me with inspiration and
  3   pride.  They also serve as a reminder that not too
  4   long ago our leaders had pride and dignity and
  5   respect for their people and had not been enticed
  6   by greed and the false promises of prosperity from
  7   Manitoba Hydro.  The first comments were made in
  8   1992 by Darcy Linklater, current Councillor of
  9   NCN, in a letter to Manitoba Hydro and he said:
 10               "Before there are any further
 11               projects, we ask that all three
 12               parties involved fulfil their
 13               obligations and to secure a guarantee
 14               that no Cree land be further damaged
 15               until land agreements have been
 16               fulfilled by all parties.  Does
 17               Manitoba Hydro really need the extra
 18               power that they are producing?  There
 19               are plans to export electricity to
 20               Ontario and United States at the cost
 21               of our lives.  The environment, which
 22               is borrowed from our children, should
 23               not be continuously destroyed.  Our
 24               people will continue to raise their
 25               voices, but we know that the
07501
  1               exploiters will refuse to hear in
  2               their rush for the wealth and power of
  3               water."
  4               Our past Chief, Norman Linklater,
  5   currently NCN co-manager of Future Development
  6   stated the following to the people of Nelson
  7   House:
  8               "Dams reverse the natural order of
  9               God.  Manitoba Hydro is yet again in
 10               the process of unleashing the great
 11               wind of genocide upon my people.
 12               Hydro dams are moments to greed.  The
 13               construction of yet another dam is
 14               like a dark veil descending upon the
 15               lives and future of my children.  When
 16               you dam and quiet the voice of yet
 17               another river system, you have
 18               pronounced the death sentence upon
 19               thousands of people.  When you
 20               transfer, move, rearrange and change
 21               the face of shorelines and the
 22               delicate balance of ecosystems, you
 23               are playing God and yet you're not
 24               God."
 25               I would like to conclude my statement
07502
  1   with what was told me by one of our elders who has
  2   attended these hearings and asked me to share it
  3   with you in her own words:
  4               "I pray every day for our community
  5               and our children that this dam does
  6               not go through.  I had a vision of our
  7               land and that our children will suffer
  8               greatly and that we will not have
  9               anything to call our home because it
 10               will all be destroyed by Hydro.  I
 11               have a lot of fear of what is coming
 12               to our people."
 13   This is from one of the elders that has been
 14   participating here in these hearings.
 15               I would also like to acknowledge our
 16   elders, all elders that have participated in these
 17   hearings, for their support, wisdom, and strength
 18   and courage that they have given us to be able to
 19   be here and to speak on their behalf and other
 20   members of our community.  I want to thank them
 21   for their leadership and vision for our community,
 22   because it has been an inspiration to all of us.
 23   I just want to say thank you all for coming out
 24   and supporting both sides.
 25               I know it has been very difficult for
07503
  1   everyone, very emotional and we have been doing a
  2   lot of travelling from all over and I just want to
  3   say thank you to all who have participated and I
  4   really thank the people that have come out and
  5   spoken on behalf of their communities and for
  6   their people, and to tell Manitoba Hydro how they
  7   feel, what has been impacted on us.
  8               I just want to say, my mother is here.
  9   She has been coming to the hearings.  There was a
 10   remark made to her just recently that -- it was
 11   meant as a joke, but to me it is not a joke.  She
 12   was told to write a letter to Manitoba Hydro to
 13   compensate her for the stress and sleepless nights
 14   that she had to go through watching her two
 15   children having to battle up here.  But, I will
 16   tell you one thing, Manitoba Hydro, water may be
 17   powerful, but blood is thicker and I still love my
 18   brother.  No matter what we go through here, I
 19   still love him.  Thank you.
 20               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 21               MR. TRONIAK:  I know our time is up,
 22   but there was a little delay --
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  I have taken that into
 24   consideration.
 25               MR. TRONIAK:  All right.  I have about
07504
  1   a minute left.  I will take you at your word.
  2               THE CHAIRMAN:  I will give you the
  3   minute.
  4               MR. TRONIAK:  I think Reverend Hart
  5   has something to say just briefly.
  6               MR. HART:  I have been participating
  7   in these hearings as a member of Nelson House,
  8   also as a parent.  I took into consideration what
  9   happened 30 years ago.  These things that happened
 10   30 years ago, we are the ones that had to carry on
 11   with these negotiations and these deals.  This is
 12   what our elders told us.  But sometimes we only
 13   listen with one ear what our elders tell us, and
 14   we don't intend to listen in good faith to what
 15   our elders teach us and tell us what is happening.
 16   Because sometimes in this world, in modern
 17   society, the cell phone is the worst thing that I
 18   hate.  It is a good invention, but it interrupts
 19   people when they want to talk or listen to
 20   somebody speak.  Technology is good, but sometimes
 21   it interferes with what people have to say and
 22   what state of mind they have.
 23               But, I would like to thank you for
 24   listening to us voicing our concerns.  In my
 25   prayer, I pray for all of us, our friends and our
07505
  1   enemies.
  2               Another thing I would like to comment.
  3   I know that the English language is the dominant
  4   language in any meeting that we have, but when I
  5   talk to my Creator, I like to talk to him in my
  6   own language.
  7               So, I was -- I almost didn't continue
  8   my prayer, but for the benefit of what I have
  9   learned and what I was taught, I just will
 10   continue what I was saying earlier in my prayer.
 11               That's another lesson you have to
 12   learn from us, never interrupt a person when he is
 13   giving thanks and praying for you.  Thank you.
 14               THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Just for
 15   the clarity of the record, Mr. Anderson, you have
 16   indicated that you never got a reply, but I have a
 17   copy of the letter we sent you dated January 8th,
 18   in response to both your letters of December 17th
 19   and 19th, in which the last paragraph I also
 20   indicated that all of the questions that you had
 21   supplied, even though they were way past the
 22   deadline for the interrogatories, we were
 23   distributing them:
 24               "Your questions will be distributed to
 25               all participant groups, including the
07506
  1               proponents and project administration
  2               team.  Distribution will allow for all
  3               participants to familiarize themselves
  4               with these issues that your
  5               organization might choose to raise
  6               during the hearing."
  7               So, we did.
  8               MR. ANDERSON:  Could I get a copy of
  9   that?
 10               THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, we can give you a
 11   copy.  That was sent on January 18th.  It was sent
 12   to Vern Anderson, vice-president Association of
 13   Displaced Residents of South Indian Lake, care of
 14   Mr. Troniak, Dennis Troniak.
 15               Thank you, ladies and gentlemen --
 16   "lady" and gentlemen.  This completes the
 17   presentation of your closing statements.
 18               MR. TRONIAK:  Thank you.
 19               THE CHAIRMAN:  This for all of us
 20   completes the business of today and we can meet
 21   again at 9:00 o'clock tomorrow morning.
 22               MR. GREWAR:  Mr. Chairman --
 23               THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Grewar?
 24               MR. GREWAR:  Sorry, if we could pause
 25   for one moment.  The schedule actually has the
07507
  1   first closing statement tomorrow beginning at
  2   10:00 a.m.  I am just wondering if the Chairman
  3   would prefer to meet at 10:00 as opposed to 9:00,
  4   as there is no business to attend to?
  5               THE CHAIRMAN:  Who would I be to
  6   contradict such a wise observation?  We will
  7   convene at 10:00.
  8               MR. GREWAR:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  9   
 10               (ADJOURNED AT 4:15 P.M.)
 11   
 12   
 13   
 14   
 15   
 16   
 17   
 18   
 19   
 20   
 21   
 22   
 23   
 24