02700 1 2 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION 3 4 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT 5 Volume 11 6 7 Including List of Participants 8 9 10 11 Hearing 12 13 Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Project 14 15 Presiding: 16 Gerard Lecuyer, Chair 17 Kathi Kinew 18 Harvey Nepinak 19 Robert Mayer 20 Terry Sargeant 21 22 Friday, March 19, 2004 23 Radisson Hotel 24 288 Portage Avenue 25 Winnipeg, Manitoba 02701 1 2 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 3 4 Clean Environment Commission: 5 Gerard Lecuyer Chairman 6 Terry Sargeant Member 7 Harvey Nepinak Member 8 Kathi Avery Kinew Member 9 Doug Abra Counsel to Commission 10 Rory Grewar Staff 11 CEC Advisors: 12 Mel Falk 13 Dave Farlinger 14 Jack Scriven 15 Jim Sandison 16 Jean McClellan 17 Brent McLean 18 Kyla Gibson 19 20 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation: 21 Chief Jerry Primrose 22 Elvis Thomas 23 Campbell MacInnes 24 Valerie Matthews Lemieux 25 02702 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 2 3 Manitoba Conservation: 4 Larry Strachan 5 6 Manitoba Hydro/NCN: 7 Doug Bedford, Counsel 8 Bob Adkins, Counsel 9 Marvin Shaffer 10 Ed Wojczynski 11 Ken Adams 12 Carolyn Wray 13 Ron Mazur 14 Lloyd Kuczek 15 Cam Osler 16 Stuart Davies 17 David Hicks 18 George Rempel 19 David Cormie 20 Alex Fleming 21 Marvin Shaffer 22 Blair McMahon 23 24 25 02703 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 2 3 Community Association of South Indian Lake: 4 Leslie Dysart 5 Merrell-Ann Phare 6 7 CAC/MSOS: 8 Byron Williams 9 10 Canadian Nature Federation/Manitoba Wildlands: 11 Eamon Murphy 12 Gaile Whelan Enns 13 Brian Hart 14 15 Time to Respect Earth's Ecosystems/Resource Conservation Man: 16 Peter Miller 17 Ralph Torrie 18 19 Trapline 18: 20 Greg McIvor 21 22 Displaced Residents of South Indian Lake: 23 Dennis Troniak 24 Joshua Flett 25 Frank Moore 02704 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 2 3 Justice Seekers of Nelson House: 4 Carol Kobliski 5 Kate Kempton 6 7 Environment Approvals (Manitoba Justice): 8 Stu Pierce 9 10 Presenters: 11 Billy Moore - Private 12 Bill Turner - MIPUG 13 Caroline Bruyere - Private 14 Grand Chief Margaret Swan - Southern Chiefs 15 Gordon Wapaskokimaw 16 Jim Nichols - Private 17 Erin Bayne - Private 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02705 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 3 Number Page 4 5 6 MH/NCN-1021: Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, 7 Guide Book to the Agreement 8 in Principle, Winter 2001 2803 9 MH/NCN-1022: Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation 10 Overview Agreement In Principle, 11 Winter 2001 2803 12 MH/NCN-1023: Community profile CD, 13 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation 2804 14 TREE/RCM-1002: Interrogatory responses 15 to Canadian Nature Federation, 16 TREE/RCM, NFAAT 1-5 2804 17 CNF-1012: Interrogatory 18 responses from Manitoba Wildlands 19 Canadian Nature Federation to 20 TREE/RCM 2893 21 MH/NCN-1024: Answer to undertaking 35, 22 36, 37 requested by CNF re 23 wind sensitivity analysis 2899 24 25 02706 1 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS 2 3 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE 4 MH-45: Advise of the compensation 5 savings, what effect would that have of the $35.6 6 million difference 2788 7 MH-46: Advise of the expected value of 8 delivered power, what the $311,000 per year 9 line loss comes out of, what's the total amount? 10 How does that increase in loss compare to the 11 total value of power if you use the same 12 multiplier 2789 13 MH-47: Advise of the difference in the 14 value of the power per year to be produced by 15 Wuskwatim as proposed between that amount and the 16 amount you would have expected to receive from a 17 high-head design 2791 18 MH-48: Advise if flushing rate is 19 faster than the rate in lake prior to CRD 2834 20 MH-49: Provide explanation 21 why predictions re average flow on Missi Falls is 22 less than historical monthly discharge 2848 23 24 25 02707 1 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS 2 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE 3 4 MH-50: Advise re discrepancy in 5 flow re condition 23 of licence on flows to 6 continue at Missi Falls)high-head design 2851 7 MH-51: Advise re Hydro receiving 8 letter from MMF re consultation on Wuskwatim 2887 9 MH-52: Produce larger map of location 10 of the switching station within the 11 footprint ofthe generating station 2892 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02708 1 FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 2004 2 Upon commencing at 10:06 a.m. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning, ladies and 5 gentlemen. We are ready to roll. Mr. Abra is going 6 to continue where he left off yesterday. 7 MR. ABRA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of 8 the Panel, there are a couple of questions that I'd 9 like to ask following up from yesterday, certain 10 areas that I want to get into briefly. 11 I'd like to go back to mitigation which I 12 recognize that we discussed at some length yesterday 13 and so on. But in the course of your EIS filings on 14 the issue of mitigation, you have used the expression 15 accepted standard professional standards and methods 16 and standard construction practices in particular 17 with respect to mitigation and where there's been 18 issues related to certain VECs that may be affected 19 by the construction of both the transmission lines 20 and the generation project. There have been 21 references to things that might have to be mitigated 22 and you said that you intend to mitigate them by 23 standard construction practices. What does that term 24 mean? 25 MR. REMPEL: I can make some comments on the 02709 1 generation side and Mr. Hicks will add some examples 2 on the transmission project. But on the generation 3 side, some of the standard construction practices 4 would be to have settling ponds for drainage from 5 some of the quarry areas, some of the working areas 6 of the contractor to settle out some of the sediment 7 before it was released to the streams. It's a 8 standard practice such as having a vegetation buffer 9 zone around the streams. It's adding crushed 10 limestone to some of the areas where there is a 11 crushing operation where there might be the potential 12 for acidic leachates from the rock. 13 There's all kinds of standard practices with 14 respect to trying to minimize erosion. There's 15 standard practices to make sure that there isn't a 16 release of oil spills from say the equipment that the 17 contractor uses. There is measures such as dust 18 suppression on the road if there is a dust issue. 19 There's a host of those kinds of measures. 20 I think we actually did describe a lot of them 21 in Volume 3, the project description on the 22 generation side. And I believe the same thing 23 happened with respect to transmission line that there 24 was a listing of the kind of standard practices. 25 As we submitted to EIS, there were additional 02710 1 measures that may be over and above the normal that 2 were considered in terms of showing every effort to 3 minimize sediment releases in the stream. These 4 included changes to the coffer-dam alignments that 5 were talked about yesterday. Some additional 6 measures that I also indicated changing the 7 orientation of the spillway tail race entrance. So 8 those are some of the measures that were done. 9 While Mr. Hicks responds, I will try to find 10 the listing in the generation station where perhaps 11 there was an even greater more comprehensive list. 12 MR. DAVIES: I can add a few additional ones. 13 Manitoba Hydro and NCN will adhere to the Manitoba 14 stream crossing guidelines. There's also blasting 15 guidelines that will be adhered to. Sewage treatment 16 will be conducted as per guidelines. And there's 17 also practices in regards to refuelling and 18 maintenance of equipment not occurring near water 19 bodies. 20 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chairman, in the case of the 21 transmission project, the design protocols, 22 construction standards, construction practices are 23 itemized in Section 3.7 of Volume 1 of the 24 transmission EIS. In respect of the construction 25 standards, these are essentially Manitoba Hydro 02711 1 standards. They have been arrived at and are in fact 2 a work-in-progress. They were adjusted on the basis 3 of experience with each new and additional project. 4 They reflect industry standards in some cases. They 5 reflect CSA standards in some cases. More 6 frequently, they are adjusted in response to comments 7 that we may receive in the field from people like the 8 natural resources officers who act for Manitoba 9 Conservation. 10 So it's constantly being upgraded and adjusted 11 to reflect concerns or issues that are identified in 12 the course of actual construction or standards that 13 are identified in the industry or by some of the 14 watchdogs of the industry. 15 MR. ABRA: When you use the term in your EIS 16 filings as well, such as standard environmental 17 protocol practices or accepted standard professional 18 standards and methods, are those used interchangeably 19 as well for the same purposes and the same idea that 20 related to the phrase standard construction 21 practices? Do you effectively mean the same thing? 22 MR. HICKS: Perhaps I can respond again in the 23 case of our expectations. And I think we are in the 24 case of transmission because the projects are so much 25 more frequent that the list of standards is rather 02712 1 longer and more regularly attended to because of the 2 frequency of transmission projects. 3 And I'm sorry, I've lost my train of thought. 4 The connection between environmental practice 5 and construction practice, right. The notion is that 6 we assume that the standard practices will be adhered 7 to and complied with by the contractor. And on that 8 basis, we would say that when we refer to a standard 9 level of environmental protection or a standard level 10 of assessment, it would be in that context. 11 Now we also of course look to the people 12 responsible for construction of the lines to assure 13 us that compliance is in fact achieved and we do do 14 compliance monitoring. 15 MR. ABRA: After the construction? 16 MR. HICKS: Yeah. Unfortunately, it can only 17 be done after the construction. 18 MR. ABRA: No, I understand. 19 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Abra, when you mentioned 20 professional standards, I was hesitant to answer that 21 they were the same thing or interchangeable as you 22 indicated. The standard construction methods are 23 really not a professional standard but certainly the 24 taking of measurements, for example, the sampling, 25 that those are all done under professional standards. 02713 1 MR. ABRA: Okay. So basically what you are 2 meaning by that then or recognized either 3 construction practices or professional standards 4 related to either construction or preparation or 5 monitoring and so on; am I correct in that? 6 MR. REMPEL: Well, many of the standards are 7 actually not professional standards. 8 MR. ABRA: Yes? 9 MR. REMPEL: They are standards that relate to 10 conforming to regulations. For example, there are 11 regulations that require you to report any spill 12 greater than "X" milliliters or litres of oil. Those 13 are all regulatory standards and the contractors 14 oblige to -- 15 MR. ABRA: Well, they are also the law. 16 MR. REMPEL: Yes, they are. 17 MR. ABRA: I take the word "standards" to mean 18 more than that -- not more than that, but to be 19 different from what regulations may provide or what 20 by-laws may provide or what statutes may provide. 21 MR. REMPEL: Yes. Well there are standards. 22 In many cases, they are, as Mr. Hicks indicated, 23 standards of the industry. I guess professional 24 standards I see is a bit different but we adhere to 25 professional standards in terms of where they apply 02714 1 such as monitoring and the techniques you use to 2 gather samples, do the analysis, et cetera. 3 MR. ABRA: Yesterday, you told us that with 4 respect to the mitigation measures that effectively 5 you were satisfied that you thought that you could 6 eliminate, reduce or control the adverse effects. 7 And as you said, effectively make them insignificant 8 with respect to most of the VECs that you have 9 identified. 10 I am informed that the usual practice amongst 11 professionals, such as you people, that you actually 12 put a percentage of confidence or what your 13 confidence levels are with respect to how successful 14 you will be in your mitigation. Now I recognize that 15 it applies differently for different VECs and I don't 16 want you to go through all of them, but can you give 17 us some idea as to what percentage of confidence you 18 have in the mitigation of the adverse environmental 19 effects that you've identified? 20 MR. REMPEL: It's very difficult to put a per 21 cent confidence. Firstly, you can't do it in 22 general. It's even very difficult to do it by 23 particular environmental component. But we can give 24 you some indication by issue, if you like, in terms 25 of our level of confidence. For example, on erosion, 02715 1 we have a very high level of confidence and it's 2 based on a number of factors. For one thing, there 3 is quite a good database to draw from. 4 On Wuskwatim Lake, for example, there's 10 to 5 12 years of erosion monitoring data at I believe it's 6 15 sites. At each of these sites, which some are on 7 high energy exposure, some on low energy exposure to 8 wave action, some are different types of shore lines, 9 each of these sites had three transects. So it's 10 essentially 45 different sites. So there was a fair 11 bit of data to draw on. 12 We also have very experienced professionals 13 looking at this who have experience in the north and 14 particularly Northern Manitoba and on this lake, on 15 this CRD system. And that includes Hydro engineers. 16 It includes Cam MacInnes, the technical expert for 17 NCN. It includes myself and a person, an engineer 18 working for me at the time. It also includes very 19 experienced outside consultants such as Mollard & 20 Associates who essentially specialize in erosional 21 processes. 22 So we have a very experienced collective group 23 of judgments to bring to bear. We also have good 24 weather data, wind data to draw on. We have 25 classified the shorelines based on good 02716 1 aerophotography, low level helicopter video. We've 2 had boat inspection. And we're fortunate enough to 3 have the year 2000 high water levels such that 4 Forebay elevation was actually at 234 which is the 5 actual Forebay elevation that will be held pretty 6 constant at that level once the project is in 7 operation. 8 So we're able to see firsthand the contact of 9 the shore line with -- or the water with the shore 10 line and check out where the bedrock exposure or 11 contact was with respect to potential erosion. So we 12 have good data, good experience to draw on. 13 And we have a very important advantage in that 14 the Forebay elevation that has been projected for 15 this proposal will be within the range of Forebay 16 levels that have -- or lake levels that have existed 17 periodically in the last dozen years or so. In other 18 words, we are not projecting a water level where we 19 have to extrapolate what experience might be with 20 respect to erosion. We have had water levels at that 21 level. We have observed it. So our level of 22 confidence in erosion predictions on average are very 23 high. 24 We can't be specific in terms of a particular 25 shore line location that the erosion rates will be 02717 1 precisely or even within 10 per cent, for example, of 2 our particular projection but we can have, on 3 average, a pretty good degree of confidence that we 4 have assessed the shore line erosion very well. 5 MR. ABRA: Well, what's a pretty good level of 6 confidence? 7 MR. REMPEL: I can't give you a percentage. 8 MR. ABRA: Can you give us a range? 9 MR. REMPEL: Well, what we did in terms of 10 checking this out is we looked at the habitat, the 11 shore line area that might be lost and took a 50 per 12 cent variance in terms of any particular area on the 13 shore line. Like, for example, if there was an area 14 that might be valuable for a shore line mammal, what 15 we did is said we will assume plus 50 per cent over 16 the average as a loss of habitat. It could be plus 17 or minus 50 per cent but that's based on the data, a 18 very conservative estimate of loss. So we took that 19 into account when the biologists were assessing loss 20 of habitat. 21 When we looked at the fate of the eroded 22 sediment, we took an estimate of what we thought 23 would happen. Then we actually adjusted that rate by 24 25 per cent and checked the sensitivity in terms of 25 what that would do with sediment in the water column. 02718 1 So we checked the sensitivity in various ways but I 2 can't give you a per cent confidence in total. What 3 I can give you is the reasons why we are very 4 confident that, on average, we are correct how we 5 took an account, potentials for underestimate of the 6 effect but we believe actually that we have been more 7 than generous in some of those sensitivity 8 allowances. 9 MR. ABRA: That you've been conservative in 10 your estimates? 11 MR. REMPEL: Yes, very conservative. 12 MR. ABRA: But you don't feel you can give us 13 a percentage with respect, for example, to the 14 erosion which you've spent some time on? 15 MR. DAVIES: I think it's more common rather 16 than to provide a per cent to indicate your degree of 17 certainty in terms of we have a low -- 18 MR. ABRA: High, moderate, low? 19 MR. DAVIES: High, moderate and low, yes. 20 MR. ABRA: Okay. 21 MR. DAVIES: And where there is a high degree 22 of uncertainty, there's normally two things that 23 occur. One, monitoring is added to make sure that 24 you can increase the certainty and react if in fact 25 the effect does occur. And in a lot of cases, we 02719 1 also use the precautionary principle where we looked 2 at a worst case scenario or, for example, a turbine 3 mortality we're stating a 10 to 20 per cent mortality 4 rate when we actually expect that it will be 5 substantially lower than that. The 10 to 20 per cent 6 is based on Francis turbines which have a much higher 7 mortality than fixed blade turbines. 8 Again, we can increase the certainty by 9 looking at a worst case scenario and then we further 10 increase the certainty by adding a monitoring program 11 where that uncertainty does exist. 12 MR. SARGEANT: Mr. Remple, you said that you 13 have data going back I think you said 10 or 12 years 14 on lake levels and that you will be operating post 15 Wuskwatim with a lake level that's no higher than 16 historical. How much of the time over the past eight 17 or 10 or 12 years or so has the lake been at the 18 level that it will be post Wuskwatim? 19 MR. REMPEL: I don't have that answer offhand. 20 Give me a minute, please. The 234 Forebay elevation 21 has been exceeded about 15 per cent of the time post 22 CRD. 23 MR. SARGEANT: Fifteen? 24 MR. REMPEL: Fifteen. One-five. The range is 25 232.6 to 234.3. I believe the average has been 233.7 02720 1 but I'll check that -- 233.6. And 15 per cent of the 2 time it's been above 234.0. 3 MR. SARGEANT: And it will be more or less 4 always at 234 post Wuskwatim except for wind of 5 course? 6 MR. REMPEL: Except for wind. We project 7 that -- I believe it's 97 and a half per cent of the 8 time it will be within 233.75 and 234.0. 9 MR. SARGEANT: Thank you. 10 MR. ABRA: Mr. Hicks, did you have anything to 11 add with respect to the transmission lines as far as 12 the level of confidence is concerned and mitigation 13 is concerned? 14 MR. HICKS: Yes, I think I can. Two examples. 15 In the case, for example, of prediction of electric 16 and magnetic field effects, those rely on models that 17 are used industry wide and that have been calibrated 18 on the basis of actual field experience. They are 19 also being calibrated routinely in Manitoba in one or 20 two instances of which I am aware. Those predictions 21 are being tested through ongoing monitoring. 22 I cannot, off the top of my head, offer you a 23 confidence interval for that particular calculation 24 or prediction but I'm confident that I could if I 25 were to go back and consult with the engineers 02721 1 responsible for running the model. That's one 2 example where I think we are comfortable. 3 In other cases, for example, the sort of the 4 edge effect condition that we're concerned about with 5 the transmission lines and which was referenced by 6 Dr. Bayne yesterday and has been studied extensively 7 by our Dr. Ehnes, we use a slightly different 8 approach. We try to be more conservative in our 9 assumption. 10 Dr. Ehnes assumed that the zone of influence 11 within which there might be some significant edge 12 effect or potentially some substantive edge effect 13 would extend perhaps 150 metres either side of the 14 right of way. And we modelled that as the zone of 15 influence and he looked at that very carefully. He 16 also established some threshold values for what he 17 considered would be a significant or a potentially 18 significant effect within that area and he based his 19 findings of no significant adverse effect on the 20 assumption that that entire 150 metre band on either 21 side of the right-of-way would have no habitat left 22 in it. 23 In point of fact, he's gone out in subsequent 24 field research and will be continuing field research 25 in the years leading up to the ultimate construction 02722 1 of the lines. And he's now suggesting to me that the 2 150 metres in terms of a substantive alteration of 3 the vegetation is very conservative. He's now 4 comfortable that the number is more like 20 metres. 5 So there again, I can't give you a precise 6 calculation of the confidence interval but I can 7 assure you that the initial assumption was very 8 conservative and the subsequent field research has 9 confirmed that it's been very conservative. 10 MR. ABRA: Okay. 11 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Abra, I'm informed that when 12 I said the level had been above 234 about 15 per 13 cent, I'm advised that it's actually closer to 20 per 14 cent of the time. Post CRD, it has been above 234. 15 So it's closer to 20 rather than 15. Thank you. 16 MR. DAVIES: I have a correction also. I 17 think I had stated that the 10 to 20 per cent was 18 based on Francis turbines, it was actually based on 19 Francis and I believe Kaplan turbines. 20 MR. ABRA: I was going to ask whether it was 21 Kaplan because we were talking about Kaplan with the 22 NFAAT panel at some length and we will be getting 23 into it further but it is the Kaplan turbine you are 24 referring to? 25 MR. DAVIES: No. Actually the majority were 02723 1 Francis turbines but there were, I believe, some 2 Kaplan and other turbine types included in that, all 3 of which are expected to have higher mortality rates 4 than fixed blade turbines. 5 MR. ABRA: Okay. Because Mr. Wojczynski had 6 testified at the time of the NFAAT Panel that one of 7 the reasons that the Kaplan turbine was not chosen, 8 or at least the turbines that had been chosen was on 9 the basis of them being more fish friendly which we 10 will get to further. And you're saying the Francis 11 turbine is basically in the same category as the 12 Kaplan turbine as far as the issue of environmental 13 impact is concerned? 14 MR. DAVIES: Francis turbines would generally 15 be expected to have a greater amount of mortality on 16 fish rather than Kaplan. And Kaplan more mortality 17 than the fixed blade which are what Wuskwatim would 18 have. 19 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Abra, I'd like to add 20 something further with regard to confidence limits. 21 I guess in general, when you have a fixed location of 22 something like an access road, you can get very 23 specific about the assessments. 24 In the case of the generating station, a lot 25 of the assessments flow from the certainty in the 02724 1 water regime. And I would like to simply say that we 2 have a great deal of confidence in the projections of 3 the water regime both open water and winter. And I 4 just want to add, it might have been inferred 5 yesterday that these were strictly Manitoba Hydro 6 estimates but actually they begin with a consultant 7 hired by Acres independent of the EIS, Acres 8 Consultants. And they work with Hydro's engineers. 9 And there's a lot of data. The models are 10 calibrated. The models are familiar to people like 11 myself and Cam MacInnes, a technical advisor for NCN. 12 Both of us have had experience directly with the 13 models, some of the models at least that Acres and 14 Hydro use. There's extensive data to calibrate the 15 models. So the information produced from these 16 analyses have been vetted very carefully. There's -- 17 we do not just simply accept them. 18 I am a water resources engineer with about 40 19 years experience in water and hydraulics. Cam 20 MacInnes probably is younger than me and probably has 21 maybe 35 years. But Cam has been an advisor to other 22 parties on water regime in those same areas, other 23 parties and NCN. And he is advising NCN now. So our 24 confidence in both open water and winter is very 25 high. 02725 1 We also have had recently, and I think Valerie 2 Matthews Lemieux read this into the record, Manitoba 3 Hydro did fund outside this process for Duncan & 4 Associates to review the EIS. And in particular, the 5 question about the hydraulics of early morning 6 rapids. Did the water, does the back water extend 7 over the falls or upstream of the falls. And we met 8 with Duncan & Associates on I believe it was March 9 6th. Cam MacInnes and I were present. And we 10 reviewed their confidence in the analyses. So there 11 was another check. 12 We got an affirmation that they believe the 13 analysis is sound and that Early Morning Rapids is 14 the limit. As Cam MacInnes -- that is the limit of 15 upstream propagation. Cam also yesterday indicated 16 that in terms of confidence in changes downstream, we 17 take a lot of comfort from the fact that Manitoba 18 Hydro and NCN have said they will constrain their 19 operation such that Birchtree Lake will not vary more 20 than I believe it's .1 metres in the open water 21 season. So that's excluding wind and wave effects. 22 So there are constraints that give us a lot of 23 comfort that the water regime firstly would have a 24 lot of comfort and analysis but there's also 25 constraints in the operation that those analyses will 02726 1 in fact hold true as the project is operated. 2 MR. ABRA: Okay. That leads me into something 3 else that I very briefly wanted to ask you. 4 Yesterday, at the end of the day, as part of the 5 questions related to scoping and baseline and so on, 6 Mr. Davies gave a very thorough answer related to 7 mercury in particular and the steps that historical 8 data that you had that you were able to review to 9 give you to be able to scope and arrive at your 10 baseline with respect to mercury over I think you 11 said 30 years of data that was studied and that you 12 felt confident as a result in your projections 13 because of what you knew the experience had been over 14 the last 30 years. Now, I don't intend again to have 15 you go through each of the VECs but can you assure 16 the Commission that in essence, if data was 17 available, that the same process was followed with 18 respect to all of the VECs that you have identified 19 in the manner that Mr. Davies gave, as I say, a very 20 thorough and excellent answer yesterday on mercury. 21 I was going to say unfortunately it's just one VEC I 22 recognize. 23 MR. REMPEL: Well, I'll turn to Mr. Davies in 24 a moment, but since we were talking about erosion, 25 I'll just -- 02727 1 MR. ABRA: You just gave a very good 2 description, for example, on erosion, Mr. Rempel. 3 Obviously it's very helpful. It's that kind of a 4 thing, as we said yesterday, that we want to satisfy 5 ourselves that it's been done. 6 MR. REMPEL: Yes. I think in general, we'd 7 say yes, we looked at the entire database and 8 sometimes the database is sporadic. It's not -- for 9 example, there may be data in 75 and next set of data 10 it may be 78. So there are some holes in the data. 11 But yes, we did look at data post CRD even pre CRD 12 where it was available in general. 13 Mr. Davies has some other examples. Since I 14 already covered erosion, I'll turn to him for some 15 other examples. 16 MR. DAVIES: I just wanted to provide an 17 example of the level of detail that was used in 18 determining the effects on some of the VECs. When we 19 met with NCN members, they had identified the 20 floating peat islands in Wuskwatim Lake as an 21 important environmental component. 22 MR. ABRA: Is that peat did you say? 23 MR. DAVIES: Peat islands. When CRD occurred, 24 a lot of the peat along the shorelines broke off. 25 MR. ABRA: P-E-A-T? 02728 1 MR. DAVIES: P-E-A-T. 2 MR. ABRA: It was a little bit unclear to me. 3 I wasn't sure the reporter could get it. Thank you. 4 MR. DAVIES: They broke off on the shore. 5 They are floating around on the lake and they are 6 important for muskrat and a number of bird species. 7 And the NCN resource harvesters did identify that as 8 a concern particularly as how it could affect some of 9 the VECs, again, such as muskrats. 10 So to give the Commission a bit of an idea of 11 the level of detail that we went through not only for 12 the VECs but some of the components that will affect 13 them, we did take aerial photographs and count 8,714 14 peat islands on the lake. We then took and measured 15 every one of those islands in order to come up with a 16 total area of peat islands that could be affected by 17 the project. We then went back and looked at 18 historical data and counted all of the islands that 19 were in the lake five or 10 years before that time 20 period and then measured all of the islands that were 21 on the lake five or 10 years before to see the rate 22 of disintegration of those islands. 23 So even for a component that wasn't a VEC but 24 could affect a VEC, a very high degree of effort was 25 put on making sure we understood those. 02729 1 MR. ABRA: Okay. We have your assurance that 2 where necessary, or not even where necessary, but for 3 virtually all of the VECs that were identified, that 4 same kind of care, if I can use the expression, was 5 used in your research and in your studies and for the 6 purposes of your projections? 7 MR. DAVIES: I believe that -- 8 MR. ABRA: I think each of you have to answer 9 for your own area of expertise. I didn't mean to cut 10 you off, Mr. Davies, I'm sorry. 11 MR. DAVIES: I believe that in all of the 12 areas that we looked at, we did use that same level 13 of -- we collected the same level of data. It did 14 vary depending on the component. Some areas you 15 don't need to collect that but we have the same level 16 of comfort for all of the VECs that we looked at. 17 MR. ABRA: Mr. Osler, did you want to say 18 something? I'm sorry. 19 MR. OSLER: I was thinking you wanted us all 20 to affirm for the record that we took this type of 21 care. Yes. The standard -- I mean we are working 22 for two sets of clients. We would do this 23 professionally anyway. But I can assure you when 24 you're dealing with the people who are going to be 25 directly affected as one of your clients, the 02730 1 questioning and the extent of -- I'm at the end of 2 the food chain. I deal with the people effects. And 3 every single one of these other things concern 4 people, concern NCN members. And they want to know 5 that we've looked at all the information that's 6 available, all the information that they can provide. 7 That we've analyzed it this way and that way. And 8 that we've taken the level of care that you've seen 9 in one or two examples here wherever we can within 10 the scope of the studies we're doing. We don't do 11 this analysis outside the scope. 12 And there may be some debate from people about 13 why didn't you go and look at the same level of 14 detail that was something outside of what you called 15 your scope. That's a fair question. But within the 16 scope of studies that was as we described them, 17 that's the approach we've taken in the socioeconomic 18 area and as part of the management team as far as I'm 19 concerned in all of the areas. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you continuing with 21 questions on mercury? 22 MR. ABRA: No, I was just going to ask Mr. 23 Hicks to go on the record, Mr. Chair, with respect to 24 the VECs that were identified to the transmission 25 lines as far as the degree of care that was concerned 02731 1 and the scoping and so on. 2 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chair, again, I pointed out 3 yesterday that we did not explicitly identify VECs in 4 the transmission analysis although -- 5 MR. ABRA: You testified to that yesterday. 6 MR. HICKS: Yes. But to the extent that we 7 did look at a wide variety of what might be 8 considered VECs and other species in the case of 9 wildlife and all of the effects that might be 10 associated with the lines, yes, we canvassed all of 11 the available data. We buttressed that with review 12 of literature and with field research. 13 MR. ABRA: Are there any particular VECs that 14 you can recall that there was a limit in data or 15 there were limitations in the data that made it more 16 difficult for you to scope it and come up with your 17 baseline? 18 MR. OSLER: Let me give you one in the 19 socioeconomic area which is it wouldn't be an 20 environmental effect under the federal rules but we 21 certainly treat it as an effect of the project. 22 That's to do with in migration that could flow from 23 the project being developed to NCN. 24 The numbers that I reported on the other day 25 that we came up with from looking at interviews, 02732 1 opinion surveys and everything else was a very wide 2 range. I think 30 to 400, 35 to 400. So obviously 3 we don't have a lot of confidence that we know which 4 specific number might emerge. 5 Our approach in that instance is to work with 6 NCN on what you might call adaptive management or 7 monitoring or impact management, however your 8 terminology may be, or follow-up measures, but 9 obviously the First Nation has to work to try and 10 monitor this and deal with it. It has to get 11 information out to the people so that they don't move 12 back in ignorance of the housing issues that would 13 flow from it or the expectation that they have to 14 move back in order to get the jobs. There are other 15 opportunities for them that wouldn't necessarily get 16 into the situation. They also have to deal with it 17 on reserve with the issues of managing it. 18 So there is a highly uncertain ability to 19 predict as a professional but a deal which you work 20 with the people affected to try and help them develop 21 the methods of managing it. So that's a 22 socioeconomic area. It's outside these federal rules 23 for environmental effect. But it's a direct high 24 level importance to the people of NCN. 25 So I give you that as probably the best 02733 1 example I can think of in the socioeconomic area of 2 where we really don't know to come up with a precise 3 number or even it's a pretty wide range, 35 to 400, 4 but how do you deal with it? How do you help the 5 people deal with it and how do you make sure that 6 everybody is aware of it as professional? There are 7 probably lots of other areas. 8 MR. ABRA: Were there any other areas that 9 each of you had to deal with where you were concerned 10 about limitations as far as data was concerned? 11 MR. HICKS: We are always concerned about 12 limitations as far as data is concerned. But again, 13 our conclusions were on the basis that we're 14 comfortable that the data is adequate to support 15 them. 16 I'll give you an example. There is not an 17 enormous amount of data on individual animals or 18 animal populations. There is a pretty decent 19 database in respect to their habitat through the 20 forest resource inventory. So there is, to a degree, 21 habitat is used as a surrogate because there is 22 reasonable data available whereas there is not a 23 surplus of data on an individual animal or a species. 24 In those cases, though, then we went to 25 literature search. I should say that I was 02734 1 disappointed yesterday that Professor Bayne had not 2 reviewed some of the material here. He provided the 3 Commission after the fact with a copy of a paper 4 which had he read technical Volume 4, he would have 5 realized had been cited. And in fact, the 6 gentleman's work -- I'll get you the reference in a 7 moment here. This was Mr. Belanger's work in 1995 8 with respect to grouse on transmission corridors. 9 That particular paper was cited and in fact, 10 subsequent papers written by Mr. Belanger are cited 11 in the report. 12 So I'm comfortable that our literature 13 research was very substantial. There were in fact 14 over 400 papers and articles cited in technical 15 volume 4 which again unfortunately was not viewed by 16 Dr. Bayne. 17 MS. AVERY KINEW: Do you know if Dr. Bayne had 18 received it? 19 MR. HICKS: I can't explain why he wouldn't 20 have. 21 MS. AVERY KINEW: We heard testimony he didn't 22 MR. HICKS: And then finally, over and above 23 the habitat surrogate that we were able to find good 24 data on and use as a basis for making some evaluation 25 of potential wildlife effects plus the literature 02735 1 research of wildlife effects in similar conditions 2 and under similar pressures from transmission 3 corridors or other types of linear disturbance, we 4 then added extensive field research and we're 5 continuing to do field research in each and every 6 research season up until construction of the lines. 7 MR. ABRA: Sorry, Mr. Chair, you had a 8 question related to mercury you said? 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Just referring to Mr. 10 Osler first. I heard you in the initial presentation 11 the first day, or second, whatever, when you were 12 talking about that issue. You made a comparison, you 13 said that a meal of fish, for instance, the amount of 14 mercury in a meal of fish would be the equivalent of 15 washing it down with 100,000 gallons of water? I 16 don't know who it was. Maybe it was you. Is that 17 correct what you said? 18 MR. DAVIES: Yes, it is. The amount of 19 mercury that is in water is very very low. It wasn't 20 until the late 1980s I believe, somewhere in that 21 time period, that you could actually measure the 22 amount of mercury in water. And it was first 23 measured by the people that I believe -- it was first 24 measured in this area by the people that were 25 studying the South Indian Lake and Churchill River 02736 1 Diversion through the federal and ecological 2 monitoring programs. And the information that was 3 generated from that was cited in the 1992 summary 4 report by the Federal Ecological Monitoring Program. 5 And I believe that the levels that were recorded at 6 that time were approximately one-thousandths of the 7 guidelines for drinking water. So they were very 8 very low. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: In the water? 10 MR. DAVIES: In water. They are often as low 11 as .0001 I believe or .0001 parts per billion in 12 water. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: How does the mercury get into 14 the fish? 15 MR. DAVIES: Mercury is bioaccumulated in 16 fish. When flooding occurs, two things happen. 17 There's a small amount of methyl mercury in soil 18 that's automatically released into the water but the 19 majority of mercury comes from conversion of 20 inorganic mercury or organic mercury or methyl 21 mercury and that happens through bacterial action 22 working on organic matter that's flooded. That 23 methyl mercury is taken up by the organisms in the 24 water. The benthic invertebrates that live on the 25 bottom will take up mercury. The smaller fish that 02737 1 eat the benthic invertebrates will have a higher 2 level of mercury than the benthic invertebrates or 3 the bugs that live on the bottom. 4 The smaller fish will have a higher level of 5 mercury until you reach a very large northern pike or 6 jackfish which will have very very high levels of, 7 you know, .5 or .6 parts per million. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: So the beginning of the chain 9 goes from the methyl mercury in the eroded soil which 10 the biota feed on and the smaller fish feed on that 11 and all the way up to the larger fish which feed on 12 the smaller fish and accumulate. Because in reading 13 in that EIS in regards to mercury, it states that 14 much of the fish is above the commercial level for 15 fish in terms of mercury. Like the limit is set at 16 .2 micrograms per gram. And you describe quite a few 17 of the fish in the chart that states that whitefish, 18 for instance, northern pike, walleye all have above 19 that limit. 20 And you have a chart which shows the years in 21 which monitoring was done. And you indicate, for 22 instance, that we can readily see that starting with 23 the CRD or the period starting after CRD, the mercury 24 level increases substantially and above that limit 25 especially, and way above that limit, especially for 02738 1 pike and walleye. And of course, you also indicate 2 that it will increase again. 3 First of all, why don't you show any results 4 after or was there no monitoring done after 2000? I 5 shouldn't say that because it does show going a 6 little bit beyond 2000 but that's the last year 7 that's shown here, 2000. I guess perhaps because it 8 was sort of at a stable level at that point. But you 9 recognize that it's going to increase substantially 10 with the additional flooding even though this is a 11 small area. Especially in the Forebay, there will be 12 substantial flooding. 13 You indicated that a 70 kilogram person/man 14 can safely eat one meal of whitefish but I don't know 15 what or you have no idea what effect that would have 16 on a child, for instance, half that weight. Would 17 you still say the same thing? 18 MR. DAVIES: I guess there's a number of 19 points. I guess, first of all, whitefish which is 20 one of the preferred fish species for domestic 21 consumption is at .1. So it is below the .2 parts 22 per billion and would be below the .2 parts per 23 million under the most likely scenario for mercury 24 increases and under the worse case scenario for 25 mercury increases. 02739 1 THE CHAIRMAN: You indicate that it may reach, 2 it may reach -- I'm sorry, that was in walleye. It 3 will be slightly above the .1? 4 MR. DAVIES: It will be, under worst case 5 scenario, about 1.4. And what we expect to occur, 6 somewhere around -- actually to stay around .1. The 7 commercial sales limit is actually much higher than 8 that, it's .5 and we don't expect under the most 9 likely scenario that it will exceed .5 for any of the 10 three species. And the commercial sales limit means 11 they can sell the fish to us in safe ways and they 12 are safe to eat at .5. 13 The domestic consumption limit is for a very 14 high level of consumption generally for people that 15 live near lakes and eat a very large amount of fish. 16 The reduction is expected to be somewhere 17 around 20 per cent but the mercury levels in fish in 18 Wuskwatim Lake after the flooding will actually still 19 be lower than the fish that are in Footprint and 20 Threepoint Lakes right now because the mercury levels 21 out there are higher. 22 And the fish that is most preferred from 23 Wuskwatim Lake by NCN members is actually the 24 whitefish so we don't expect that even under worst 25 case scenario, there will be a significant effect. 02740 1 THE CHAIRMAN: You have no monitoring data 2 that indicates what the effect, for instance, on 3 children is, do you? 4 MR. DAVIES: Two things. Firstly, in regards 5 to the amount of data that's been collected, there 6 were samples actually collected in 2002. And we plan 7 on collecting one additional year prior to water 8 level increases in the Forebay, in Wuskwatim Lake 9 itself. So we'll have an updated, very current 10 mercury levels in fish immediately prior to the 11 project. 12 In regards to levels in humans, one of the 13 things that NCN as I said was very concerned about 14 was mercury in fish. And as a result of that, we did 15 encourage and work with NCN to have the Government of 16 Canada test mercury levels in the people at Nelson 17 House to see whether or not there was actually a 18 problem. And I believe of all the tests that were 19 done, and they were fairly extensive, none of the 20 individuals that were tested were deemed to have a 21 problem or be at risk at Nelson House. And we would 22 expect that the same thing would happen after the 23 project. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: You indicate somewhere that 25 following the time the project starts in operation, 02741 1 there is two years that are mentioned. I am not sure 2 exactly which they were now. I believe perhaps it 3 was 2011 and 2017 where monitoring will be done for 4 fish. I'm surprised that only those two years are 5 mentioned as for monitoring that there wouldn't be 6 any further monitoring done after that. 7 MR. DAVIES: Are you referring to monitoring 8 for mercury? 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 10 MR. DAVIES: I believe, I'll have to check, 11 but I believe mercury would be conducted in the years 12 two and five. And in year seven of the project, we 13 would take a look at the data that's been collected 14 and reassessed the need for further monitoring. If 15 we find after year five when you would expect that 16 mercury levels would have peaked, that they are still 17 low and that we haven't been able to notice any 18 change, there may not be additional mercury 19 monitoring conducted for a number of years after 20 that. But I believe it is years two and five. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Following two and five of 22 operation? 23 MR. DAVIES: There's an assessment period in 24 year seven. Take a look at all of the information 25 that would have been collected during the first seven 02742 1 years of monitoring to make sure that all of the 2 results have been carefully looked at and the impacts 3 have been identified, mitigation has been applied and 4 that we can revise a monitoring program as required 5 at that time. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Perhaps the way you 7 explain it is more open for further monitoring if it 8 shows that there is than what I had heard. So if the 9 monitoring indicates that there's still high level, 10 there will be continued monitoring is what you're 11 saying? 12 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. And I've also 13 just been corrected. I believe it's year four and 14 six of the program that mercury would be monitored 15 and then reassessed in year seven. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Seeing the source of the 17 problem comes as a result of the erosion of mercury 18 from the shorelines and because the mercury level is 19 already significantly high as a result of CRD, since 20 there is a substantial amount of materials being 21 removed to do the construction, would it have been 22 possible to use some of the rock materials removed to 23 create the dam, for instance, to increase the 24 impermeability of the shore line to erosion in the 25 area that -- I'm referring to this map which shows 02743 1 the area that's going to be flooded as figure 4. 2 And since you already, as you indicated, Mr. 3 Remple, know very well where the level of flooding is 4 going to take place and that area is going to be 5 cleared of vegetation or trees, wouldn't it have been 6 possible to -- I know that on some areas of that, you 7 will be placing some of that rubble on this side. 8 Wouldn't it have been possible, for instance, to put 9 some of that rubble in this area here to give you the 10 enhanced basin without having to increase the shore 11 line flooding? 12 MR. DAVIES: I guess Mr. Remple will have some 13 something to add. But the flooded area is actually 14 the area that would generate the majority of the 15 mercury not the erosional areas. One because of size 16 and one because there is organics there. The area 17 will be cleared prior to flooding to reduce the 18 mercury. I'm under the impression -- 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, you're saying it's the 20 vegetation that's going to cause the problem? 21 MR. DAVIES: It's the organic material that 22 causes the problem not the actual soil itself. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the organic material in 24 the soil too. 25 MR. DAVIES: That's right. 02744 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah. 2 MR. DAVIES: The areas that are subject to 3 erosion often have very low organic content. They 4 are fine silts and clays. So we would expect that 5 the areas that would be eroded would have less of an 6 effect than the area that actually would be flooded. 7 And mitigation for the flooded areas is to clear the 8 vegetation from that. 9 And do you have something to add, George? 10 MR. REMPEL: Yes, I do. And you're talking 11 about the immediate forebay there, the area between 12 Taskinigup Falls and Wuskwatim Falls. And that area 13 that you indicated that would be used for deposition 14 of surplus excavation material is actually a 15 low-lying area. So that is the best use, best place 16 to put the excess material for a number of reasons. 17 It is a low-lying area which would otherwise have a 18 lot of flooding or more flooding. And on top of 19 that, it is the area of a shore line that is exposed 20 to the higher winds and, therefore, higher wave 21 energy. 22 The other area that you referred, the 23 south-westerly area where you thought perhaps there 24 might be a good place to put some excess material is 25 actually in a very low energy in terms of wave 02745 1 action. And we don't anticipate a lot of erosion in 2 that shore line area that you referred to. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, we'll get back to that 4 when we talk about total suspended solids because it 5 has to come from somewhere. 6 MR. REMPEL: Yes, it does. And actually, I 7 think, Mr. Chair, the erosion material that we're 8 talking about by far the greatest amount comes from 9 Wuskwatim Lake itself not from the immediate Forebay. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: What enables you to say that 11 with assurance and certainty? 12 MR. REMPEL: Well, we have indicated -- 13 quantified the amount of sediment that we believe 14 will be released from the shores of Wuskwatim and we 15 have indicated that an immediate Forebay for a number 16 of reasons, one is that we'll have that surplus 17 excavated material which will have protection against 18 it. It will have on the interface with the water, it 19 will be riprapped. So there won't be much erosion 20 there at all because it will be protected and that's 21 the area where the high energy waves will occur. 22 On the other side, we don't anticipate high 23 wave action or high levels of erosion. For all the 24 reasons we indicated, we have a classification of the 25 shore line, we have assessment of the wind direction, 02746 1 wind speeds. And for those reasons, we have made 2 that judgment. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Significant amounts of 4 materials, I don't know what word to use, if it's 5 rock or rubble, is going to be removed to create the 6 channel. 7 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Would that have been used as 9 part of the -- I think some of it is actually used to 10 protect the shore line in that area. But I am not 11 sure if that is the case because the channel is going 12 to be created here in this area. A lot of rubble, 13 where is that going? 14 MR. REMPEL: That material is both rock and 15 soil material. And the bulk of that material is 16 actually going into that disposal area that you 17 talked about. Much of the other rock is actually 18 going into the powerhouse and main dam. So much of 19 the material that you spotted in that disposal area 20 is actually coming off from the excavation of those 21 channels at the falls. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: So you're telling me that the 23 materials that excavated at the actual dam area plus 24 the materials excavated at the channel area is all 25 going in this particular area here? 02747 1 MR. REMPEL: Or the dam. Much of the rock in 2 the area that you -- in the vicinity of the 3 powerhouse is actually being used in the dam, 4 actually in the main dam as a core of the dam. Much 5 of the material, most of the material in that 6 disposal area actually has its origin from those 7 channels at Wuskwatim Falls to make the flow easier 8 into the immediate Forebay. 9 MR. DAVIES: We've also asked NCN and Manitoba 10 Hydro to leave some of the rubble actually in the 11 bottom of that area because we believe it can create 12 some fish habitat of high velocity fish habitat. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: It's going to be just spread on 14 the bottom? 15 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 17 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Abra, I didn't wade in on 18 that discussion of uncertainty that you had posed 19 earlier and I'd just like to make a couple of 20 comments. 21 MR. ABRA: Thank you. 22 MR. REMPEL: On the physical environment, we 23 did have a few areas of uncertainty, one of which was 24 addressed quite nicely and that related to the leach 25 ability of rock that will be used in the dam and the 02748 1 powerhouse. And that relates to the potential for 2 acid to be extracted from the broken rock as it comes 3 into contact with water and air. We weren't sure if 4 there was a concern with the leach ability of the 5 rock. 6 Manitoba Hydro and NCN authorized us to engage 7 a specialist in this field from Calgary, a Dr. 8 Stephen Day. And he took portions of the cores, 9 conducted special tests and that data confirmed the 10 suitability of that material. In other words, there 11 would not be a concern with leach ability. So that 12 uncertainty was addressed. And we have had questions 13 about uncertainty of sediment transport, particularly 14 to in-river construction. So it's a temporary 15 concern, that is, a concern during those intervals 16 when there's actual work in the river. And there are 17 some areas of the river that have fairly fine grained 18 material. And there was some concern about whether 19 that would settle out in the first few kilometers or 20 in Opegano Lake or would it go further down stream. 21 And those concerns, by the way, came from the 22 technical advisory committee particularly the 23 Department of Fisheries and Oceans. And as a result, 24 we've had a number of meetings with their technical 25 people. We have considered their concerns. Manitoba 02749 1 Hydro and NCN's engineers have looked at how that 2 could be responded to in terms of adapting the 3 construction methods. There has been a sediment 4 management plan filed which we think addresses the 5 uncertainty. It proposes monitoring be done during 6 construction. And there are techniques identified 7 that, if required, can be put in place to further 8 mitigate at the time, if it is necessary to do so, to 9 avoid excessive plumes of sediment being introduced 10 into the Burntwood River. 11 So the uncertainty where it exists I think we 12 have responded by providing effectively adaptive 13 measures to respond if our predictions are incorrect 14 and we also have another measure that's in the EIS. 15 We know that when the river gets shunted firstly to 16 the west side while the dam and powerhouse -- sorry, 17 while the powerhouse and spillway are constructed. 18 And then later on when the river is shunted to the 19 other side to run through the spillway, the river 20 will actually be going across a portion of the river 21 bed that has not normally experienced high velocity 22 flows. 23 We think the sheer strength of the erodibility 24 of that soil is pretty good. In other words, the 25 resistance to erosion is pretty strong. But there is 02750 1 uncertainty there. And we can't measure that sheer 2 strength at this time because it's under water. 3 There will be an opportunity in years one and 4 two, I believe it is, of construction to go out there 5 and take samples and we've indicated in the EIS on 6 the advice of Manitoba Hydro and NCN that if that 7 soil in that area that will experience these high 8 flows is highly erodible, there will be a layer of 9 rock put in place to armour it so there will not be 10 the introduction of excessive sediments into the 11 river. 12 So there are a few areas of uncertainty. We 13 believe we have mitigation strategies in place that 14 will adequately address those areas. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Osler. 16 MR. OSLER: Just to follow up on the 17 Chairman's issues to mercury and to give you a series 18 of references. Health Canada, in their comments to 19 us and our responses on August 8th, supplementary 20 information, Health Canada S1 through S5 deal with 21 mercury effects on people and how accurately it was 22 reflected or not reflected in our work. And a 23 follow-up question on S, I think it's 25, or in S-25 24 in the October 9th material specifically on the 25 advice of Health Canada. And some comments were 02751 1 given about the effects of mercury on children and 2 you can look at that to get the information you were 3 specifically looking at. It's much more -- a much 4 different type of standard when you're dealing with 5 children or pregnant women than it is for ordinary 6 adults. 7 The information in the EIS in volume 1, pages 8 967 and the existing studies to do with NCN and the 9 concerns of NCN to do with mercury and page 9-84, 85 10 on the effects assessment and the background volume 11 8, pages 8-255, 256 give more information on the 12 setting or the existing information of NCN and 8-295 13 gives more information on the effects. 14 So it's a subject that NCN and Health Canada 15 paid a lot of attention to. 16 MR. MAYER: Mr. Chair, if I may. Dealing with 17 this issue of mercury and monitoring. Could you tell 18 me where the monitoring takes place? How far down 19 the stream? 20 MR. DAVIES: We're reflecting samples for 21 mercury in Wuskwatim Lake, Opegano Lake and Birchtree 22 Lake. 23 MR. MAYER: You don't go beyond Birchtree 24 Lake? 25 MR. DAVIES: We don't expect to see any 02752 1 effects, actually, by the time in Opegano Lake. 2 Because the monitoring is in place, if we did pick up 3 any changes in Birchtree Lake then we could expand it 4 further downstream. But we don't actually expect to 5 see any changes even in Opegano Lake. 6 MR. MAYER: I have a couple of concerns about 7 that then. The fish don't necessarily stop at 8 Birchtree Lake. I realize that there is limited 9 migration over the falls but I don't see any real 10 indication that there is no downstream migration from 11 Birchtree or Opegano Lake. I recognize that Manasan 12 Falls are a pretty good size but I would tend to 13 suspect that a significant number of fish going over 14 them would survive, probably most of them. 15 You then get into the area that of course 16 deals with the intake to the Thompson water system. 17 Is that monitored there? 18 MR. DAVIES: I'm sorry -- 19 MR. MAYER: I take it there's no monitoring. 20 Once you get by Manasan Falls, I think you're about 21 four kilometres from the intake to Thompson's water 22 supply. 23 MR. DAVIES: That's right. We're actually 24 collecting water samples all the way down to an area 25 just upstream up Split Lake. 02753 1 MR. MAYER: So water is continued to be 2 sampled but fish aren't. Is that what you're saying? 3 MR. DAVIES: We do have programs to monitor 4 effects during the construction period on fish 5 further downstream. In regards to mercury, the 6 mercury levels in Birchtree Lake are actually higher 7 than the expected levels in Wuskwatim Lake right now. 8 So the chances of being able to pick them up would be 9 almost impossible. 10 We're also looking at the fact that even under 11 a worst case scenario in Wuskwatim Lake, the amount 12 of natural variation will probably mask the effects 13 in Wuskwatim Lake itself. So you may not even be 14 able to detect it in Wuskwatim Lake and we would 15 definitely not be able to detect it further down with 16 the exception, and it's identified in the EIS, there 17 are some peat areas where some resident fish, 18 particularly northern pike, might be located and they 19 may have some elevated levels. But it would be 20 really looking at individual fish rather than a 21 population. 22 MR. MAYER: Okay. Dealing with that issue 23 then. I noticed the fish species which you have 24 called valuable assets, or whatever the term is, and 25 the Burntwood must be the only river where people 02754 1 don't recognize the goldeye is a valuable species. 2 Were you aware there are significant goldeye in the 3 Burntwood River? 4 MR. DAVIES: It wasn't one of the abundant 5 fish species that was captured in either Wuskwatim or 6 Opegano Lake. 7 MR. MAYER: I understand that but I am 8 personally aware that there are significant, I 9 suppose technically they are mooneye. I've been told 10 by a biologist that he'd give me $1,000 for every 11 goldeye I actually found in the Winnipeg River. But 12 I understand they are in fact mooneye. But in fact 13 they are quite abundant in that reach that runs at 14 least from Manasan Falls to what we call 30 Mile 15 Rapids and I think you call Third Rapids. 16 MR. DAVIES: In the study area where we set 17 gill-nets, we haven't found any major numbers since 18 1996. So it's been quite a while. The levels are 19 fairly low and they are fairly stable. But we did 20 not find any large concentrations of mooneye or 21 goldeye in the study area. 22 MR. MAYER: The study area being the area 23 above where? 24 MR. DAVIES: The area going downstream from 25 Early Morning Rapids to Opegano Lake. 02755 1 MR. MAYER: You didn't go beyond that? 2 MR. DAVIES: We did do some sampling in 3 Birchtree Lake. 4 MR. MAYER: Okay. Thank you. 5 MR. SARGEANT: Mr. Davies, you talked about 6 doing sampling down to just above Split Lake I think 7 you said. How long has that been going on? 8 MR. DAVIES: I believe it's two years now. It 9 was identified -- originally we were collecting water 10 samples to an area just upstream of Thompson because 11 we felt that the effects of the project wouldn't be 12 transported actually further than Birchtree Lake but 13 we went further than that. Because of concerns 14 expressed by downstream communities, we extended that 15 to an area downstream of Thompson. And then when we 16 met with more communities through the PIP process, 17 there were additional concerns. So we extended it to 18 an area just upstream of Split Lake. 19 And then in Split Lake, there is another 20 monitoring program that's occurring which actually 21 goes right to the Hudson Bay estuary. 22 MR. SARGEANT: That sampling has just been 23 part of this study for the Wuskwatim project? 24 MR. DAVIES: The water chemistry sampling from 25 upstream of Early Morning Rapids to an area just 02756 1 upstream of Split Lake has been conducted 2 specifically for the Wuskwatim generation project. 3 MR. SARGEANT: And this will continue post 4 Wuskwatim for how long? 5 MR. DAVIES: I believe the total monitoring 6 program is around 21 years or in the 20 some years in 7 total including the construction period. It doesn't 8 mean that water chemistry would be sampled every year 9 but there will be periodic sampling to make sure that 10 the effects are known. 11 MR. SARGEANT: And who will do the sampling? 12 Will it be Hydro employees or will it be contractors 13 such as yourself or whoever you contract with? 14 MR. DAVIES: That would be up to NCN and 15 Manitoba Hydro to determine. 16 MR. SARGEANT: Thank you. 17 MR. ABRA: If I might just ask a last question 18 related to this issue of the baseline that we talked 19 about at some length yesterday and the scoping and I 20 expressed to you, as did Mr. Sargeant, the issue that 21 the Commission has to be satisfied on obviously. So 22 let me ask a general question and we'll follow up 23 from what the evidence that Mr. Davies gave yesterday 24 and Mr. Rempel has given today with respect to 25 mercury and erosion respectively. And Mr. Osler has 02757 1 given some evidence of the same nature. 2 Are you prepared to say that all historical 3 data that is available and relevant to all of the 4 VECs that you have identified for the purposes of the 5 two projects, that being the dam and the transmission 6 lines, has been reviewed and included in coming up 7 with your baseline and in your scoping? 8 MR. DAVIES: It's impossible to say that you 9 haven't missed anything. 10 MR. ABRA: No, I understand. Humanly 11 possible. 12 MR. DAVIES: Yeah. But I do feel comfortable 13 that there's been not only an acceptable level but a 14 very high level of effort put into making sure that 15 we have reviewed the appropriate literature. 16 MR. REMPEL: I think that's true in general, 17 that for all of the professionals and specialists 18 that were involved in this assessment, that they made 19 best efforts to have access to the relevant available 20 information, as Mr. Davies says is quite possible 21 that we missed some information. 22 But I think by a collective effort and also in 23 terms of the review by the Technical Advisory 24 Committee which again is a body of peers if you like, 25 who have access to information through the 02758 1 government, both Canada and Manitoba, that we 2 otherwise might not be aware of that I think we have 3 canvassed the literature and the available 4 information very thoroughly. 5 MR. OSLER: The answer is yes. And the 6 process that we are engaged in with both the 7 government technical committee and the public in this 8 Commission is designed, in my opinion, to test that. 9 They are knowledgeable people who are aware of what 10 we're doing. They are affected communities. We've 11 tried to provide the affected communities with their 12 own ability to be aware well in advance so that if 13 somebody thinks we're missing something, they will 14 draw it to our attention. And it has happened as 15 we've gone through the process today and it may 16 happen in the process of this hearing. 17 But professionally, of course, we have 18 attempted to review all of the relevant material and 19 knowledge that exists today both in written form and 20 in terms of NCN and in terms of our own professional 21 careers. 22 MR. REMPEL: I might also add that the 23 planning of this project has gone on for some many 24 years. And in the course of that planning, data, the 25 adequacy of data was reviewed and that's a big reason 02759 1 why there is such an extensive data and acquisition 2 program as part of this EIS program. 3 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chairman, I offer the same 4 response. I'm comfortable that the test that George 5 Remple has identified, the fact that there are a 6 number of specialists involved in both teams and 7 there's a lot of cross-checking and cross-reference 8 there and extensive cross-checking on the part of the 9 very many people who are part of the Technical 10 Advisory Committee with whom we've met periodically 11 over the course of the study that we're fully covered 12 here. 13 The one point that I would make is that the 14 filings were made in April of 2003. And of course, 15 again, there is an ongoing effort to identify new 16 material, new data as it comes out. So to the extent 17 that you are looking at material that was developed 18 in 2003, there may, from time to time, be subsequent 19 papers, but we would certainly have drawn those to 20 your attention or will over the course of these 21 proceedings. 22 MR. ABRA: Thank you. I'd like to turn to 23 significance. There was evidence given yesterday 24 related to your determination with respect to many of 25 the VECs that the residual effects were 02760 1 insignificant. Firstly, the term "significance" has 2 a specific meaning as far as environmental assessment 3 is concerned I understand. And what definition were 4 you people using as far as significance and 5 insignificance is concerned as for the purposes of 6 your environmental assessment? 7 MR. REMPEL: The term "significance" as 8 definition is significant all right. 9 MR. ABRA: Important. 10 MR. DAVIES: It's important because in the 11 federal process, the determination of an effect as 12 being significant does raise questions in terms of 13 the need for a joint panel for example. But what we 14 did from the outset is whenever there was an issue 15 that appeared to be perhaps marginal with respect to 16 significance, we would look at mitigation. And as a 17 result, we are not surprised that the determinations 18 are in general that the effects are insignificant. 19 As to the definition of insignificance, we 20 gave quite a discussion on that in Volume 1 in pages 21 215, actually section 2.4. It's called Determination 22 of Significance Environmental Effects. And there, we 23 indicated that there are a number of factors, 24 criteria that we used, the nature of the effect, 25 whether it's positive, neutral or negative or 02761 1 adverse. The magnitude of the effect, the duration 2 of the effect, the frequency, spatial boundaries, the 3 reversibility and the ecological context. And we 4 essentially described the duration, magnitude and 5 geographical extent, how it varied with the type of 6 VEC or VEC that we were looking at. And we did have 7 a matrix that we described in Figure 241 which 8 showed, I guess in graphic form, how we would judge a 9 significance of an effect. 10 For example, if it was large and regional and 11 either short-term or long-term, we would say it's 12 potentially a significant effect. And with that kind 13 of a screening matrix, we use that to come to the 14 conclusions that you have seen. 15 So, for example, if something was local and 16 moderate, we would say that is not significant in a 17 short-term impact. So that's essentially the 18 approach we use to assessing significance. 19 MR. ABRA: The actual EIS guidelines from 20 Manitoba Conservation had a list of criteria that 21 were to be followed. Most of them were the ones that 22 you've read from, Mr. Rempel, but there was a couple 23 you never mentioned. It may have been an oversight. 24 Just for the record, I would indicate that those 25 criteria were the nature of the effect, the magnitude 02762 1 of the effect, the duration of the effect, the 2 frequency of the effect, the reversibility of the 3 effect, temporal boundaries short or long term, 4 spatial boundaries, being project site, local area or 5 regional, and ecological context which related to 6 sensitivity of VEC to environmental disturbance. Am 7 I correct? 8 MR. OSLER: Yes, yes. And they are referenced 9 in page 215 of Volume 1 that he's looking at. So the 10 intent was to look at the issue of the criteria set 11 out in the guidelines and then to focus on a 12 methodology and an approach to deal with them. So 13 the approach focused on certain key variables, as Mr. 14 Remple explained in the matrix. We took the same 15 approach, the socioeconomic side. It was slightly 16 different terminology. And then to say that's a 17 potential effect. And then you have to look at the 18 effect still, if it sort of gets through that 19 screening if you like, and test it against some of 20 these other concepts you've noted, resilience, et 21 cetera. Because you could have an effect that looked 22 like it could be significant but on reflection of 23 some of these other factors, it would not be. 24 And in a few cases, rare plants or something 25 of very significant scarcity basis, whether it's 02763 1 small or local, may not be sufficient to say it is 2 not significant. So in principal, the variables set 3 out in the guidelines were all addressed. 4 And there's also a reference to the federal 5 guide document on significance so that there is 6 ongoing material being issued by people to reflect on 7 how you should do this type of analysis. It's not a 8 defined term in the statutes as I'm sure you're 9 familiar with. 10 MR. ABRA: I'm aware of that but it is 11 something that was mentioned in the guidelines for 12 you. 13 MR. OSLER: Yes. And effectively you have to 14 deal with it in order to do an assessment. I guess 15 the ultimate point is you are trying to come up with 16 whether there's a likely adverse significant effect. 17 That's what everybody is trying to find out. So you 18 have to define significance. 19 MR. ABRA: Were there any residual 20 environmental effects from either the generation 21 project or the transmission lines that you evaluated 22 to be significant? 23 MR. OSLER: There are some that are 24 significant positive but there's none that are 25 significant adverse. Some of the employment and 02764 1 long-term socioeconomic factors were judged to be 2 significant and positive. There were -- I don't 3 know. I'd have to let my colleagues discuss whether 4 there were some in the metaphysical area. But there 5 were no significant adverse effects determined 6 throughout the physical, biophysical, socioeconomic 7 transmission and generation studies. 8 MR. ABRA: There's no mention made in the 9 criteria from the environmental impact guidelines. 10 And one thing that members of the Commission have 11 noticed, as have we, is that there's been significant 12 discussion over the last couple of weeks about 13 traditional knowledge. Now, once you identified VECs 14 and made a determination as to whether they were 15 insignificant of the nature that you have described, 16 Mr. Osler, were those run by or discussed with 17 members of NCN and elders and so on for the purposes 18 of their input in traditional knowledge? 19 MR. OSLER: Yes. The process of finalizing 20 the EIS and coming to the conclusions that are 21 reported was reviewed by a joint NCN Hydro committee 22 that included the people that NCN thought should be 23 involved in the process including I think the 24 community consultant and some of your elder members 25 were involved in that process, Darcy Linklater, Terry 02765 1 Linklater. 2 MR. ABRA: I'm sorry, Mr. Osler, we can't hear 3 you. 4 MR. OSLER: I'm sorry. 5 MR. ABRA: It doesn't matter if I can't but 6 the reporter can't. 7 MR. OSLER: Councillor Thomas will elaborate 8 in a second on that. 9 MR. ABRA: Could you repeat what you said 10 because you turned away and we couldn't hear it at 11 all. 12 MR. OSLER: I was checking names of various 13 members of NCN who were involved in the review 14 process and Councillor Darcy Linklater, Terry 15 Linklater, Jimmy D. Spence among others, Henry Wood, 16 Norman Linklater and we had various resource users 17 available at various points in time. 18 So the process of discussing what we mean when 19 we are having to try and deal with significance as 20 environmental practitioners and what members of NCN 21 mean when they think of significance was certainly 22 discussed. And the need to try and come up with an 23 approach that would, as you said earlier, address the 24 intent and purpose of environmental review which is 25 to come up with something if it's significant and 02766 1 adverse that would clearly be very very material and 2 major and lead to, in this case, legally, to a need 3 for a panel separate from this one to review it, was 4 it was discussed. 5 So we were -- the answer to your question at 6 the beginning was yes. The meaning of these words is 7 very difficult when you're having that type of 8 discussion and the needs that we require for 9 environmental review and the meanings people have in 10 the community when talking about these things, this 11 is difficult language to discuss. 12 MR. DAVIES: When the impacts of the project 13 were known, an individual from Manitoba Hydro, Mr. 14 Glen Cook and myself went to Thompson and Nelson 15 House and worked with NCN's community consultants. 16 And we had prepared a presentation that outlined all 17 of the project effects on the biophysical side and on 18 the -- basically it describes the operating regime 19 and all of the biophysical effects and the 20 socioeconomic effects were dealt with in a slightly 21 different manner but just in as much detail. 22 Anyways, Mr. Cook and myself worked with the 23 community consultants to rewrite the entire 24 presentation so that it was clear and in a language 25 that could be translated and explained to NCN elders 02767 1 and resource harvesters, took several days, almost a 2 week to do it. We went through each page in extreme 3 detail to make sure that the community consultants 4 understood what the impacts were so that they could 5 discuss it with the elders in their own language. 6 When the presentation was finished, 600 copies 7 of the presentation were made and provided to each 8 household in Nelson House. The community consultants 9 then went house to house and discussed with each of 10 the families the effects of the project through that 11 presentation that was provided. 12 MR. ABRA: If I might just interrupt, is that 13 the document you referred to yesterday, Mr. Thomas? 14 MR. THOMAS: Which document are you talking 15 about? 16 MR. ABRA: Sorry. Mr. Davies was saying that 17 a document was prepared for the members of NCN for 18 each household and so on describing any residual 19 effects that there might be with respect to either 20 transmission lines or the generation project and that 21 it was distributed amongst the members of NCN. Have 22 I got that correct, Mr. Davies? 23 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. 24 MR. ABRA: And I'm just wondering if that's 25 the documents you identified for us yesterday? 02768 1 MR. THOMAS: No. The document that I 2 identified yesterday was the Agreement in Principle 3 overview. 4 MR. ABRA: I'm sorry, that went to the 5 members. Okay, I misunderstood, I'm sorry. 6 MR. THOMAS: It's a different document. 7 MR. ABRA: That was the one that went to the 8 NCN members? 9 MR. THOMAS: The Agreement in Principle, yes. 10 MR. ABRA: Yes, I'm sorry. 11 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chairman, if I might just 12 close the loop on the round of questioning with 13 respect to the determination of significance. This 14 was a matter that was discussed at length within the 15 environmental management team because it was 16 obviously so critical that we be consistent. And the 17 same description of that process is contained in the 18 transmission volume 1, section 2.5. 19 MR. ABRA: Thank you. 20 MR. THOMAS: If I may, Mr. Chairman. With 21 regard to the question that was posed as to how 22 traditional knowledge was incorporated, we did 23 identify a number of different people that played a 24 role. We've had all our community consultants be 25 involved in making use of our traditional knowledge. 02769 1 We've also had our elder that you know about, his 2 name is Sam Dysart, has been involved in trapping, 3 hunting, fishing for quite a long period of time and 4 he's quite knowledgeable about these kind of issues. 5 So we've made use of him when it was appropriate. 6 We have also used a number of resource users, 7 one of them happens to be Bill Yetman. He's another 8 very knowledgeable person. But if you recall, the 9 definition of traditional knowledge identified a 10 whole series of factors that are taken into 11 consideration as to what constitutes traditional 12 knowledge. 13 But you will recall also my statement that it 14 is not necessarily limited to what I have provided. 15 We have used various other expertise that is 16 not necessarily coming forward from our NCN members 17 but we made use of Cam MacInnes, for example, and 18 other experts in the area. We debate the issues and 19 talk about the relevance of things. So it's quite a 20 broad definition and we've made use of it throughout 21 our process. Thank you. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Just on that matter 23 of significance and the statement you made that found 24 that none of the value ecosystems you found any 25 significant adverse impacts. When you are making 02770 1 this kind of statement, you would have to agree I 2 believe that it's based on the grid that you have 3 established and it doesn't matter how many people and 4 for how long you were to discuss this, there is no 5 guarantee that in regards to everyone, you will never 6 be surprised to be proven wrong after the fact. 7 And if you disagree with that, I'd be very 8 surprised and probably would be very doubtful because 9 we are measuring on the base of space and time and 10 some of those were saying, well, yes it covers a 11 fairly large area and it's for a very lengthy period 12 of time but we don't consider it to be significant. 13 So where is the break-off where it becomes 14 significant and it's not significant contains an 15 element of a judgment call based on yes, maybe a 16 great deal of experience and expertise. But nature 17 doesn't always follow the same path all the time. 18 MR. REMPEL: No, it doesn't. At the same 19 time, we have made a collective judgment on the 20 effects and the significance of the effects in terms 21 of these two projects. We have put forward what we 22 believe to be extensive documentation of the 23 rationale. It's been extensively reviewed by peers 24 in both governments. There's been a lot of questions 25 raised by them but I don't believe so far that people 02771 1 have argued that there was a significant effect. 2 There's been lots of questions raised by the 3 regulators but, so far anyway, they have not said 4 they disagree with the judgments. They may still do 5 that but they haven't so far. 6 The point I'm making is that this is not just 7 the judgments of the consulting team. Those 8 judgments are put forward for review by professionals 9 in regulatory agencies and of course they are being 10 tested in this process. So eventually, there will be 11 a collective societal judgment as to the adequacy of 12 our judgments. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Some of the people from the NCN 14 community may find that difficult to grasp this type 15 of arriving at what's significant and insignificant, 16 in spite of the input from the Aboriginal leaders or 17 respected leaders that Mr. Thomas refers to. And 18 perhaps a lot of them find it difficult or even 19 state, you know, it's too much to give up or it's too 20 valuable compared to what is to be gained or varied 21 or find it difficult to seize what is how to compare. 22 Is there not a way to provide more readily 23 understandable EIS information in terms of the 24 impacts and their significance to the community 25 people who will be directly affected? 02772 1 MR. REMPEL: I think unprecedented efforts 2 have been made to translate, communicate the effects, 3 the judgments, the rationale of the effects. And 4 ultimately, there will be a vote as Councillor Thomas 5 has indicated. So I presume that a judgment will be 6 rendered by NCN. But as EIS or EMT, all we can do is 7 provide the information to the best of our knowledge 8 and let the process unfold. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I understand that. And 10 perhaps I am incorrect in interpreting this in the 11 way I am. But a vote on lack of understanding is not 12 really a valuable exercise of democracy or in fact it 13 may lead to various non logical or non sequitur 14 decisions. 15 So I guess my question is to Mr. Thomas here. 16 Does he feel, does he believe that the members of the 17 community, and I'm saying the members at large of the 18 community, fully understand the environmental 19 assessment impacts in regards to this project? I was 20 going to ask that much later because there is related 21 questions. 22 MR. THOMAS: I don't think anyone can say that 23 there will be 100 per cent understanding of 24 everything by all NCN members but we have done our 25 utmost to ensure that we have had very significant 02773 1 involvement with our community. 2 For me to be involved in this process, it is 3 one of the things that I hold near and dear to me, 4 that if I'm going to be involved in the process, it's 5 got to be very real and very meaningful in terms of 6 the way that we consult with our people. We have 7 embarked, as I indicated previously, in a 8 consultation process that I have not seen done 9 anywhere. We have made use of all the different 10 people that have identified. But it's not just us as 11 NCN leaders that have been involved in this exercise, 12 it's not just my people that work for me under the 13 future development portfolio, it is a number of 14 various members of my community that have been 15 involved, people who make use of the land and the 16 resources in a lot of different ways. 17 Some are people who hunt and some are people 18 who trap and some are people who go fishing. Some 19 are people who make use of our land in traditional 20 ways, not just in hunting ways but in ceremonial 21 ways. And we have people as well that make use of 22 the gifts provided by the Creator in terms of 23 medicines. So we have spoken to medicine people 24 during the course of our environmental impact 25 assessment. 02774 1 So we have conducted a consultation process 2 that requires the input of my people in a very 3 significant way. And although I can't guarantee 100 4 per cent understanding from all my members that are 5 going to be impacted, including those that don't -- 6 that won't be voting, we are pretty hard-pressed to 7 say yes, there will be 100 per cent understanding. 8 But in terms of the way that we have involved 9 ourselves in this process, I believe that we do have 10 a very good understanding of what kind of impacts are 11 going to be coming about as a result of the project. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: I hear what you're saying but 13 there is a distinction to be made between the 14 socioeconomic impacts and the environmental impacts 15 and I'm just basically asking what your degree of 16 comfort or what's your degree of understanding that 17 your people are fully knowledgeable of what those 18 impacts are as well? Consultation in terms of 19 informing the people in terms of what the project 20 consists of and what potential benefits or actual 21 benefits are going to be derived is one thing, but 22 that is providing information. 23 Now, providing consultation on the actual EIS 24 or those valued -- I know you've indicated that there 25 was consultation to establish what were the valued 02775 1 ecosystems and that part confirms some part of the 2 input of the community in terms of getting some 3 understanding. I gather those are valued ecosystems 4 established primarily in consultation with those who 5 are knowledgeable in the trapping and the elders, et 6 cetera. 7 I am just hearing input from NCN members. I 8 am not so sure they fully understand all of the 9 environmental impacts in this particular case. They 10 understand what the construction project is about. 11 They understand or maybe see what the economic 12 impacts are but do they fully understand or are they 13 reluctant because they do not understand what the 14 other impacts are? That's the question that comes to 15 my mind. 16 MR. THOMAS: We have been engaged, as I 17 indicated, in a consultation process that is not just 18 a matter of acquiring input from all the different 19 sources of information and all the different people 20 involved, we also provide and explain the information 21 as we are going along. And this process is an 22 ongoing process. We have not finished and we will 23 not finish until right up I suppose to the 24 ratification of the PDA itself. But we do have a 25 summary of our consultative efforts with the 02776 1 community and we've received a lot of positive 2 comments from our people that reflect that they are 3 quite satisfied with what we had done. 4 But of course, as you've seen for yourselves, 5 we do have some that are not necessarily happy with 6 the way things are and that's to be expected in any 7 democratic society. 8 But I as an individual leader and along with 9 the rest of my colleagues from what they've indicated 10 to me are quite comfortable with what has been done 11 and the consultative efforts that we are putting 12 forward to ensure that we can try to produce as much 13 understanding of all the different aspects of the 14 environmental impact assessment that's been done as 15 well as the total information for the total project 16 itself. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, thank you for that and I 18 appreciate the fact you're saying that it's an 19 ongoing process and it will carry forth. And perhaps 20 as you do so, more information will be shared and 21 more understanding will be derived. 22 MR. THOMAS: If it hasn't been done already, 23 Mr. Chairman, I do have a summary of our consultative 24 efforts including those that will be ongoing here in 25 this document. And I'll be more than happy to 02777 1 provide it to you and the rest of the Commission. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 3 MR. THOMAS: Thank you. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Avery Kinew. 5 MS. AVERY KINEW: Mr. Thomas, would that 6 include the document you were referring to where you 7 simplified the language and sent it around to people? 8 MR. THOMAS: We offered to provide that for 9 you and I've instructed our legal advisor to provide 10 copies to the Commission. 11 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you. 12 MR. ABRA: That's the document that Mr. Davies 13 referred to that was explaining the impact to the 14 community of the two projects, the environmental 15 impact? 16 MR. DAVIES: That document is contained in 17 volume 2 of the generation project EIS. 18 MR. ABRA: Volume 2? 19 MR. DAVIES: Volume 2. 20 MR. REMPEL: I might also add that there is a 21 disk in the EIS filing that has a Power Point 22 presentation of the summary of the EIS, the 23 integrated summary. And it has an audio track in 24 Cree as well that's on a disk that I believe was in 25 the jacket of each of the EISs. 02778 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Osler? 2 MR. OSLER: I'd like to deal with a couple of 3 different things that have come up in this 4 conversation. One of them is the matter of 5 understanding and the other one is the rules on 6 significance. I think it is hard to -- the 7 Commission can appreciate that it's very hard to get 8 an understanding of all this material. And it's 9 infinitely harder if you're trying to explain it to 10 people who are not scientifically oriented. I don't 11 care whether they are Cree in Nelson House or people 12 I know in Winnipeg. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Or members of the Panel. 14 MR. ABRA: I think we'll all vouch for that. 15 MR. OSLER: And the job that we have to do is 16 to try and do that. We'll see how well we survive. 17 But in dealing with Nelson House people, they have a 18 keen interest in the issue. They have a deep level 19 of suspicion given the history and they treat all of 20 their area, as I said on I think page 4 of the 21 summary, and they are very key words and they were 22 discussed at some length before they were put there, 23 "NCN elders consider the entire Nelson 24 House resource management area to be 25 sacred and many areas therein 02779 1 including the sensitive and important 2 Wuskwatim Lake area to still be 3 disrupted as a result of flooding in 4 the 1970s related to hydroelectric 5 development." 6 It's very hard to discuss things if there 7 isn't trust underlying it. A lot of effort is put in 8 to NCN by their leaders and their members and their 9 community consultants in disclosing information, 10 going house to house and having open meetings. And 11 it isn't just to tell them what the study is or what 12 Mr. Davies has done last week but to get their input 13 and get their reactions. And the meetings with 14 resource harvesters can be quite lively given their 15 history and involvement and their concerns. 16 I don't think you should assume that the 17 discussions about socioeconomic matters are any less 18 lively. It may seem down here that a job in a 19 construction project is a good thing. There are 20 people that worry about whether it will be a good 21 thing in reality for families in Nelson House and 22 they discuss it with you intensely. And they want to 23 know that somebody is going to pay attention to 24 dealing with the practical problems of what we would 25 technically call follow-up and impact management and 02780 1 interactive and adaptive management, but these don't 2 mean a thing to people there. They want to know who 3 is going to deal with it and how is it going to be 4 dealt with. 5 So things that you might assume in Winnipeg 6 are automatically attractive are attractive, jobs, 7 long-term economic benefits are attractive, but they 8 do not go undiscussed at a very intense level with 9 the wellness group, with the elders, with people who 10 fundamentally distrust that a new thing in their area 11 won't just be awful. 12 Everything we've done, as Councillor Thomas 13 says, and I can -- behind me is Janet Kinley who 14 spent the month of February going through small group 15 discussions on socioeconomics and follow-up 16 management, and it was intense. It was not 17 necessarily always friendly but it was respectful. 18 And a high level of questioning on just the 19 socioeconomic issues that we're talking about. 20 So whether this thing is supported by the NCN 21 members in the end or not is a matter for the future 22 to hear. But the fact that it's been discussed and 23 is being discussed and will be discussed intensely, 24 frankly, without trusting anyone, me, Councillor 25 Thomas, Manitoba Hydro, anyone, there's no basis for 02781 1 trust given in some people's opinion the histories of 2 what people have done in these communities. 3 And these are cumulative effects, if you want 4 to get technical, and they come way beyond just 5 Hydro. They come in the way in which people have 6 seen themselves be treated. And why should they 7 trust what the scientist says? Why should they trust 8 what a leader says? Why should they trust what a 9 panel says? So that's just on the question of 10 understanding. 11 On the more technical question. Councillor 12 Thomas just reminded me, and he can speak directly to 13 you, but their understanding will ultimately be 14 reflected through the collective will and the process 15 of the vote. I mean essentially, the ultimate test 16 here will be that, the people who will be directly 17 affected will they, after all this discussion, have 18 come to a considered view, a broadly-based view that 19 this is a good idea or will they have come to the 20 view, after listening to all this discussion, it's 21 something they don't want to do. 22 The one thing that is clear is that you are 23 going to build a dam, that you're in bed with 24 Manitoba Hydro and you're going to have some adverse 25 effect from their point of view on the environment 02782 1 that is sacred to them. Those things are clear. 2 There's no ambiguity to them about that. You're 3 going to build a road, you're going to build 4 transmission lines and you're going to do some 5 flooding. I don't care how much, some, and you are 6 going to change the environment. So those points are 7 clear. 8 The hard part is whether it is, from their 9 point of view, manageable, acceptable and all the 10 other things that are part of this exercise. Are 11 they certain? Will they happen, the jobs, the 12 training, the economics, will they happen? 13 So the Summary of Understandings type of issue 14 introduces a level of uncertainty and beyond the 15 socioeconomics leads to people -- this is hard 16 language. How do I understand what this is all 17 about? How do I know that I can trust anybody on 18 this? What does it mean? Those are why the 19 discussions get to be intense even on the 20 socioeconomics. 21 But I would like to deal briefly also with the 22 professional issue of significance. 23 What I'm saying to you is the professional 24 type of significance to an elder of NCN, in my 25 opinion, is we are just night and day apart. We are 02783 1 talking professional language, and to them everything 2 is significant. And we have to deal with this. And 3 the concept of significance is dealt with in a 4 reference guide that is put out under the Canadian 5 Environmental Assessment Act by the agency, the 6 Environmental Assessment Agency. And it's clear, if 7 you review that, that their focus is on what I would 8 call professionals technical scientific assessments, 9 okay. I am not using the word western science but I 10 am using numbers and qualitative judgments and are 11 these things likely to have an effect? 12 They very specifically want to make the point 13 in here as to where the public input comes in. And 14 they say public input into the determination of 15 significant adverse environmental effects must limit 16 itself to questions related to scientific analysis 17 and interpretation. The public, for example, could 18 provide new evidence, offer a different 19 interpretation of the facts or question the 20 credibility of the conclusions. Issues that are not 21 directly linked to scientific (including traditional 22 ecological knowledge) analysis of environmental 23 effects such as long-term unemployment in a community 24 or fundamental personal values cannot be introduced, 25 they say, into the determination at this step, which 02784 1 is the step of significance. And you can go on and 2 look at it. 3 Essentially, the regime in which we are asked 4 to work professionally is that you look at 5 significance this way. You record, through public 6 input, what people tell you. You put it in front of 7 the regulators and the decision makers. And if there 8 is a significant public concern that emerges 9 independent of all the scientific analysis, there are 10 steps in the environmental process under the federal 11 rules for that to lead to certain consequences 12 independently of whether these people make a judgment 13 of significant adverse. 14 But there is a differentiation between value 15 judgments and scientific judgments is what I'm 16 getting at. When we're dealing with NCN, their view 17 of traditional knowledge certainly includes value. 18 And so when they make their judgments, they will be 19 considering values to them. 20 We have tried to find a way to deal with this 21 professionally and to discuss it openly and to record 22 the views also of those who talk to us so that they 23 are fully part of the record, whether they agree with 24 the scientific judgments or not. 25 So I wanted to try and bridge two different 02785 1 things there but that's all I've got to say. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mayer? 3 MR. MAYER: I want to put something before the 4 Panel before we break for lunch simply because I'm 5 not sure that we have the people on the Panel right 6 now to respond. I got sort of blown away by the 7 documents you gave me yesterday comparing the base 8 plan with the highway option for the transmission 9 route. The numbers look pretty impressive. But 10 somewhat like Mr. Bedford, I spent last night 11 re-thinking those numbers. And I am not sure how 12 significant they are because I don't know what to 13 compare them to. 14 The numbers show a $35.6 million difference in 15 the capital cost between the base plan and the 16 highway option. And that has been developed, has 17 been dealt with by using a unit cost which is 18 basically the same for both options. And I have a 19 problem with that. 20 You have told us from day one that you have 21 built into your proposal a significant number for 22 compensation. That number we understand you cannot 23 disclose. But when you tell me that there is a $35.6 24 million difference between the two options, I tell 25 you you have not taken out the compensation money 02786 1 that you would have had to have in there in order to 2 compensate NCN for using that significant piece of 3 their resource area. And I suggest to you that if 4 you use the highway option, you will pay virtually 5 nothing by way of compensation because you have 6 already acquired a good portion of the land. And you 7 will be using rights of way, I suggest to you, that 8 would be either Hydro's or the Province of 9 Manitoba's. 10 So I'd like to know what the real comparison 11 is, and I know I'm putting you in a position that's 12 going to be difficult because you're going to have to 13 take a compensation number out, but you have to do 14 that if you are going to give me a real comparison of 15 the two routes. 16 And I have a second problem. You have 17 calculated the line loss at $311,000 per year at ad 18 infinitum. And I am assuming that is the line loss 19 because of the difference in the number of kilometres 20 you're using. 21 Well, I used my handy dandy little calculator 22 and that comes to $1,767 per kilometre per year. And 23 of course that would relate to $67,146 per year on 24 the difference between the straight line distances 25 and the proposed base plan route changes. All that 02787 1 aside, what I need to know in order to determine how 2 significant this number of $311,000 per year in line 3 loss is I need to know the value of the power 4 expected to be delivered from Wuskwatim to either, 5 well, I guess to both the Birchtree Station and the 6 Herblet Lake Station. Because if you can put a value 7 on the line loss, you've got to be able to have a 8 total value that you can tell me. And I'll know what 9 percentage this line loss is going to be. I'd like 10 to know that. 11 And then I'd like to know what the difference 12 in the value of power per year comes from your 13 selecting the low-head as opposed to the high-head 14 design of Wuskwatim dam. And the reason I want to 15 know these figures is so that we, as a Commission, 16 when we're talking about the transmission line 17 routes, I have to put in perspective how significant 18 these numbers really are that you've told me about. 19 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Mr. Mayer, could you repeat 20 your questions so we can write them down? 21 MR. MAYER: I'm going to try. I was sort of 22 hoping that we could play it back. 23 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We'll try and have an answer 24 for you even after lunch if that's possible. 25 MR. MAYER: I understand the problem. Okay, 02788 1 number one, I need to know the compensation savings, 2 what effect would that have of the $35.6 million 3 difference that I'm showing. And I know that that's 4 going to have to be a ballpark and I accept that. 5 6 (UNDERTAKING MH-45: Advise of the compensation 7 savings, what effect would that have of the $35.6 8 million difference) 9 10 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Mayer, 11 could you clarify for me now, you're talking 12 compensation. There is both the prospect of a 13 compensation payment and a development fund payment. 14 Are you referring to both or to one or -- 15 MR. MAYER: Well, if they somehow impact upon 16 the price difference between the base plan and the 17 highways option, then I need to know that number, 18 don't I. 19 MR. HICKS: Yes, you do. 20 MR. MAYER: So then I need to know both of 21 those. And I'd like to know the value of delivered 22 power, the expected value of delivered power. 23 MR. OSLER: You wanted the Birchtree as 24 distinct from -- 25 MR. MAYER: Well, I want to know what the 02789 1 $311,000 per year line loss comes out of. I mean 2 what's the total amount? 3 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: You wanted sort of a 4 percentage? 5 MR. MAYER: Well, I'd like to know the number 6 and the percentage. 7 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: As Mr. Mazur, I believe it 8 was, reported yesterday, that we use roughly 6 cents 9 a kilowatt hour which is the same number we used, for 10 instance, in the DSM evaluation and in the NFAAT 11 Panel. So we used the same value for power. But I 12 think I'm hearing you ask a different question. How 13 does that increase in loss compare to the total value 14 of power if you use the same multiplier? 15 MR. MAYER: Yes, I need to know that. 16 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We can certainly calculate on 17 that basis. 18 19 (UNDERTAKING MH-46: Advise of the expected value of 20 delivered power, what the $311,000 per year line loss 21 comes out of, what's the total amount? How does that 22 increase in loss compare to the total value of power 23 if you use the same multiplier) 24 25 MR. MAYER: And this 6 cents you're talking 02790 1 about, that's 6 cents per kilometre? 2 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Per kilowatt hour. 3 MR. MAYER: Per kilowatt hour, okay. Is that 4 the same for both AC -- no, it's got to be more for 5 AC than it is for DC, right? 6 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: First of all, the value of 7 the power is the same no matter what we're talking 8 about. 9 MR. MAYER: But your line losses -- 10 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: The line losses are unique to 11 the circumstances. You can't say that AC or DC will 12 have higher. You've got to know the whole set of 13 parameters. 14 MR. MAYER: Okay. I was of the impression 15 that the reason we needed high voltage DC lines was 16 because we couldn't do it with an AC line and get it 17 down there with any degree of efficiency. 18 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: You can use AC or DC in the 19 kind of circumstances we're talking about. The costs 20 start to be much different. 21 MR. MAYER: You understand what I need to know 22 in order to find out what that $311,000 per year 23 loss, line loss is. I asked you about the 24 compensation. And if the line loss figures in there, 25 then I think in order to make a fair comparison, that 02791 1 would have to be achieved. And then I'd ask the 2 difference in the value of the power per year to be 3 produced by Wuskwatim as proposed between that amount 4 and the amount you would have expected to receive 5 from a high-head design. 6 7 (UNDERTAKING MH-47: Advise of the difference in the 8 value of the power per year to be produced by 9 Wuskwatim as proposed between that amount and the 10 amount you would have expected to receive from a 11 high-head design) 12 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: That one actually we will 13 take that as an undertaking but we already have an 14 interrogatory that goes in that direction. But 15 you're asking for in a slightly different form. What 16 we can do is take that information with the 17 interrogatory and do a rough translation to give you 18 some context here. 19 MR. MAYER: Yes. And I certainly appreciate 20 that and I'm finding this document very interesting. 21 Thank you very much. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm just waiting to see if 23 there was anyone else that was going to speak from 24 your side here. 25 Just before we break for lunch, I understand 02792 1 Ms. Phare would like to raise a procedural matter. 2 MS. PHARE: Thank you. I'll be very brief. 3 Counsel is asking for just a clarification from the 4 Commission about how you intend to or if you intend 5 to deal with a suggestion that was made late 6 yesterday afternoon by Mr. Adams about that he 7 intends to introduce what seems to be possibly new 8 evidence refuting the presentation made the previous 9 day by the gentleman from Selkirk. I have a question 10 on procedural fairness about that that I just need a 11 clarification from you on. 12 Now I'll just go quickly through this so you 13 can get back to me on this I suppose. From my review 14 of the transcripts, I wasn't there Wednesday night so 15 I'm not even sure how to pronounce this gentleman's 16 name. 17 MR. MAYER: We don't know either. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Ciekiewicz. 19 MS. PHARE: Okay. I understand that he was an 20 unfunded participant. The issue that I have is there 21 was a subsequent characterization yesterday by both 22 the Commission and Manitoba Hydro that the evidence 23 presented by this man is either potentially or 24 actually untruthful. 25 And the transcript indicates that he was sworn 02793 1 in and I know that no questions were asked of either 2 by the Commission or Manitoba Hydro to challenge his 3 testimony. And so I don't really know if what he 4 says is true or not and that actually isn't my point. 5 But I do think that an unbiased process assumes the 6 truth of evidence that's presented before it. And 7 cross-exam is the method by which you expose bias or 8 inconsistency or lack of credibility. 9 So just very briefly, the issue as I see it 10 and the one that I'm asking you to clarify is it 11 seems that Manitoba Hydro is suggesting that they 12 want to present new evidence in response to the 13 accusations. I assume there were accusations made by 14 this gentleman. And I think they should have 15 explored that in cross-examination if they wanted to 16 expose those issues as being untrue or whatever. 17 If they are going to be presenting their own 18 evidence now to refute some of those accusations, I 19 think that, and I guess given that the transcripts 20 indicate that this man was under oath, I think the 21 Commission has to exercise extreme care in how you 22 deal with this. I think that you need to err on the 23 side of ensuring procedural fairness. And that if 24 you're going to allow this evidence to be introduced, 25 CASIL doesn't actually think that you should, but if 02794 1 you are, that you give the opportunity for this 2 gentleman to know ahead of time that it's going to 3 come in and he should have the opportunity to be 4 present and listen to it and respond and cross if 5 it's in fact new evidence on this, have an 6 opportunity to cross Manitoba Hydro particularly 7 because it appears to be his truthfulness or lack of 8 truthfulness that's being discussed without him being 9 present. 10 So I'm just raising this as an issue of 11 procedural fairness in the hopes that we can maintain 12 some standard of an objective process here. 13 MR. MAYER: If I may clarify? 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mayer. 15 MR. MAYER: I don't know which transcripts you 16 read. 17 MS. PHARE: Page 2690. 18 MR. MAYER: But you suggested that somehow 19 that the Commission had cast some aspersion on the 20 truthfulness of this witness. In fact, I think, if 21 my memory serves me correctly, the response from Mr. 22 Adams came as a result of my comment that the 23 Commission was concerned about what they had heard. 24 And in fact, the Commission, at least in making the 25 expression I did, I had assumed the truth of what was 02795 1 said under oath and in the presentation. 2 It was the expression of concern by the 3 Commission I think that drew Mr. Adams' attention. 4 So I don't think you will find anything in that 5 transcript whereby the Commission cast any aspersions 6 on any evidence at all. 7 MS. PHARE: And, Mr. Mayer, I happen to agree 8 with you. My interpretation of what you said 9 yesterday was exactly as you say. But in the 10 transcript, I think, and given that this gentleman 11 wasn't here to see that his evidence was being 12 discussed in this way, your quote doesn't read 13 exactly that way. And you say, 14 "I understand that," 15 and you're referring to the illegalities of what Mr. 16 Adams was talking about. You say, 17 "I understand that and I think we 18 would all be or at least I would feel 19 comforted by the fact that there was 20 little or no truth in the allegations 21 made last night." 22 MR. ABRA: That's not what Mr. Mayer said. 23 MS. PHARE: That is what Mr. Mayer said. 24 MR. ABRA: No, it's not. 25 MR. MAYER: Yeah, I was at the end. 02796 1 MS. PHARE: That's the direct quote. 2 MR. MAYER: I did say that there was going to 3 be some -- because we were concerned, if you will 4 recall correctly, I was concerned and I think we were 5 all concerned because I had asked for independent -- 6 and was discussing the question of independent 7 monitoring at the time. And I talked about 8 independent monitoring because the evidence from the 9 previous evening had raised the concern. 10 MS. PHARE: I -- 11 MR. MAYER: I'd like to clarify where I was 12 coming from in any event on that issue. And when 13 Hydro is accused, it has been accused of fairly -- 14 the accuracy, you should read the document, the 15 actual document itself. I'm sure there are a lot of 16 copies available. If true, it is fairly devastating. 17 MS. PHARE: I would agree with that. 18 MR. MAYER: I yield to the Chair for 19 discussion of the procedure. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: As Chair, all I can say is 21 we'll refer to the transcript but I was looking to 22 see if Mr. Bedford or Mr. Abra wanted to provide 23 advice to the Chair. 24 MR. ABRA: Well, I can tell you firstly, Mr. 25 Chair, there is a principle that Ms. Phare is 02797 1 effectively referring to and it's what we commonly 2 refer to as lawyers is the principle of Brown & Dunn. 3 And the rule is, although it's ultimately the 4 decision of the Panel as to how you will treat it, is 5 that if evidence intends upon being called to refute 6 an allegation made by a witness, then the party that 7 intends upon leading that evidence must cross-examine 8 on it before they lead the evidence. 9 So in other words, if Hydro intends to lead 10 evidence related to Mr. Ciekiewicz and his 11 relationship with Hydro, then Hydro, under the rule 12 of Brown & Dunn, was obliged to cross-examine him on 13 it. 14 Now it is a discretionary remedy. There's a 15 number of different ways it can be handled but that's 16 the general rule. Generally what judges and courts 17 will do is make either a ruling that they are 18 prepared to have the evidence that Hydro has 19 indicated they want to call. It can be led subject 20 to whatever weight the Panel decides they want to put 21 on it, or in the alternative, Mr. Ciekiewicz can be 22 invited back to make any comment he wishes to make at 23 the time. 24 But the basic rule, as Ms. Phare has stated, 25 it is correct, subject to modification as the Panel 02798 1 sees fit to apply it. And as I reiterate, that rule 2 is that there should be cross-examination of a 3 witness if there's an intent to call evidence to 4 contradict or refute the evidence that a person has 5 given. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Abra. 7 MR. ABRA: It's a principle that goes back a 8 couple of hundred years because Brown & Dunn was an 9 English case that was decided back in the 1800s if I 10 recall correctly. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bedford? 12 MR. BEDFORD: The five of you have heard me 13 more than once this week express my display about not 14 having written material in advance. I can certainly 15 cross-examine witnesses and I certainly expect that I 16 should be doing that where required when I have the 17 material in advance. But when people arrive whom 18 I've never heard of before frankly, Manitoba Hydro 19 had heard of him but its lawyer hadn't, he presents a 20 paper with a lot of information in it, if I am to be 21 expected as counsel to immediately begin 22 cross-examining him, I have to have the material 23 sufficiently in advance so I can review it with my 24 client, be informed by my client as to who this 25 individual is, what his history and issues with the 02799 1 company are and then I can cross-examine him. 2 I also made the comment earlier this week that 3 I do recognize that the procedures of this Commission 4 are such that you do not always and necessarily 5 adhere to rules of evidence and strict procedure. 6 You want open discussion. You want to encourage 7 members of the public to come forward. As Mr. Abra 8 and Ms. Phare and I and the other lawyers in this 9 room know, when we're in Her Majesty's Court of 10 Queen's Bench, we're much more strict about following 11 the rules and we do the work on behalf of our clients 12 to cross-examine. Sometimes that cross-examination 13 is extremely tough and vigorous. I wonder, and 14 that's all I'm doing is wondering, how many members 15 of the public are going to really want to come 16 forward and present information to you. 17 Some of it may or may not necessarily be 18 accurate. A lot of it is undoubtedly going to be 19 opinion when it's members of the public coming 20 forward. How encouraging is it going to be for them 21 to do that if we, as lawyers, through this hearing, 22 are now going to be expected to really toughly and 23 vigorously cross-examine gentlemen like Mr. 24 Ciekiewicz who clearly bore some animosity towards 25 Manitoba Hydro whom you do know has a history, an 02800 1 unhappy history with the company. 2 If you wish to watch if I am to be expected to 3 challenge that sort of gentleman toughly and 4 strongly, I can do that, but I'm not sure that it's 5 going to send a happy message to the public that if 6 you come forward before this Commission, you are 7 going to face these lawyers toughly questioning your 8 integrity, the accuracy of your information and so 9 forth. 10 So I leave that with you. I mean Ms. Phare is 11 right. She summarized the legal rule correctly. And 12 if you so decide, I am quite sure that my client is 13 quite prepared to put Mr. Adams and Mr. Wojczynski up 14 and have Mr. Ciekiewicz question them. And then we 15 can present whatever information it is that the 16 company had in mind to clarify for you the accuracy 17 or the inaccuracy of what he had to say. 18 I know Ms. Matthews Lemieux would also like to 19 speak to this issue. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Matthews Lemieux. 21 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Just a couple of 22 comments. There is a whole body of law, as Mr. Abra 23 and I'm sure Ms. Phare knows, in terms of the Brown & 24 Dunn rule, the exceptions and the applications of 25 that rule, particularly in the context of 02801 1 administrative tribunal hearings such as this. And I 2 think that it is very important to get some 3 clarification from the Commission on this point and 4 whether we will be expected to follow the strict 5 application of Brown & Dunn for the reasons that my 6 colleague, Mr. Bedford, has indicated. 7 If we are going to be utilizing the Brown & 8 Dunn rule in these proceedings, then that is going to 9 certainly mean that there will be other people that 10 are going to have to be subject to that kind of 11 rigorous cross-examination before we call evidence to 12 refute those types of factual matters that they have 13 brought forward. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you to all of you. We 15 will certainly further discuss this. But I can say 16 that -- I'm sorry, yes, I should leave you with the 17 last word. 18 MS. PHARE: Thank you. I just want to clarify 19 that my concern is mostly on the perception of bias I 20 guess. When a gentleman presents what he sees as his 21 perspective, and I have no idea about the issue or 22 even the long history or the truthfulness of his 23 statements, I believe that if evidence is going to be 24 offered after that specifically allege a lack of 25 truthfulness, which is a very severe thing when 02802 1 you're talking about being under oath, that he should 2 be given the opportunity to be present. And I'm 3 merely saying that I urge the Commission to extend 4 that information to him so that he is here. 5 Because what Mr. Ken Adams said yesterday 6 seemed that Hydro is very clear on the fact that they 7 want to refute those comments. And I don't know if 8 how they are planning on doing it. I'm not talking 9 about the strict application of the Brown rule 10 necessarily. It's a different issue than that. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We will discuss 12 this and come back with this. Definitely some of the 13 comments made by you, Mr. Bedford, are to the effect 14 that we have, in the past, as I stated at the very 15 beginning, tried to make these hearings certainly not 16 abide by the Brown & Dunn type of application. On 17 the other hand, we do want to enable members of the 18 public to feel comfortable about coming to make 19 presentations to the Commission. 20 On the other hand, we want to be fair. So I 21 will take the comments that have been made. We'll 22 balance those features and the response we'll try to 23 bring forth. Thank you. We will now adjourn for 24 lunch. 25 02803 1 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 12:20 P.M. 2 AND RECONVENED AT 1:15 P.M.) 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, 5 we are going to begin the process. Mr. Grewar. 6 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 7 just a number of exhibits to enter in from 8 yesterday's proceedings. From Hydro we have three 9 items. One is going to be exhibited as 10 MH/NCN-1021, and it is the Nisichawayasihk Cree 11 Nation, a Guide Book to the Agreement in 12 Principle, Winter 2001, exhibit 1021. 13 14 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN-1021: Nisichawayasihk 15 Cree Nation, Guide Book to the 16 Agreement in Principle, Winter 2001) 17 18 MR. GREWAR: Exhibit 1022, MH/NCN-1022 19 is Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation Overview Agreement 20 In Principle, Winter 2001. 21 22 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN-1022: Nisichawayasihk 23 Cree Nation Overview Agreement In 24 Principle, Winter 2001) 25 02804 1 MR. GREWAR: These are two items that 2 were referred to yesterday, and in particular the 3 glossary of terminology in these guide looks. 4 The other is the community profile CD, 5 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, and that is exhibit 6 number MH/NCN-1023. 7 8 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN-1023: Community 9 profile CD, Nisichawayasihk Cree 10 Nation) 11 12 MR. MAYER: Is that the one we saw 13 yesterday? 14 MR. GREWAR: Yes. In addition, we 15 have a TREE document which was submitted yesterday 16 and was filed electronically, It is the TREE, Time 17 to Respect Earth's Ecosystems/Resource 18 Conservation Manitoba interrogatory responses to 19 the Canadian Nature Federation, TREE/RCM, NFAAT 1 20 right through to 5. And that will be 21 TREE/RCM-1002. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 23 (EXHIBIT TREE/RCM-1002: Interrogatory 24 responses to Canadian Nature 25 Federation, TREE/RCM, NFAAT 1-5) 02805 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue 2 with the questioning, I would like to make a 3 comment in regards to the procedural matter raised 4 prior to the break for lunch by Ms. Phare. I have 5 checked the transcript and I am satisfied that 6 there was no bias expressed on the part of 7 Mr. Mayer. And I read he stated, I understand 8 that, and I think we will, we would all be, or at 9 least I would feel comforted by the fact that 10 there was little or no truth in the allegations 11 made last night. He is not saying that there was 12 no truth, or that they were allegations; he is 13 saying that he would feel comfortable in believing 14 the fact that there was not such -- so he is not 15 making an accusation as such. 16 As regards to Manitoba Hydro, I don't 17 know if Manitoba Hydro intends to pursue this 18 matter, as was stated on the record. And if 19 Manitoba Hydro intends to do that, we wish to be 20 informed sufficiently in advance to bring back Mr. 21 Ciekiewicz when this is to occur. If not, if this 22 matter is not pursued, the Commission will simply 23 take the presentations as they are on record, and 24 assess their value in the overall assessments that 25 they will have to make of all of the information 02806 1 presented. 2 Mr. Adams. 3 MR. ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, if I may. 4 We too had an opportunity to review the transcript 5 over the lunch break, and I have to admit that I 6 was a little confused by what Ms. Phare was saying 7 in respect to it. At no time did I suggest that 8 Mr. Ciekiewicz was being untruthful. In fact, I 9 am sure that he was telling the truth as he sees 10 it. What I was suggesting is that a thorough 11 review of all of the relevant material, including 12 that in the regulator's file, will demonstrate 13 that he has been consistently mistaken over about 14 the last four years. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Is it your intent then, 16 Mr. Adams, to bring new evidence on this issue at 17 these hearings? 18 MR. ADAMS: We will take that as a 19 consideration and we will advise the Commission 20 once we have made a decision on it. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: So you will advise the 22 Commission if that is to occur? 23 MR. ADAMS: Yes, sir. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Just before 25 we carry on then, we are asked to ask you to 02807 1 indeed identify yourselves before you speak, to 2 give an opportunity to the court reporter to -- it 3 is true that we all have a name in front of us, 4 but before you can connect the sound to where it 5 is coming from and make that connection, and so 6 that our technical -- Frank Sarge can make the 7 connection in terms of who is speaking, and open 8 the mike, there goes a few seconds which are 9 missed on the record. So we will thank you to try 10 to remember to do that. And if not, I will jump 11 in and put the name in. But, otherwise, things 12 are going okay and I will ask Mr. Abra to proceed. 13 MR. ABRA: I apologize, I was the one 14 that told you, of course, that it wasn't necessary 15 for you to put your names on the record. So I 16 will take the responsibility and the court 17 reporter can deal with me in that regard. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sargeant. 19 MR. SARGEANT: I would like to ask a 20 question, just a follow-up to a response that 21 Mr. Osler gave just before lunch. When you were 22 talking about -- I don't know if I would call it 23 the melding of your normal science with the 24 traditional knowledge -- I think I understood what 25 you said, but you are saying that the traditional 02808 1 knowledge added to the work that your team would 2 have done. Did it alter the way in which you did 3 your work? I wasn't quite clear on that? 4 MR. OSLER: I was talking about 5 specifically the issue of significance, as 6 distinct from other elements of the analysis. 7 That was my focus. And it was on the matter of 8 the word "significance," as we have to use it as 9 people practicing in the environmental field, 10 under all of the rules and regulations, has some 11 very specific contextual meaning that is purported 12 to be scientific. Let's leave it at that, it is 13 technical and scientific and it is meant to be 14 technical and scientific. 15 I made a quote from the guide to point 16 out the sort of guidance that we are given as to 17 the different value judgments that the public 18 bring forward. And value judgments don't really 19 have a role in the significance. That was a 20 professional comment. 21 Now, when we go and try and deal with 22 that nice thought, and work with NCN as well as 23 Manitoba Hydro, it is not an easy thought, in my 24 opinion or my experience, for people to grasp who 25 are not involved in the professional business of 02809 1 doing this, or don't do it regularly. I don't 2 care whether I am up in Nelson House or I am 3 elsewhere, intuitively, people have got their own 4 opinions of what is of significane and isn't, and 5 they want you to know about it, and they don't 6 necessarily buy into the thought that it is dealt 7 with scientifically. 8 Secondly, in the terms of Nelson House 9 and Nisichawayasihk, the perspective is that 10 everything is sacred in their area, traditional 11 area, and anything that affects it, they would 12 normally say is therefore significant. 13 So we have a difficulty right away in 14 trying to discuss, as I said we had to do -- we 15 had to discuss these results, not only with 16 ourselves and Manitoba Hydro, but with all of the 17 representatives that Councillor Thomas lead -- and 18 we had ample difficulty trying to discuss this. I 19 don't call that extra work or anything, it is our 20 job to discuss it. But trying to make these 21 divisions as to what the ground rules are when you 22 are trying to do our job, and what they are trying 23 to tell us in terms of what significance is, lead 24 to challenges for writing an EIS that has to be 25 done in the context of regulatory frame works. 02810 1 So I don't think that I was saying 2 much more than that. I am not sure that it would 3 be per se technically called traditional knowledge 4 is the point that I am making, it would be local 5 and traditional knowledge combined. It would be 6 local perspectives. It would be, I think I have 7 got a point to make to you, sir, about value; this 8 is very valuable to me. And I am saying well, 9 yes, but in terms of these criteria that we have 10 to use, do you understand what we are saying? 11 Yes, I understand what you are saying. Do we have 12 permission to say this? Well, yes, up to a point, 13 but we want to make a point of how sacred this 14 whole sacred, this whole area is. So the choice 15 of words on page 4 of the integrated summary was a 16 very important message that didn't come lightly. 17 It had to be agreed to by both parties, Manitoba 18 Hydro and NCN, as a way of getting a perspective 19 that was important across without interfering with 20 the process of doing the significance analysis 21 that we have to do component by component, by 22 component, to do our job. And when they view 23 everything as a package. They have great 24 difficulty even separating everything into 25 components, as do other people who are not making 02811 1 a living doing this, frankly. But we have our 2 guidelines and we have our practice. And I don't 3 think there is anything wrong with that, I am not 4 complaining about that but -- 5 MR. SARGEANT: I am not challenging 6 that concept either, it just wasn't quite clear in 7 my mind, but you have cleared it up for me anyway. 8 MR. OSLER: Thank you. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Abra. 10 MR. REMPEL: We have a response to 11 some of the questions that were raised by 12 Commissioner Mayer on the transmission, the 13 highway option. I think he left three questions 14 for us. I believe Mr. Hicks and Mr. Wojcznski 15 have a response, if it is all right for us to 16 address that now? 17 MR. ABRA: Certainly. 18 MR. HICKS: Hicks for the record. The 19 first of the three questions that I will attempt 20 to deal with, Mr. Chairman, and then Mr. Wojcznski 21 will address the second two questions. 22 The first question, as I understand 23 it, was, are there other areas or payments or 24 costs that might be affected by the alternative 25 proposed by Mr. Mayer, or identified by Mr. Mayer, 02812 1 relative to the current proposal? 2 If you will recall, we have identified 3 three areas of residual adverse effect in the 4 transmission line document, none of them 5 considered to be significant, but nonetheless, 6 three areas of residual effect. One involves the 7 presence of the line. The second involves the 8 habitat loss or alteration or the effects on 9 forestry activity that might arise from the 10 clearing of the right-of-way. And the third deals 11 with concerns about the potential for increased 12 access. 13 Conventionally, the presence of the 14 line is not something for which there is any 15 adverse effects compensation. It is essentially 16 an aesthetic consideration, something that we do 17 our best to avoid through careful routing. 18 In the second case with respect to 19 habitat loss or alteration, there is a forest 20 damage appraisal process which Manitoba Hydro will 21 be required to look at and report upon to Manitoba 22 Conservation, which will undoubtedly result in 23 some relatively small payment for the timber that 24 will be affected and taken out of the forestry 25 equation, if you will, or out of the forestry 02813 1 cycle. I don't have a number at my fingertips. I 2 would suggest to you, though, that because the 3 additional line length involves additional 4 clearing of land, and that was explained in the 5 submission that we made yesterday, that that 6 number would go up slightly. 7 And then thirdly, if there is a 8 question of access, and again there is no direct 9 compensation conventionally paid for increases in 10 access because at this point in time we have not 11 yet encountered a situation where that increase 12 was considered to be significant. I rather 13 suspect, to the degree that access has been raised 14 with us by various NCN members and others along 15 the length of the routes, that this is something 16 that we will be addressing further, and are 17 currently attempting to develop an access 18 management plan for NCN. And that we will 19 probably be monitoring access very carefully over 20 the course of this project to ensure that we are 21 on the right track there. 22 The third area then, or rather -- so, 23 with respect to the residual effects, I would not 24 expect a significant change in the costs, other 25 than an increase in the forest damage appraisal 02814 1 process, which would result in additional cost for 2 the so-called highway option. 3 Now, that leaves two other areas that 4 are not directly addressed in respect of the 5 environmental assessment. One is payment to 6 trappers for compensation of effects on the 7 traplines arising from construction, and the 8 immediate follow-up period during which time there 9 is some provision made for the fact that animals 10 may be for a time not behaving in the same way as 11 they might have done before the line was in place. 12 The second relates to what is referred 13 to in the Environmental Impact Statement as the 14 development fund, the transmission development 15 fund. There is not a lot of information in the 16 EIS presently with respect to the quantum that 17 might be associated with those numbers, for the 18 simple reason that at the time of filing, both 19 were a work in progress, if you will, and both 20 continue to be so. The transmission development 21 fund is currently continuing under review and 22 discussion with the affected communities, as is 23 the draft trappers compensation policy. 24 In the case of the trappers 25 compensation policy I can say, though, that again 02815 1 this entire area -- perhaps before I do that, in 2 case there is any confusion here, neither the 3 trappers compensation nor the development fund is 4 exclusively related to NCN or to the Nelson House 5 resource management area. The entire study area 6 here, the entire area affected by the transmission 7 lines involves registered traplines. And the 8 holders of those traplines, regardless of their 9 association with NCN or the location within the 10 Nelson House RMA, would be eligible to receive 11 compensation. 12 In the case of the development fund, 13 the foundation of the notion is that benefits 14 would be paid to reflect newly occupied Crown 15 lands that are subject to traditional use by area 16 First Nations or other Aboriginal communities. 17 So in both cases then the effect of 18 increasing the length of the line, which is the 19 consequence that we described to you yesterday, is 20 to increase the amount of compensation that would 21 be paid to trappers because there will be more 22 traplines affected, and to increase the amount of 23 the development fund payment because there will be 24 more newly occupied Crown land, in so far as there 25 are no Manitoba Hydro reservations on those 02816 1 rights-of-way at the present time. 2 One final comment, and this with 3 respect to the trapline compensation, there is to 4 some degree an element of negotiation and 5 recognition of concern in the draft policy. It is 6 not exclusively related to the occupancy of a 7 particular portion of the traplines. The notion 8 is that the area, that any trapline that was 9 crossed or within a set distance of the 10 transmission line would have some portion, in 11 fact, a band of about 10 kilometres in width, that 12 there might be some effect in. The proportion of 13 the line that that 10 kilometre distance 14 represents in terms of the total area of the line 15 is one part then of the equation for the 16 calculation of the compensation. 17 The second part, which is unrelated to 18 the particular location of the line, is the 19 historic value, or the historic net revenue of the 20 trapline operation and the associated domestic 21 harvest by the trapper. 22 So, again, in conclusion, in both 23 cases then, for the development fund and for the 24 trapline compensation, the increase in length 25 would have the effect of increasing the cost of 02817 1 the option relative to the currently proposed 2 option. 3 MR. MAYER: I have then just one 4 follow-up question to that. Are you telling me, 5 sir, that NCN has signed off on any compensation 6 they may claim as a community for the power line 7 going across virtually the whole width of their 8 resource area? 9 MR. HICKS: No, sir, I am not. 10 MR. MAYER: If NCN hasn't signed off 11 and you have built in compensation, as you told 12 us, or as we were told by the other panel, then 13 there is still a number there, and you haven't 14 addressed the issue. If you can tell me that 15 there is no money that is going to be paid as 16 compensation to -- and I say NCN because you have 17 made it very clear that your proposal is you run 18 that power line to the maximum length through the 19 resource area. That was a decision that was made, 20 it says so right in the book. 21 MR. HICKS: It does -- sorry to 22 interrupt. 23 MR. MAYER: So what I am saying is 24 that unless and until I have some assurance that 25 NCN is going to say, well, you can run it through 02818 1 there and you can pay the trappers like you 2 normally do, and a little bit for the timber. 3 Sorry, that doesn't fit with what Mr. Osler said 4 about how important this land and everything is to 5 the citizens of NCN. I know you can't give me a 6 number but -- 7 MR. HICKS: Commission Mayer, I think 8 I will have to refer that particular question to 9 Councillor Thomas and Mr. Wojcznski. 10 One point I would like to add to my 11 testimony of a moment ago is that the unit costs 12 that we used for -- the two unit cost figures that 13 we used, one for, if you will recall, the 14 Wuskwatim to Birchtree portion at 222,000 per 15 kilometre, and the other for the remainder of the 16 lines at 200,000 per kilometre is not just the 17 construction cost, that includes an allowance for 18 contingencies, planning, and environmental 19 assessment costs, et cetera, et cetera, and 20 including compensation -- not compensation, 21 because the development fund is not compensatory, 22 it is a benefit program. But it is an all out 23 figure, if you will. 24 MR. MAYER: But it makes no provision, 25 you have upped the figure per kilometre for the 02819 1 relatively small portion that goes from Wuskwatim 2 to Birchtree on your base case? 3 MR. HICKS: To reflect the fibre optic 4 component, yes. 5 MR. MAYER: So, that is the difference 6 there, that is the fibre optic component? 7 MR. HICKS: Yes. 8 MR. MAYER: And you say the rest of 9 that contains some compensation material. I am 10 telling you, or at least I am suggesting to you, 11 sir, that if that transmission line runs wholly 12 within NCN territory, I would be willing to bet 13 dollars to doughnuts you are going to end up 14 paying significant compensation, and that would 15 make a difference if you moved that power line, 16 financially, if you moved that power line 17 immediately out of the resource area, which you 18 could do very easily. But you've asked me to 19 refer that to Councillor Thomas, and I am not sure 20 he is going to tell me the answer either. 21 MR. HICKS: Can I make one final 22 comment? The benefit program, the development 23 fund program is, as I said earlier, geared to the 24 amount of newly occupied Crown land which is 25 otherwise subject to traditional use by a First 02820 1 Nation or other Aboriginal group. So to the 2 extent that the relocation of the lines would 3 reduce the amount of area within the NCN RMA -- or 4 rather the Nelson House RMA, that would be subject 5 to payment of the development fund, the benefit to 6 NCN would be reduced. But the overall cost would 7 simply transfer to other potentially, or other 8 traditional users of the land that we are moving 9 the line to. 10 MR. MAYER: Like you mean the local 11 government district of Mystery Lake? 12 MR. HICKS: No, I refer to the 13 traditional use interest, the First Nations and 14 other Aboriginal groups who could, and would I 15 expect, visit with Hydro and attempt to establish 16 their traditional use interest in those lands. 17 MR. MAYER: I suppose I am hearing 18 what you are saying. I know where the power lines 19 and the road is now. I know what it goes through. 20 And I guess I am going to have to wait to hear 21 from Councillor Thomas. 22 MR. HICKS: Again, though, I would 23 remind that the notion of the transmission 24 development fund is a benefit, it is an 25 opportunity for First Nations to gain some benefit 02821 1 relating to what is otherwise land that is 2 traditionally used by them. And it is not 3 compensatory in its concept. 4 MR. MAYER: I understand that. 5 MR. THOMAS: If I may ask, 6 Mr. Commissioner, or Mr. Mayer, if you can ask me 7 a question directly? 8 MR. MAYER: Okay. The question I 9 asked is, has NCN signed off for, basically waived 10 any compensation for the community as a whole, not 11 for individual trappers, but for the community as 12 a whole, have you waived compensation for the use 13 of your traditional -- sorry, your resource area 14 for the hydro line, for the transmission lines? 15 MR. THOMAS: The simple answer to your 16 question is no. We are looking at the concept of 17 a development fund primarily because, with respect 18 to a generating station, it is going to be firmly 19 planted on our territory. And for that reason, 20 ownership, or part ownership of the facility was 21 put forward. With transmission lines, you have 22 got so many areas to cover, so many different 23 parties to contend with. Ownership of 24 transmission line in that context is quite 25 problematic. So as opposed to investing in a 02822 1 transmission line with so many possibilities 2 there, we are not -- we haven't pushed that issue 3 from an ownership perspective. So we are 4 exploring the development fund concept. We 5 haven't signed off on it. We still, if 6 circumstances warrant it, may look at compensation 7 in a different form yet. But right now we are 8 looking at the development fund concept. 9 I am glad you mentioned the local 10 government district of Mystery Lake. Perhaps 11 maybe you are wanting us to move the transmission 12 line from our traditional territory into another 13 part of our traditional territory, which is the 14 local government district of Mystery Lake. We 15 have not received our fair share of what is in the 16 City of Thompson, nor from Inco. If you could 17 make arrangements to have our share, then we would 18 be more than happy to incur the extra costs 19 associated with putting a transmission line in 20 that area and perhaps sharing the benefits. 21 MR. MAYER: Councillor Thomas, I am 22 not even going to suggest that. The City of 23 Thompson was not all that successful when they did 24 try to get more money out of Inco. I guess I 25 don't want to get into a debate as to whether the 02823 1 local government district of Mystery Lake is 2 unoccupied Crown land, but we won't go there now. 3 MR. THOMAS: It is on our traditional 4 territory. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wojcznski -- was 6 that a point of order you wanted to make, 7 Mr. Bedford, or you wanted to input in the 8 question? 9 MR. BEDFORD: I was going to put some 10 input, I don't know whether Mr. Wojcznski is about 11 to do the same thing I am or not. But, Mr. Mayer 12 may or may not have been aware of the fact that 13 when Manitoba Hydro is granted permission to put a 14 transmission line on unoccupied Crown land, we do 15 compensate the trappers and resource users on the 16 traplines, but we do not compensate nearby First 17 Nations. And I was a little concerned with where 18 the conversation was going that there might have 19 been a misunderstanding that we do that. I am not 20 sure there was a misunderstanding, but there might 21 have been. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mayer, is this 23 clear to you? Mr. Wojcznski, would you like to 24 input further? And Mr. Bedford, have you finished 25 saying what you wish to say? 02824 1 MR. MAYER: Firstly, I have the 2 answer. I am not convinced that it is the whole 3 story. And I think that Councillor Thomas 4 confirms my suspicion that it is not whole story. 5 I thought I was going to create a problem by 6 asking that question, and I almost hesitated in 7 doing it. However, let's forget about that one 8 for the moment, and I am still waiting for the 9 line loss numbers and how they compare to total 10 production. 11 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I was hoping we could 12 do that over the lunch time, but we still don't 13 have the calculation, but we are going to try and 14 do that this afternoon. I hesitate to tread where 15 angels already have been, but I will try. 16 On the topic that we have just 17 finished, first of all, the compensation is to 18 individual resource users. And I think 19 Mr. Bedford has already made that point, our 20 counsel, but I was going to try and make that same 21 point. 22 And the second aspect that I was going 23 to make on that was that, without getting into 24 specific numbers, which we wouldn't want to do 25 here, but the type of compensation amounts in 02825 1 terms of dollars that we are talking about, are 2 more than an order of magnitude less than what we 3 are talking about in terms of the capital cost 4 differentials. They are relatively very small 5 compared to those capital costs. And in my own 6 simple terms, what I believe Mr. Hicks was saying 7 was that on a per unit basis, the compensation 8 costs would not be lower if you -- between the two 9 schemes. But even if they were, we are talking 10 about something which would be relatively small 11 compared to the capital, overall capital cost 12 differences. 13 In terms of the other questions, the 14 other two questions, we will come back later on. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Abra, you get a 16 chance to put a word in here. 17 MR. ABRA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 18 Before I go on to my next area, I have one general 19 question that I want to ask, and it relates to the 20 EIS guidelines that we were talking about this 21 morning, specifically with respect to the issue of 22 significance. But as I am sure you are all aware, 23 and I believe most of you probably participated in 24 the process, there were a number of public 25 meetings that were convened by the project 02826 1 administration team and by Manitoba Conservation. 2 There were a number of, at those public meetings 3 and throughout the public hearing process and 4 public input, there were a number of 5 recommendations, I believe 19 that were made, 6 related to the kinds of things that should be 7 included in the Environmental Impact Statements. 8 Subsequent to that then, of course, the Project 9 Administration Team issued the guidelines, and 10 some of the recommendations that had been made, 11 either by the Clean Environment Commission with 12 its input at the public hearings, or by public 13 interest groups and so on that participated in 14 that process, were not adopted for the purpose of 15 the EIS guidelines, and were not included in them. 16 Now, there has been a document 17 prepared by the project administration team, which 18 goes through each of the 19 recommendations, 19 indicates in it which ones have been included in 20 the guidelines and which ones haven't, and the 21 reasons, from the perspective of the project 22 administration team, why they weren't included. 23 What I am asking you is whether or not 24 there was any input from Manitoba Hydro as far as 25 the EIS guidelines were concerned, after the input 02827 1 from the public and from the Clean Environment 2 Commission, or not? In other words, did you take 3 the EIS guidelines after they were given to you 4 and just worked with them, or was there input from 5 Hydro and discussions between Hydro and the 6 Project Administration Team before the guidelines 7 were in fact given to you and after the public 8 consultation had taken place? 9 MR. REMPEL: Firstly, the review of 10 the draft guidelines, that process was actually 11 conducted by the Clean Environment Commission, not 12 PAT. 13 MR. ABRA: Sorry -- and there was of 14 course Clean Environment Commission input into 15 some of the recommendations, as you are probably 16 aware. 17 MR. REMPEL: That report actually was 18 a CEC report. 19 MR. ABRA: I am sorry, I misspoke. 20 MR. REMPEL: I believe it was called 21 "What You Told Us," or something along those 22 lines, but it was a summary of the public inputs 23 from meetings, I believe in Winnipeg and Thompson, 24 and I believe in The Pas as well. 25 MR. ABRA: That's right. 02828 1 MR. REMPEL: When PAT issued the draft 2 guidelines, we had filed and -- we, actually it 3 was Manitoba Hydro and NCN had filed an 4 Environmental Act proposal form, which included a 5 project description. And we had provided 6 subsequently, and discussed I believe with the 7 Technical Advisory Committee, some thoughts on 8 scoping. Beyond that, I am not aware of any input 9 that we provided in terms of the draft guidelines. 10 When the draft guidelines were out for 11 review, the PAT reviewed the comments of the CEC 12 and then issued final guidelines. They did not 13 discuss the comments with us, being the EMT, and I 14 don't think that they did with Manitoba Hydro or 15 NCN either. So, in other words, the input from 16 the CEC, the recommendations, the document, what 17 you told us, was provided to Manitoba Conservation 18 and the PAT group, and out of that PAT made some 19 recommendations on how to finalize the guidelines, 20 but that was done by them without input from us. 21 MR. ABRA: Okay. Mr. Osler, did you 22 have a comment? 23 MR. OSLER: "What You Told Us" 24 document is the PAT document, just for the record. 25 MR. ABRA: Yes, I said that I think, 02829 1 didn't I? 2 MR. OSLER: Yes, but there wasn't a 3 CEC report before that. So the sequence, just so 4 the record is clear, the sequence is that once the 5 draft guidelines are issued, the CEC held some 6 public meetings. For the record, in those 7 meetings and in the course of the correspondence, 8 Manitoba Hydro and NCN put comments on the record 9 with respect to the guidelines and the comments of 10 others. Once the CEC had issued its report, I 11 don't believe there was anything that I am aware 12 of, of any further inputs from Manitoba Hydro, 13 NCN, or EMT to the process. Certainly, there was 14 no inputs -- we saw this document at the same time 15 that everybody else saw this document, "What You 16 Told Us" and what the final guidelines are the PAT 17 issued. They came out to the proponents, as is 18 the norm, from the relevant authority from the 19 Province, and then they were made public at the 20 same time. 21 MR. ABRA: Okay. I misspoke the 22 order, I am sorry. But the bottom line is that 23 when some of the recommendations were not 24 included, you didn't have any more input in that 25 than anybody else did? 02830 1 MR. OSLER: That is correct. 2 MR. ABRA: I would like to go now to 3 the Churchill River Diversion project, which is 4 commonly referred to as CRD, along with the 5 augmented flow program, both of which we have 6 heard evidence about already. But there is some 7 aspects of it, as it relates to this particular 8 project before the CEC that I want to ask you 9 questions about. 10 Firstly, leading up to it, do you have 11 with you -- and if you don't, I would like an 12 undertaking -- the present area of Wuskwatim Lake, 13 the volume of water, and the depth of the lake, as 14 it is at the present time? 15 MR. DAVIES: Yes, we do. The area of 16 Wuskwatim Lake and lakes contingent to it, 17 Cranberry Lake, is 8,970 hectares, I believe. I 18 think I have the depths here also. It will take a 19 minute to look it up, but I do have it here. 20 The maximum water depth is 13.5 water 21 metres, with the mean water depth at 8.0 metres, 22 and again the overall size is 8,970 hectares. 23 MR. ABRA: Do you have any comparisons 24 pre-CRD? In other words, how big was it prior to 25 CRD? 02831 1 MR. DAVIES: There was about three 2 metres of water that was put on the lake. I do 3 have the pre-CRD area, but that will take me one 4 minute to look it up. 5 MR. ABRA: Certainly, thank you. 6 MR. DAVIES: It was approximately 7 6,000 hectares, and again that is including 8 Cranberry Lake which is attached to it. 9 MR. ABRA: So the difference then is 10 some 2,000 hectares? 11 MR. DAVIES: About 2,970 hectares. 12 MR. ABRA: And the difference then in 13 the size, that would be terrain that was 14 effectively flooded as a result of Churchill River 15 Diversion? 16 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. 17 MR. ABRA: And that would have been 18 sometime in the 1976/77 period? 19 MR. DAVIES: That's right. 20 MR. ABRA: In chapter 5 of your EIS, 21 and elsewhere throughout the EIS, in particular 22 with respect to the generation project, there is 23 reference to Wuskwatim Lake as being a disrupted 24 environment. What do you mean, firstly, by the 25 term "disrupted"? 02832 1 MR. DAVIES: It means it has been 2 affected by regulation, by Churchill River 3 Diversion. The water levels are not natural, they 4 are controlled by the diversion. 5 MR. ABRA: So it is as a direct result 6 of Churchill River Diversion? 7 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. 8 MR. ABRA: Okay. Do you happen to 9 know what the present flushing rate is of 10 Wuskwatim Lake? 11 MR. DAVIES: We have that number. 12 Again, it will take a minute to look it up. 13 MR. ABRA: Thank you. 14 MR. DAVIES: Right now it is presently 15 four days. 16 MR. ABRA: What is a flushing rate, 17 for the record? I have been told, but just within 18 the last couple of days. 19 MR. DAVIES: I believe it is -- I may 20 be corrected on this, but I believe it is the 21 water retention time in the lake. 22 MR. ABRA: The period of time that a 23 set volume of water remains in the lake before it 24 leaves. 25 MR. DAVIES: It is the discharge, the 02833 1 total volume of the water in the lake that leaves 2 the lake within a specified period of time. 3 MR. ABRA: Okay. Now the rate that 4 you have given, I understand that rates are looked 5 upon as either being fast or slow, and although 6 those terms seem to be relative, those are the 7 terms that are used, some lakes are fast and some 8 are slow. That four day period that you have 9 referred to, Mr. Davies, would that be a fast rate 10 or a slow rate? 11 MR. DAVIES: It would be a relatively 12 fast rate. Because of the Churchill River 13 Diversion, a lot of the lakes that were more 14 riverine before -- or sorry, more lacustrine 15 before have become more riverine now, so that 16 would be considered a fast rate. 17 MR. ABRA: Is it faster than the rate 18 was prior to CRD? 19 MR. DAVIES: I believe it would have 20 been, yes. 21 MR. ABRA: Do you know by how much? 22 MR. DAVIES: I could take an 23 undertaking and get back to you on that. 24 MR. ABRA: The records are available 25 somewhere? 02834 1 MR. DAVIES: I believe they are, yes. 2 3 (UNDERTAKING MH-48: Advise if flushing rate is 4 faster than the rate in lake prior to CRD) 5 6 MR. ABRA: All right. Now, the 7 flushing rate, does that affect the water quality 8 of Wuskwatim Lake? 9 MR. DAVIES: Yes, it does. 10 MR. ABRA: In what way, sir? 11 MR. DAVIES: It can affect it in a 12 number of ways. Normally, if you have a higher 13 water retention time, you can get greater 14 quantities of phytoplankton or algae growing in 15 the lake. The faster the circulation in the water 16 body, generally the less primary productivity that 17 does occur. 18 You also get less settling of 19 sediments and total suspended solids that are 20 moving through the system. The faster the 21 flushing rate, the less that settles out in the 22 lake. 23 Actually, we were talking about 24 phytoplanktons -- zooplankton, which are the 25 little animals that live in the water, you would 02835 1 also see an increase in those with an increased 2 retention time. 3 MR. ABRA: Okay. Is the water quality 4 better or worse the faster the flushing rate or 5 the slower the flushing rate? 6 MR. DAVIES: It depends on the type of 7 lake that you have. If you have a very fast 8 flushing rate and a very fast current, sometimes 9 you can have increased erosion because of that 10 faster current. And the increase in erosion can 11 increase total suspended solids in your system, 12 which can be viewed as a decrease in water 13 quality. 14 MR. ABRA: Can you tell me 15 specifically about Wuskwatim Lake, sir? 16 MR. DAVIES: Wuskwatim Lake right now, 17 total suspended solids I believe are somewhere in 18 the 10 to 12 milligrams per litre range, which 19 wouldn't be considered exceptionally high, but 20 probably would be higher than they were 21 pre-diversion. 22 MR. ABRA: Pre what, I am sorry? 23 MR. DAVIES: Pre-CRD. I believe the 24 average is about 12. 25 MR. ABRA: Okay. 02836 1 THE CHAIRMAN: 12 what? 2 MR. DAVIES: 12 milligrams per litre 3 TSS levels in Wuskwatim Lake. 4 MR. ABRA: When you say that is higher 5 than it was pre-CRD, do you have records as to 6 what it was pre-CRD? 7 MR. DAVIES: There is a minimal amount 8 of information available pre-CRD. We wouldn't 9 have enough to give a firm number on what it was 10 pre-CRD. We do have information from the people 11 that harvested there, and their information is 12 that the water was clear and better than prior to 13 the Churchill River Diversion. 14 MR. ABRA: That is people with 15 traditional knowledge from NCN that you have dealt 16 with during the course of this, in the 17 negotiations and so on? 18 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. 19 MR. ABRA: Now, we have heard 20 evidence, of course, throughout these hearings, 21 and I think it is probably a matter of public 22 knowledge to many of you that have dealt with 23 Churchill River Diversion, that there were 24 significant adverse effects as a result of CRD, 25 and that some of those have continued under the 02837 1 terms of the interim license related to the 2 augmented flow program. 3 Firstly, has there ever been an 4 environmental assessment done of the Churchill 5 River Diversion project? 6 MR. DAVIES: There has been a number 7 of studies that have been done on the effects of 8 the Churchill River Diversion. I believe the most 9 recent was actually in relation to claim 18, it 10 was a Government of Canada's response to claim 18. 11 MR. ABRA: Of the Northern Flood 12 Agreement claims? 13 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. Claim 18 14 was filed under the Northern Flood Agreement, and 15 the allegation was that there was not sufficient 16 monitoring done and sufficient knowledge on the 17 effects of the Churchill River Diversion. 18 Canada's response to that was the Federal 19 ecological monitoring program. In conjunction 20 with that, the ecological monitoring program which 21 was conducted by Manitoba was also undertaken, and 22 there was some coordination between the two groups 23 to make sure that they were not studying the same 24 lakes, obviously, and collecting the same types of 25 information. 02838 1 The Federal ecological monitoring 2 program had a report that was finalized in, I 3 believe it was 1992, and that provided a synopsis 4 of some of the major components and major effects 5 of the Churchill River Diversion. 6 MR. ABRA: Can you give us a synopsis 7 of what some of them were, Mr. Davies, to the best 8 of your knowledge? 9 MR. DAVIES: I have a report here, if 10 I take one moment to get it, I will be able to 11 give you a better list. 12 MR. ABRA: Thank you. 13 MR. DAVIES: There was work conducted 14 on water quantity and quality, and I am not sure 15 how to summarize several pages in a few moments, 16 but they looked at Southern Indian Lake, the 17 increase in the area, basically from 2,082 square 18 kilometres to 2,377 square kilometres. 19 MR. ABRA: Could you speak up, 20 Mr. Davies? 21 MR. DAVIES: They looked at Southern 22 Indian Lake and the increase in area of Southern 23 Indian Lake which increased from 2,082 square 24 kilometres to 2,377 square kilometres. 25 They also looked at the creation of 02839 1 the Notigi reservoir which was previously part of 2 the river, and that was 733 kilometres squared. 3 They also looked at the water levels effects on 4 Cross Lake and the dewatering caused by Lake 5 Winnipeg Regulation. They looked at a number of 6 other lakes on the system. The water quality in 7 the FEMP study area was looked at in 1987 to 1989. 8 There was also work done on sediment 9 and sedimentation. And I won't go through the 10 whole report, but I know that one of the key 11 studies conducted was on Southern Indian Lake, and 12 it was in relation to erosion and sediment 13 deposition, and where along the lake and on the 14 various depths that the sediment did settle out 15 and the effects that it had. 16 There were studies done on mercury. 17 And one of the items that was most important in 18 the study was the fact that there was some, there 19 was the ability at that point in time to conduct 20 measurements of mercury in water because of the 21 concern with drinking. And as I had mentioned 22 before, the levels that were found were 23 approximately one-thousandth of the guidelines. 24 There was work conducted on fisheries 25 and aquatic life. Again, the studies found that 02840 1 there was obviously the effects on fish population 2 in Southern Indian Lake. The work that was done 3 in the FEMP study showed that despite the 4 indication earlier on that the commercial fishery 5 would disappear, that the commercial fishery and 6 fish populations were coming back, and that they 7 had expected that the fish population would settle 8 at a point that was less than pre-project, but at 9 a sufficient level to perhaps provide for a 10 commercial fishery at Southern Indian Lake. And 11 that proved out to be true. 12 There was also a look at benthic 13 invertebrates in some of the water bodies. 14 MR. ABRA: Sorry? Could you spell 15 that for the reporter please? 16 MR. DAVIES: B-E-N-T-H-I-C 17 I-N-V-E-R-T-E-B-R-A-T-E-S. Again, those are just 18 the little bugs that live on the bottom, the clams 19 and snails. 20 MR. ABRA: If I hadn't asked you that, 21 I would have been blamed for it so. 22 MR. DAVIES: Again, one of the 23 interesting things that came out, it was a look at 24 the concentrations of invertebrates at different 25 water levels and under different flow regimes. 02841 1 And I believe they found that there was about 2 50 percent loss of productivities in areas that 3 were being dewatered by Churchill River Diversion. 4 If you have a four and a half foot range, with the 5 water levels going up and down, there is part, 6 what we call the intermittently exposed zone, and 7 their productivity within that zone is less. And 8 if we take the next step and look at the 9 Wuskwatim, this was one of the reasons we felt 10 there would be an increase, because this project 11 is doing the opposite of what the Churchill River 12 Diversion would do. 13 MR. ABRA: You are talking about 14 productivity of fish? 15 MR. DAVIES: Productivity of the 16 benthic invertebrates, which is the food source 17 for the fish. 18 MR. ABRA: Sorry, okay. 19 MR. DAVIES: They also looked at 20 resource harvesting, and one of the conclusions 21 was that they did not have a good handle on 22 resource harvesting. The information -- 23 MR. ABRA: You mean pre-CRD? 24 MR. DAVIES: Pre or post. And one of 25 the items that came out was that, despite the fact 02842 1 that resource harvesting was maintained in some 2 areas, the amount of effort that was required to 3 maintain the harvest was not looked at, and the 4 conclusion was that it should have been. If the 5 same number of animals are being harvested, but it 6 is taking three times as much effort, three times 7 as much effort was not known and that was 8 something that they felt should be looked at. 9 MR. ABRA: Resource harvesting, I 10 understand, in layman's terms includes things like 11 hunting, fishing, berry picking, that type of 12 thing? 13 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. All of 14 domestic harvesting activities, including hunting, 15 fishing, and gathering, which also includes 16 medicinal plants, and also commercial fishing and 17 commercial trapping. In addition to the FEMP 18 studies, and the ecological monitoring program or 19 EMP studies, there was also the Lake 20 Winnipeg/Churchill/Nelson River Study Board 21 reports that provided a substantial amount of 22 information on the project. 23 MR. ABRA: All right. 24 MR. REMPEL: I would like to just add 25 one thing in response to DFOS-41, in August of 02843 1 this last year, we provided a listing of studies 2 that had been done in the Wuskwatim area in the 3 aquatic field. 4 MR. ABRA: Yes. 5 MR. REMPEL: So there is a table of 6 kind of specific studies on the aquatic 7 environment. 8 MR. ABRA: There has been discussion, 9 I think it was Mr. Wojcznski that mentioned it 10 during the course of the NFAAT panel, to MEARA. 11 What is that? 12 MR. REMPEL: MEARA was the Manitoba 13 Environmental Review Assessment -- Manitoba 14 Environmental Assessment Review Agency. It 15 existed in the '70s, I believe, and Mr. Meara did 16 make mention to some -- 17 MR. ABRA: Mr. who? 18 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Wojcznski did make 19 mention of some interaction with MEARA, and I will 20 refer that question to Mr. Wojcznski. 21 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I am sorry, I thought 22 he answered the question -- sorry, what was the 23 question again? 24 MR. ABRA: I guess why it was named 25 after you. I am not sure, I don't know why he 02844 1 referred it to you. 2 MR. REMPEL: I thought you were 3 following up on what he had said at the NFAAT. 4 MR. ABRA: Basically, what did the 5 organization do? Was it a government department? 6 MR. REMPEL: It was a government 7 agency. As I recall, it was discretionary on 8 behalf of Government agencies to submit 9 environmental, conduct environmental assessments 10 on government actions. It was long before the 11 Manitoba Environment Act, and I guess it was a 12 precursor to that legislation. 13 MR. ABRA: Prior to the first statute, 14 which I think was the Clean Environment Act, and 15 then the subsequent Environment Act and so on? 16 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 17 MR. ABRA: So it was basically a 18 department or subdepartment of Government that was 19 responsible for assessing environment and so forth 20 in the Province? 21 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 22 MR. ABRA: Prior to statute -- is that 23 your understanding of it? 24 MR. REMPEL: That is my understanding 25 and Mr. Strachan, when he does appear, can clarify 02845 1 that for you, but that is my understanding. And I 2 understand that it was discretionary for agencies 3 like Manitoba Hydro to submit their plans to 4 MEARA. 5 MR. ABRA: Okay. I gather from your 6 answer earlier, Mr. Davies -- and I appreciate the 7 fullness of the answer that you gave, but there 8 has not been a formal environmental assessment 9 done of CRD since its inception back in the mid 10 '70s or early '70s? 11 MR. DAVIES: I believe the Federal 12 ecological monitoring program would been viewed as 13 an assessment. I am not sure under which 14 regulations it would have fallen, but it was again 15 in response to the Northern Flood Agreement. 16 MR. ABRA: Okay. Nextly, with respect 17 to the augmented flow program, has there been any 18 kind of an environmental assessment of it? 19 MR. DAVIES: All of the studies that I 20 believe were conducted under both the Federal 21 Ecological Monitoring Program and the Ecological 22 monitoring Program looked at the Churchill River 23 Diversion with the augmented flow pattern as part 24 of it. 25 MR. ABRA: Which ones did they 02846 1 include, sir? 2 MR. DAVIES: I am sorry? 3 MR. ABRA: Which studies did you say? 4 MR. DAVIES: The studies that fell 5 under the Federal Ecological Monitoring Program, 6 or FEMP, and the Ecological Monitoring Program 7 which was conducted by Manitoba. 8 MR. ABRA: All right. Now, yesterday 9 in your evidence, and Mr. Wojcznski confirmed it, 10 the evidence was that the building of Wuskwatim 11 dam would not have any impact as far as the 12 augmented flow program was concerned, and that you 13 would have been satisfied of that by engineers of 14 Hydro and so on. And in particular at Missi Falls 15 and the Churchill River that there would not be 16 any change in the rate of flow at Missi Falls. 17 Have I got that correct, that that is what you 18 have been assured of? 19 MR. DAVIES: That is correct. And it 20 was not just Manitoba Hydro, we did have project 21 engineers -- I believe George Rempel spoke to 22 that -- that looked at it as part of the study 23 team, and also Dr. MacInnes was retained by NCN 24 directly. 25 MR. ABRA: And I told you yesterday 02847 1 that one of the aspects that we have concern about 2 is the building of the dam and the effect on 3 Wuskwatim may in fact result in less water going 4 through Missi Falls and so forth. I would like to 5 refer you, I have copies here, I am not asking you 6 to play memory games or whatever -- 7 Now, this is as a result of 8 information request, first round, CEC/MH/NCN 1 9 EIS, it is information request 106e. And it asks 10 you to provide discharge records for the Lower 11 Churchill and Missi Falls since CRD, and then to 12 give us a project model, which I believe is 13 referred to as a SPLASH model, that predicts 14 Wuskwatim inflows. 15 Now, if you compare the first table 1 16 is the historic monthly discharge, and it shows an 17 average in the last column. And then you go to 18 what is referred to as the simulated monthly 19 discharge based on SPLASH modeling at Churchill 20 River Diversion. Now, both tables are based on 21 KCFS. What does that stand for? 22 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: That stands for, K 23 for thousand, so thousand cubic feet per second. 24 MR. ABRA: And you will note, 25 Mr. Wojcznski, that the simulated SPLASH modeling 02848 1 that you have done, now you have taken it right 2 back to 1912, but the historic monthly discharges 3 from 1976 and then the simulated monthly discharge 4 SPLASH model that you have provided to us, it 5 would appear that in particular for the years, the 6 later years from approximately 1987 or '88, the 7 average flow of Missi Falls, according to your 8 predictions, is significantly less than what it 9 has been, the historical monthly discharge shows. 10 Now, can you give an explanation for that? 11 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I think perhaps I 12 should take an undertaking on that? 13 MR. ABRA: Okay. 14 15 (UNDERTAKING MH-49: Provide explanation 16 why predictions re average flow on Missi Falls is 17 less than historical monthly discharge) 18 19 MR. ABRA: Again, I ask the question, 20 I am not trying to play games, but it relates to 21 the issue that I raised with you yesterday about 22 whether indeed there will be an impact on 23 Wuskwatim Lake, and in particular with respect 24 to -- well, right up of course to Missi Falls and 25 the Churchill River Diversion. 02849 1 The other aspect that I would ask you 2 to consider, and you will probably need an 3 undertaking on this, or to give an undertaking, in 4 the filing there is a letter that has been 5 produced, dated May 15 of 1998, that is from the 6 department of what was then called Environmental 7 Management, and it was addressed to Dr. W.L. 8 Everett, who apparently in 1998 was the senior 9 environmental officer of Manitoba Hydro. And it 10 encloses Environment Act license number 2327, 11 relating to the building of a weir at the mouth of 12 the Churchill River. I can give a copy of this to 13 you, but it is in the filing if you want. And a 14 weir, I understand, but correct me if I am wrong, 15 there was a weir built at the mouth of the 16 Churchill River to effectively prevent the mixing 17 of salt water from Hudson Bay with fresh water. I 18 see you shaking your head, Mr. Adams, if I am 19 wrong, please correct me? 20 MR. ADAMS: The purpose of the weir 21 was not to prevent the mixing of the salt water 22 and the fresh water. The purpose of the weir was 23 twofold. Firstly, it was to ensure that we had 24 adequate body of water to allow the pumphouse for 25 the Town of Churchill to operate under all 02850 1 reasonable, predictable conditions. And the 2 second was to some extent to try to restore 3 recreational productive area for the residents to 4 go fishing, hunting, trapping, and canoeing, or 5 whatever else they want to do in the area. 6 MR. ABRA: Yes, but why -- I don't say 7 why, but I thought that was the purpose, to give 8 them fresh water for the purpose of doing that? 9 And the difficulty, the way it was explained to me 10 was, and again I stand to be corrected, was that 11 salt water was starting to get into the Churchill 12 River in the areas where people were fishing and 13 so on, and they were trying to slow down that rate 14 of mixing. 15 MR. ADAMS: I don't know who explained 16 that to you, but that was not the purpose. 17 MR. ABRA: Again, what was the 18 purpose? 19 MR. ADAMS: The purpose was we 20 negotiated an agreement with the Town of Churchill 21 and they felt that a weir across the Churchill 22 River at that location was appropriate and met all 23 of their requirements. 24 MR. ABRA: I see. I wonder, sir, if 25 you could -- in that license, in particular I 02851 1 would draw your attention to conditions 22 and 23, 2 and if we -- 3 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We should have a 4 copy. 5 MR. ABRA: Well, I will get copies for 6 you during a recess that we might have, but you 7 will probably need an undertaking in this regard 8 in any event, or wish to give an undertaking in 9 this regard. Following on the undertaking that 10 you gave Mr. Wojcznski, with respect to the SPLASH 11 models that I have given to you for Missi Falls, 12 but the concern that we have relates to condition 13 23 of the license. And specifically at the time 14 that the license for the weir was granted, there 15 was a condition that certain flows were supposed 16 to continue at Missi Falls, upstream from the 17 weir. Do I make that clear? 18 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We will take that as 19 an undertaking. 20 21 (UNDERTAKING MH-50: Advise re discrepancy in 22 flow re condition 23 of licence on flows to 23 continue at Missi Falls) 24 25 MR. ABRA: I will give you a copy of 02852 1 this, it is in the filings. I am sorry we didn't 2 have copies available for you at the time of 3 questioning, I should have arranged for that, I am 4 sorry. 5 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Could you repeat the 6 question itself, though, it was related to 23 of 7 the Churchill weir license regarding flow -- 8 MR. ABRA: I will read the condition 9 to you for the record. It is condition 23 in 10 particular. 11 "The licensee," 12 which was Manitoba Hydro 13 "shall at all times following 14 construction of the development," 15 and the development of course was the weir, 16 "maintain releases from the Missi 17 Falls control structure on the 18 Churchill River such that these flows 19 are not less than those maintained 20 under the existing Churchill River 21 Diversion operation flow regime for 22 the period 1986 to the date of this 23 license." 24 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: And so what is the 25 question then? 02853 1 MR. ABRA: Well, on our looking at the 2 historical monthly discharges themselves, plus, 3 and in particular the SPLASH model, which as I 4 said earlier, appear to be less than the 5 historical monthly flow, how do you account for 6 the discrepancy? For example, up to 1998, the 7 historical monthly discharge itself, the lowest 8 was I believe in 1992, and that shows 1,000 cubic 9 feet of -- well, 1.9. And yet for the years 2002 10 and 2003, it shows 1.6. 11 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We will take an 12 undertaking. 13 MR. ABRA: That is fine. Thank you. 14 MR. DAVIES: Mr. Abra, we had done 15 some work on the estuary at Churchill, and I just 16 want to make a point that the upstream extent of 17 the estuary and salt water interface is about one 18 kilometre downstream of the weir, and the water 19 intake for the Town of Churchill is about eight to 20 ten kilometres upstream of the weir. So there is 21 quite a distance between the two. 22 MR. ABRA: Okay. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: I missed that. How 24 far, did you say? 25 MR. DAVIES: Eight to ten kilometres 02854 1 upstream from the weir is the water intake, and 2 the maximum influence of the salt water is 3 approximately one kilometre downstream of the 4 weir. 5 MR. ABRA: Does that make a 6 difference? Sorry, sir, I am not an engineer, I 7 am only a lawyer. 8 MR. DAVIES: You asked if there was 9 concern regarding mixing of salt water and an 10 effect on water intake, and there is quite a 11 distance between the two, with or without the 12 weir. 13 MR. ABRA: Sorry, that is not the 14 point that I am asking about. It is simply the 15 fact that the license stipulates that a certain 16 average is supposed to be met as far as the 17 monthly discharge is concerned. And it would 18 appear for a couple of years at least that has 19 been below that. And I am sure there is an 20 explanation for it, but I am just wondering what 21 it is. 22 MR. ADAMS: We will get you a formal, 23 complete explanation, but a very quick explanation 24 is that the license specifies a minimum discharge 25 for different months. It doesn't specify -- and 02855 1 the Churchill weir license maintains those minimum 2 discharges. What it doesn't say is you have to 3 have the same average discharge that you did 4 historically. 5 MR. ABRA: Well, if that is your 6 answer, let's hear it. 7 MR. ADAMS: As I said, we will put 8 that in a more formal context. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, 10 we will take a short break. We do not plan 11 running until the same hour as yesterday, this 12 being Friday, so we will have a short 10 minute, 13 12 minute break right now. 14 15 (HEARING RECESSED at 2:25 P.M. AND 16 RECONVENED AT 2:35 P.M.) 17 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, 19 we will continue, for a short while anyways. 20 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chairman, perhaps 21 while we are getting going again here, I would 22 like to make a correction to a statement that I 23 offered in evidence earlier in response to the 24 inquiry from Commissioner Mayer with respect to 25 the highway option. I believe that I said for the 02856 1 record that the unit costs, respectively $222,000 2 and $200,000, included the compensation and 3 development fund cost. They do not. Those costs 4 we had used are the construction costs, inclusive 5 of contingency and labour and material. But we 6 have used them as an indication of the added cost 7 of the line. The development fund cost, which is 8 roughly 5 percent of the capital cost, and any 9 compensation costs are not explicitly included in 10 that estimate. They are, of course, included in 11 the larger estimates for the project. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Osler. 13 MR. OSLER: Mr. Chairman, there was an 14 undertaking yesterday in the transcript at page 15 2636, undertaking 44, that I made to Ms. Avery 16 Kinew. The question was that I would check on 17 whether or not we had some information in the 18 record of what we were talking about at the time. 19 We don't have information specifically in the 20 record that documents what we were talking about 21 at that point in the transcript. 22 What I would refer, for the record, to 23 the answers to CEC, round one, EIS 105, 107a and 24 109a, just for something that could be reviewed 25 that addressed the question of documentation of 02857 1 TK, and that may lead to some other questions 2 later, but it seems to me those were the most 3 representative questions that were asked, and that 4 might give you something to look at. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Abra. 6 MR. ABRA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 7 Mr. Chairman, some of the areas that I 8 intended on getting into today I expect are going 9 to be quite time consuming. I think it is 10 preferable that I not get into areas that I cannot 11 finish today. The next area was going to be 12 cumulative effects, but I expect it will take more 13 than the hour that we have remaining. Similarly, 14 with respect to sedimentation, I expect that it 15 will be an area of some significance and I don't 16 want to open it up and get halfway through again, 17 and interrupt those two areas that are very 18 important to everyone. What I propose, subject to 19 your approval is to deal with, as they used to say 20 on "Reach For the Top," some short snappers as far 21 as areas of questioning are concerned, and leave 22 those other larger areas for when we reconvene in 23 early April, if that is satisfactory? 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 25 MR. ABRA: Thank you. I would like to 02858 1 go to public consultation, members of the panel. 2 The EIS guidelines, of course, 3 provided that there was to be public consultation 4 with respect to the Wuskwatim project. And I know 5 that you have carried out a significant amount of 6 public consultation, and it was of course carried 7 out by the Clean Environment Commission as well, 8 as you described earlier this afternoon. 9 There have also been, I know you have 10 all described them at some length, and Mr. Thomas 11 has described at some length all of the 12 consultation that has taken place with respect to 13 NCN in particular. 14 Firstly, with respect to the general 15 public, can you give us some idea of the main 16 concerns that were expressed by the public in the 17 project areas in the rest of the Province about 18 this particular dam? 19 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Osler will answer 20 that. He was the overall coordinator of the 21 public involvement program. 22 MR. ABRA: Thank you. 23 MR. OSLER: The overall program dealt 24 with both the generation and transmission. There 25 was, although, a reporting on them separately in 02859 1 the two volumes, volume 1 of each. So at page 2 3-22 of the generation volume 1, there was a 3 summary of key issues heard, particularly relating 4 to the generation project, by the time of the 5 filing of the EIS. 6 MR. ABRA: And you took steps to 7 address each of those concerns, Mr. Osler? 8 MR. OSLER: Yes, sir. 9 MR. ABRA: What specific steps, the 10 numbers -- again, don't cover all of them, but if 11 you might pick two or three significant ones that 12 may have affected your planning with respect to 13 the two projects as far as the concerns expressed 14 by the public are concerned? 15 MR. OSLER: Well, the planning 16 elements were addressed throughout the process. 17 This was sort of a residual set of comments as the 18 process is finished. But if you were discussing 19 with Mr. Hicks the transmission, you would 20 describe the public involvement process that he 21 calls the site selection process in his case, 22 where public discussion took place to look at 23 alternatives and to help them come to the 24 conclusions they came to that this would avoid the 25 issues and concerns, or deal with concerns in a 02860 1 concrete way. So I leave that whole area to him. 2 If you were discussing with us and 3 Mr. Davies the issue of the road into the site, 4 again, there was a similar process of discussion, 5 looking at alternatives, coming to a conclusion, 6 discussing it with the NCN community. 7 Similar questions were asked about the 8 effects on Wuskwatim Lake and other upstream 9 areas, and as well as about the effects on the 10 Upper Nelson River area, which would be the 11 Pimicikamak area, Cross Lake area, or other areas 12 due to any changes in the operation of Manitoba 13 Hydro's overall water power system due to the 14 project. 15 Communities asked whether processes 16 would be in placed to deal with any unanticipated 17 adverse effects or impacts of the project, and 18 that is the place where the word was used 19 interchangeably. 20 At this time there was a thought that 21 this would be handled in a different process 22 called the Public Utilities Board review, and 23 people asked about how that would done. And the 24 availability of EIS documents for review, as well 25 as the availability of funding for independent 02861 1 review -- I am summarizing. There was 2 consideration put into that list, so I don't think 3 that I should try and do something off the fly. 4 5 When we get to some other things that 6 I listed here, I mean, obviously in the employment 7 related areas it is largely a process of providing 8 information and people sort of wanting to know 9 what this information means. So there is not a 10 lot that we could do beyond that at this stage. 11 When we were dealing with communities 12 downstream, Mr. Davies has made the point that as 13 a result of and during the course of this public 14 discussion of communities beyond NCN, we expanded 15 the area downstream water quality monitoring, in 16 order to ensure that there would be a baseline of 17 information against which to assess what was 18 happening after the project. So that we were -- 19 we couldn't think of a better way to try and 20 address the concerns than that, making sure a 21 baseline would be there. Otherwise people say 22 what do you do if you are wrong, and how do you 23 know you won't be wrong? And scientists by 24 definition have to accept the fact that they could 25 be wrong. So we have a monitoring process to have 02862 1 a baseline so we have a record at least in place. 2 The other thing that we did was go 3 through extensive internal planning discussion 4 that is lead to the Birchtree Lake constraint, 5 which I described earlier, as a way to provide 6 some greater level of certainty under a wider 7 range of conditions that water level changes would 8 be what people were assuming they would be by the 9 time you got to Birchtree Lake. 10 The whole issue of water regime 11 changes elsewhere, beyond the study area, has been 12 a matter that has received a great deal of 13 attention as a result of consultation processes 14 with Pimicikamak through article 9 of the NFA, and 15 through discussions at South Indian Lake with all 16 of the various parties there. Steps were taken to 17 ensure, to the extent that we could, that the 18 communities who had such concerns would have a 19 consultation process directly with the parties to 20 address the issues of concern to them. So in the 21 case of South Indian Lake, you have heard that 22 they were funded to retain independent experts to 23 look over the EIS documents, to check whether or 24 not there would be, in their scientific point of 25 view, if you want to take that perspective, a 02863 1 basis for concern for the residents of South 2 Indian Lake that somehow or other the water regime 3 would be affected upstream of Early Morning 4 Rapids. 5 Consultation processes with the 6 ability for First Nations to retain their own 7 people and to consult with their own members were 8 established with York Factory First Nation and 9 Tataskweyak Cree Nation, to do similar types of 10 reviews and look over the material, and make sure 11 they have their own people looking at it and have 12 their own discussion. 13 In the case of Pimicikamak, the only 14 process that could be dealt with was the one 15 through article 9, which is just Manitoba Hydro 16 and not the two parties together. And as you have 17 heard on the record, that involved funding for 18 them to retain Messrs. McCullough and Goodman, to 19 meet and review with Manitoba Hydro, and members 20 of the EMT -- George Rempel and I participated in 21 most of those discussions -- to review their 22 concerns about the modeling, the ability to 23 predict, and discuss what would be the changes in 24 the water regime, if any, in the Cross Lake area 25 as a result of system effects. 02864 1 You have heard -- there is a record of 2 that in these proceedings under the October 3 supplementary filings that we made, October 9 I 4 think it is, 2003, under the public involvement 5 program filings, in that supplementary filing I 6 think part 3 is a record of the article 9 process 7 from the beginning, as it dealt with Wuskwatim, 8 through to the point in time that that was filed. 9 And you have had some subsequent filings on that. 10 So in that case the focal point was on 11 getting Manitoba Hydro to do further work, and 12 facilitating consultations with the parties, and 13 making sure they had expertise that would let them 14 review that work, we hoped, at the level that 15 would lead to professional reviews. 16 In terms of dealing with unanticipated 17 adverse effects of the project as a concern, that 18 is generally dealt with throughout the EIS by the 19 process of trying to identify what type of 20 monitoring makes sense to do, such as the one I 21 described downstream of Birchtree Lake or Opegano, 22 although we do not anticipate there will be any 23 effects there, we thought it would be appropriate, 24 and the clients agreed, to have some monitoring 25 there just in case there were some unanticipated 02865 1 effects. There are probably other examples my 2 collegues could give you. 3 The issue of dealing with the need for 4 transmission lines, Mr. Hicks can address to the 5 extent that you need any more information on it -- 6 upgrading existing facilities. 7 And the other areas I won't go through 8 in detail, but the flavour that I am giving you is 9 that, to the extent we could deal directly with 10 someone who had a concern, we tried to deal with 11 it. To the extent it was a general concern that 12 we thought would likely surface here and surface 13 on an ongoing basis, we tried to deal with it, if 14 not in our filings, in our original filings, in 15 our supplementary filings in the process that was 16 ongoing. We have not viewed this as sort of 17 stopping at the time that we filed the EIS in 18 April. 19 MR. ABRA: Were there concerns 20 expressed by First Nations different from others, 21 and were there any that you haven't mentioned to 22 date that were expressed by First Nations when you 23 met with them with respect to the project? Any 24 specific ones, other than what you have told us 25 about already? 02866 1 MR. OSLER: Yes. There is a general 2 one that -- I am surprised in that sense it isn't 3 here, it is in I guess the socioeconomic area, and 4 it is mentioned there, the beginning of the 5 personal family community life section. But the 6 concern from Aboriginal groups and First Nations 7 who have been in the area affected by the 8 Churchill River Diversion/Lake Winnipeg Regulation 9 is sort of a generic concern of, fear from elders 10 in particular of water quality, water changes 11 again. And no matter what one says, that fear is 12 there. So we would have people, without -- I 13 don't think it is even only outside of -- I think 14 I could say the same thing about some elders in 15 NCN -- but in general, I would expect to hear, 16 given this experience, that elders in these 17 communities would express -- I would use the 18 technical word "anxiety and stress," just to put 19 it in a little bit more fancy flavor -- but 20 concern that somebody is going to change these 21 water regimes again and it is going to have 22 unanticipated effects and it is going to hurt 23 them. This leads to -- so that is a very specific 24 Aboriginal community, First Nations are the main 25 Aboriginal communities in the area affected by the 02867 1 generation, and it is very much reflecting the 2 history of their experiences with such 3 developments, and other things in this area. So 4 it isn't here, but it is elsewhere. 5 Beyond that, I can't think of 6 something else that I would bring to your 7 attention at the moment, no. 8 MR. ABRA: Mr. Hicks? 9 MR. HICKS: The process is somewhat 10 different with respect to transmission lines, 11 because as we have explained earlier, in the first 12 rounds of discussion with the communities and 13 other interested parties, the emphasis is on 14 identification of potential alternative routes, 15 and comparison of those routes or adjustment of 16 those routes to address issues that are raised by 17 the affected parties, or the potentially affected 18 parties. 19 In the case of NCN, when we first 20 began the process in late 1999, early 2000, there 21 were two projects under consideration, as you will 22 recall, both Notigi and Wuskwatim. And we spent a 23 good deal of time with the future development 24 committee and members of the First Nation in open 25 houses and community meetings and the like, 02868 1 talking about overall functional concepts for 2 delivery of the power to the system from those two 3 projects. And this would be along the lines of 4 the kind of conceptual alternatives identified by 5 Commissioner Mayer earlier in this hearing. 6 We spent the better part of the year 7 really dealing with those kinds of ideas and 8 talking about the relative implications of them. 9 Once we got past that, then we shifted 10 into the more conventional route selection and 11 environmental assessment process. That began in 12 about September of 2001. And at that point in 13 time, of course, we extended the context to 14 include not just NCN, but also Snow Lake, Herblet 15 Lake Landing, Cormorant, OCN, and other 16 individuals and groups in the general vicinity. 17 I can tell you a little bit about the 18 effect of the consultation process, because I 19 think that reflects on what we heard from people. 20 So, as we came from NCN's resource management area 21 south, and from Thompson into that area, you will 22 recall that we wound up on the south side of the 23 Burntwood River. There had been two other 24 alternatives looked at, one on the north side, and 25 a third that would have paralleled Highway 6 and 02869 1 the exising transmission line for some time before 2 traversing westerly directly to Wuskwatim. 3 The choice of the southern alternative 4 was made principally for reasons of the perception 5 of its impact, or lack of impact, on the NCN 6 territory. There was little to choose between the 7 alternatives A and B in respect of environmental 8 differences. There was a good deal to choose 9 between A and B and C in respect of costs, because 10 of the increased length associated with 11 alternative C. So that in that case, the decision 12 to go to alternative B, south of the Burntwood, 13 was essentially driven by the concerns and the 14 issues and the feelings and preferences of the NCN 15 members. 16 Then for the second leg of the 17 transmission line, from Wuskwatim south to Herblet 18 Lake Station, the crossing of the Burntwood River 19 was driven in large measure by concerns of NCN 20 members with respect to sacred sites in that 21 immediate vicinity. So we pushed the crossing 22 points easterly, or downstream from Taskinigup, in 23 order to maximize the separation of the lines from 24 those facilities, or rather from those sites. 25 We also had several alternatives for 02870 1 the remainder of the route to Herblet Lake 2 Station, and we were counselled by NCN members, 3 because of concerns relating to caribou habitat 4 and their perception of the importance of 5 Partridge Crop Hill, we selected an alternative 6 that was located to the south and east, as opposed 7 to alternatives that would have involved greater 8 proximity, or rather closer proximity to Partridge 9 Crop Hill. 10 As we approached Snow Lake, in part 11 because of concerns from NCN members with respect 12 to the prospect of increased access, we were -- -- 13 MR. ABRA: What, sir? 14 MR. HICKS: -- increased access along 15 the transmission line, we were looking for ways 16 and means of minimizing that risk. And as we 17 began at the same time to talk to residents of 18 Snow Lake about their preferences for routing in 19 their visit, they, as I had said to you yesterday, 20 counselled us that we had they had a long time 21 interest in tourism and recreation opportunities 22 in the vicinity of the community, and because of 23 their concern about its sustainability in the face 24 of the mining dependence that the townsite has, 25 and they suggested to us that they would prefer to 02871 1 keep away from the Weskusko Lake area. As it 2 happened, that allowed us to move north and west 3 of the townsite and to come into Herblet Lake 4 Station through an area that is very rough 5 terrain, sufficiently rough that we believed it 6 would seriously inhibit any access up the 7 transmission line right-of-way from Snow Lake. 8 Leaving Herblet station and going to 9 Cormorant, here now again guided in part by 10 consultation with the people of Snow Lake, and in 11 part by consultation with the people of Cormorant. 12 We were advised initially to be careful of the 13 Grass River crossing, and we looked at I think 14 four different alternatives over the course of our 15 work there, and eventually selected one that was 16 believed by our contacts and advisors in the 17 communities to be the preferred or the best. We 18 also consulted with members of the integrated 19 resource management team, which is the Manitoba 20 Conservation staff based in The Pas who look after 21 that particular region. 22 As we approached Cormorant, based on 23 the advice of the community leadership and 24 resource harvesters -- in the case of Cormorant we 25 used, essentially we used the same process 02872 1 everywhere, but in the case of Cormorant and OCN, 2 we didn't have the same resources available to us 3 in the community as we did with NCN, but we did 4 retain on the advice of Mayor and Council, an 5 individual to assist us with liaison in Cormorant. 6 And on behalf of OCN, again on the advice of Chief 7 and Council, we retained three individuals from 8 the band to assist us with liaison and contact and 9 translation to the residents, ensuring that they 10 were getting the information that they needed to 11 help them with advising us. 12 Going back to Cormorant, we were 13 advised by the residents of Cormorant that they 14 prefer that we stay to the -- initially, the 15 options were to stick tight to the existing rail 16 line and take advantage of consolidating the 17 impact on an area that had already been disturbed, 18 or alternatively to go elsewhere. The preference 19 was suggested to us that they would like to keep 20 us in the vicinity of the rail line, because the 21 option would have taken us north and west into an 22 area of the Cormorant resource management area 23 that the locals see as essentially undeveloped and 24 not an area that they would want to see disturbed, 25 given any options. 02873 1 On the other hand, while we would have 2 preferred technically to have paralleled the 3 railroad line for, among other reasons, that the 4 fact that it is short and straight, we would have 5 had to avoid the community in any event, the rail 6 line does run through the community. But in 7 addition to that, the resource harvesters in the 8 area were concerned about a pickerel spawning in 9 Pickerel Creek and asked us to stay away from 10 that, even though technically I believe we might 11 have mitigated that concern through design 12 techniques, but we accepted the preference of the 13 communities and moved the route easterly away from 14 the railway to avoid Pickerel Creek. 15 And then as we came into OCN territory 16 and into The Pas itself, the routing issues were 17 not as significant, if you will, for the simple 18 fact that there was available to us an existing 19 right-of-way with adequate width to accommodate 20 the proposed new line. So there the concerns were 21 more the effect and impact related concerns, as 22 opposed to the kinds of avoidance and advanced 23 mitigation that you can do through routing. 24 Following the routing process then, of course, we 25 reverted to a more conventional kind of 02874 1 consultation with the communities on the question 2 of adverse, or potential adverse effects, and ways 3 and means of avoiding or mitigating those effects 4 through design or construction technique. And 5 that would be essentially parallel to the process 6 that was done with NCN for the generating station. 7 At the present time, we've still got 8 at least three ongoing consultation initiatives 9 which will involve most, if not all of the 10 community. One, Cam had mentioned that one of the 11 interests of the, particularly the First Nations 12 and the other Aboriginal communities in the area 13 was employment. Employment for a transmission 14 project is very brief and doesn't represent a 15 long-term job opportunity, but it is nonetheless 16 of interest to people in the north. And in order 17 to ensure that those opportunities are maximized 18 for participation by the communities, what we are 19 doing is we are, in effect, meeting with contract 20 scoping committees presently in Nelson House with 21 NCN members, but we expect to carry this into 22 Cormorant and OCN as well, meeting with contract 23 scoping committees to attempt to scope and define 24 the contracts, package them in such a way as to 25 match the opportunity to the local resource. So 02875 1 if by packaging the contract, or the size of the 2 tender package in such a way as to accommodate the 3 resources and equipment available in the 4 community, we will do that in an effort to 5 maximize the opportunity for their participation. 6 Secondly, in the case of the 7 environmental protection plans, we will be looking 8 to additional community input in the development 9 of those plans. And in the identification of 10 people with traditional knowledge to assist us in 11 the ongoing implementation of the plans, we expect 12 that we will have environmental protection workers 13 from the affected communities on site with the 14 contractors people, watching for and ensuring that 15 the environmental protection plans are complied 16 with appropriately and that adjustments are made 17 in the event of any unforeseen issues or concerns 18 that may crop up in the course of construction. 19 Then finally, as we have indicated to 20 you, we have offered to any community that is 21 concerned about the access question, the 22 participation and development of an access 23 management plan. And we have begun that process 24 with NCN and expect, I believe -- correct me if I 25 am wrong, Cam -- but have we filed now the table 02876 1 of contents for the access management plan with 2 NCN? 3 MR. OSLER: You mean transmission? 4 MR. HICKS: Yes. 5 MR. OSLER: No, you haven't filed it 6 yet but it is ready to be filed. 7 MR. HICKS: I think we have given an 8 undertaking earlier, but we weren't certain when 9 that would be ready, but we would file it with the 10 Commission in the event that it was ready prior to 11 the completion of the hearing, so that will 12 presumably transpire in the course of this next 13 little while. 14 And the access management plan again 15 is designed to elicit community input and resource 16 harvester input into ways and means of managing 17 and controlling access from outsiders, and at the 18 same time permitting or perhaps even facilitating 19 access by resource harvesters, trappers, who may 20 wish to have additional access to portions of the 21 territory. 22 MR. MAYER: Will someone please define 23 short snapper? 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Avery Kinew. 25 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you. 02877 1 Mr. Osler, you talked about general 2 questions you expected to hear that you didn't 3 hear, and I missed what you were talking about, it 4 was just before you talked about the First Nations 5 affected by the Churchill River Diversion and the 6 fear expressed by elders. But just before that 7 you said there were general questions you expected 8 to hear and didn't hear. I didn't know what you 9 said? 10 MR. OSLER: I think what I was saying 11 was that I was surprised that I didn't see it 12 written in this list what I was about to talk 13 about. That is the point I was making. There are 14 other, I would have mentioned access management in 15 a general sense, the way Mr. Hicks has, and also 16 probably electro-magnetic fields, and EMF, people 17 on the transmission side talked and had questions 18 about that, they usually do. 19 I should note that the list I was 20 going through was for consultations beyond NCN. 21 In dealing with NCN, probably I would add more 22 things that are in our socioeconomic area in 23 particular, in terms of some of the things they 24 brought up. 25 MS. AVERY KINEW: Is this list in the 02878 1 filing or -- the reference? 2 MR. OSLER: The list I gave was from 3 page 3-22 of volume 1 of the generation studies. 4 It was a summary of key issues heard to date in 5 the public involvement plan, but I forgot to note 6 that that was for communities beyond NCN, so it 7 doesn't necessarily focus on the things that I 8 would talk about if we were just talking about 9 NCN. 10 MS. AVERY KINEW: Some of these are 11 continuing? 12 MR. OSLER: Yes. My point was that 13 some of them, say two or three First Nations that 14 I meantioned were continuing. 15 MS. AVERY KINEW: And when you talk 16 about unanticipated adverse effects, did the issue 17 of what is monitoring come up, and what people's 18 concerns were about monitoring, whether it is 19 every few years, or what does it actually mean, or 20 who does the monitoring, who receives the reports; 21 were they questioning those things? 22 MR. OSLER: At the time we were 23 dealing here, there wasn't much of that. In some 24 of the discussions we have had since the EIS was 25 filed, you see more of it because it is more front 02879 1 and centre. And I can think of -- I know it has 2 come up in our discussions, for example, with York 3 Factory First Nation, you know, how will the 4 monitoring be done, and all of that type of thing. 5 I would expect it to come up the closer we get to 6 focusing on -- if you are going to go forward, how 7 are you going to go forward, as distinct from 8 worrying about the effects that are anticipated, 9 how you are going to deal with monitoring, who is 10 going to deal with it, and how frequently will it 11 be reported? 12 MS. AVERY KINEW: Is there a 13 recommendation that these communities, they do it 14 themselves? 15 MR. OSLER: Sorry? 16 MS. AVERY KINEW: Is there a 17 recommendation from these communities that they do 18 the monitoring? 19 MR. OSLER: I can't recall anybody 20 saying that they wanted per se to do the 21 monitoring. They certainly -- anybody who has got 22 a concern wants to be involved in the monitoring, 23 and that can lead to a wide range of "what do you 24 mean by that?" But they certainly don't want to 25 not have access to it, and not have information on 02880 1 a regular basis from it, and not have the ability 2 to discuss it with someone when it comes out. 3 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you very much. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Osler, you were 5 presenting a lot of detail, you and Mr. Hicks, in 6 regards to the issues heard to date and the pages 7 that you have cited, 3-20 to 3-23, but just before 8 that you have sort of a calendar of the places and 9 page 3-18 and 3-19. And I don't see in there 10 that -- and I know you referenced some, Mr. Hicks 11 mentioned some consultations with people of Snow 12 Lake, and people, OCN people. But I don't see 13 any -- at any time where you had actual 14 consultation meetings in Snow Lake, or for that 15 matter in The Pas. And The Pas is beyond OCN, 16 there is a whole community and there is a 17 connecting station there. So maybe you can tell 18 me why that is so -- 19 MR. OSLER: I will do it first. As I 20 said, that reflects the documentation for a 21 generation EIS versus the transmission, and I only 22 referred you to the generation volume 1. 23 Mr. Hicks can refer you to, or he can get an 24 undertaking to refer you to the relevant part of 25 transmission volume 1 to show you where they had 02881 1 open houses in Snow Lake, and The Pas, and 2 Cormorant, during each of the same rounds that we 3 are having open houses here. But those 4 communities were not deemed to be in the project 5 area that -- we were dealing with the generation 6 project. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: So this only covers the 8 EIS related to the generating station? 9 MR. OSLER: Yes, sir. And Dave, you 10 can probably give the right reference, if not now 11 for the record, later, as to where you find the 12 same information in the transmission one. 13 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chairman, there is an 14 entire chapter of volume 1, the EIS for the 15 transmission, that is devoted to the topic of 16 community consultation. That is chapter 5. And 17 it does not just describe the community meetings 18 and open houses, but also meetings with not just 19 OCN but The Pas and the rural municipality of 20 Kelsey. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Just one 22 more question on that subject. I noticed that you 23 have indicated in that same diagram or table here, 24 in terms of the Manitoba Metis Federation, where 25 an invitation was sent in the second round with a 02882 1 newsletter inviting them to attend an open house 2 in The Pas, and then there was an invitation sent 3 in the third round, again with newsletters, to 4 attend a consultation meeting in Winnipeg or 5 Thompson. 6 As you are aware, we've heard MMF 7 explain that they were seeking or have been 8 seeking, and I look for you to corroborate whether 9 this is correct, or whether any consultation 10 meetings did take place with the MMF? 11 MR. OSLER: Again, we are looking, 12 what I gave you reference was just the generation, 13 but I have in front of me for my own purposes here 14 consolidation of the generation and transmission. 15 So, generally speaking, what you are seeing 16 documented is invitations to participate, take 17 part in open houses. The representatives of the 18 MMF in each one of the communities would be asked 19 to be involved through the communities. When we 20 meet with Cormorant, for example, which is a 21 predominantly Metis community, we are viewing that 22 as consultation with the affected people in that 23 area, Aboriginal people in that area, and that is 24 an Aboriginal community by the definitions that we 25 are using here. We don't just look at First 02883 1 Nation communities. 2 So, with Cormorant and with people 3 who reside in the Nelson House Northern Affairs 4 communities next door to the NCN, any members of 5 the Metis who live in South Indian Lake, or live 6 in any one of the other communities in the table I 7 gave you, the consultation process gives the 8 opportunity for them, if they are affected, if 9 they are trappers or hunters or fishers or in any 10 other way affected, or want to discuss these 11 issues, to participate. And Mr. Hicks' 12 consultations with the communities along the 13 transmission line do the same thing. But in terms 14 of invitations to the MMF, the invitations to MMF 15 representatives were given for the round two open 16 house in Thompson, which is both generation and 17 transmission intergrated, and there was Darryl 18 Montgomery, from MMF Thompson, Judy Mayer from The 19 Pas, Senator Ed Head from MMF in Winnipeg, and 20 David Chartrand from MMF in Winnipeg received 21 invitations. And the round two open houses in 22 Opaskwayak Cree Nation, Snow Lake, and Cormorant, 23 which was a transmission only focus, letters of 24 invitation again went to the same people. The 25 round three open house in Thompson, which was an 02884 1 integrated generation and transmission focus, with 2 a poster notice, invitations went to David 3 Chartrand, MMF in Winnipeg, and Senator Ed Head, 4 MMF in Winnipeg, and Darryl Montgomery, MMF 5 Thompson. A representative I am told was in 6 attendance in that case, Darryl Montgomery, MMF 7 Thompson. In other cases I gave, we have no 8 record of MMF attending, a representative 9 attending in terms of the official ones. 10 The three open houses at Snow Lake and 11 Cormorant transmission only, round three open 12 houses in Snow Lake and Cormorant, invitations 13 went to Judy Mayer, MMF The Pas, Senator Head, MMF 14 Winnipeg, Darryl Montgomery, MMF Thompson. There 15 is no indication that any of them attended. 16 Round three open house Opaskawayak 17 Cree Nation, transmission only, Judy Mayer, MMF 18 The Pas received an invitation. There is no 19 indication of attendance. 20 Round three open house, Winnipeg, 21 generation and transmission, there was a poster 22 notice. Ed Ducharme, MMF Winnipeg, Senator Ed 23 Head, MMF Winnipeg, no indication of attendance. 24 And the round 4 technical EIS 25 workshops which we held for the participants that 02885 1 were likely to be involved in this hearing, an 2 invitation went to Senator Ed Head and copies to 3 Darryl Desilets, invitations were sent in response 4 to their application for assistance to participate 5 in the CEC hearing. We have no record of them 6 attending. So that is probably -- I had that 7 prepared in anticipation of -- 8 THE CHAIRMAN: So what I hear you say 9 is basically, the invitations were sent but there 10 was no attendance their part. 11 Was there a specific request sent by 12 MMF, requesting a meeting specifically with them, 13 as an organization, as an Aboriginal organization? 14 MR. OSLER: None of us can recall one. 15 It is not in our records, but it doesn't mean that 16 it is, in the vagaries of Hydro and the NCN and 17 somewhere else, that someone might have 18 received -- the president of Hydro might have got 19 a letter that I don't know about or something like 20 that. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Can I ask that of 22 Mr. Wojcznski as well? 23 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Sorry, could you 24 repeat the question? 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. I was asking 02886 1 questions of Mr. Osler in regards to the 2 consultation meetings, and specifically in the 3 last question, in regards to the MMF participation 4 in the consultation meetings. And essentially, 5 there is no record of them attending, even though 6 they were invited to a number of locations. But 7 my last question was to the effect of whether you 8 were aware of, or you had received a letter from 9 MMF requesting specifically a meeting of their 10 organization to discuss the proposal? 11 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Whether I am aware of 12 us having received a letter from MMF? 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Or request for a 14 meeting? 15 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I am not sure right 16 now, I will have to take that as an undertaking. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 18 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Perhaps what I should 19 say is I am not aware of us having received one, 20 but I just want to double check that. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Because this 22 issue was raised in one of the last, how would I 23 call it -- what was this called, this meeting -- 24 the motions meeting. And the MMF submission 25 raised that issue and drew upon that, and we did 02887 1 send a letter drawing that issue to the attention 2 of Manitoba Hydro/NCN. And I guess I am following 3 up on that letter to find out whether before or 4 since that particular motions meeting there was a 5 request by MMF to have such a consultation with -- 6 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: There has been much 7 correspondence between Manitoba Hydro and MMF over 8 time. And there has been -- I know there has been 9 correspondence over the last even half year or so. 10 And I don't believe any of it requests a 11 consultation per se for Wuskwatim, but that is 12 what I want to double check on. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 14 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: There has been 15 correspondence on pre-project training, for 16 example, but whether there is a letter 17 specifically requesting consultation on Wuskwatim 18 and its effect, that I don't believe that we have. 19 20 (UNDERTAKING MH-51: Advise re Hydro receiving 21 letter from MMF re consultation on Wuskwatim) 22 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. In terms -- 24 moving on to another issue unless there are other 25 questions on this -- being a short snapper. 02888 1 I notice that in the EIS document, a 2 number of the maps, or if I can call them maps, or 3 figures that are in there, and as well in volume 4 3, specifically volume 3, section 4, page 4.10-1, 5 a map that looks like this, or any of the maps 6 that are of the construction site which have a 7 scale, show the corridor for the transmission line 8 connecting the construction site and Birchtree as 9 being 600 metres wide. I wonder if that is just 10 for a short distance or -- because as far as I 11 understood, the transmission corridor is nowhere 12 near that width. But when you look at the width 13 of the transmission corridor, and particularly it 14 shows up clearly on section 4 of document 3, page 15 4-84, if you look at the scale that is attached 16 there and what is shown for the width of the 17 corridor, you will find out that it measures 18 exactly 600 metres. And I want to know why that 19 is? 20 MR. OSLER: We will check it right now 21 and see if we can give you the answer right now, 22 but I think you probably -- the point that you 23 have suggested as the key is the corridor coming 24 into the station, as distinct from the corridor 25 that Mr. Hicks is talking about most of the time 02889 1 that he is talking about, which is not that width 2 at all. Maybe when George is looking at the 3 map -- 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Because it is labeled 5 there as future transmission line corridor. 6 MR. OSLER: Right. It is a question 7 we should be able to clarify. If we can't do it 8 right now, we can certainly do it shortly. 9 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chairman, I think I 10 can clarify it right now. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Hicks. 12 MR. HICKS: There are three 13 transmission lines proposed to enter the switching 14 station at the Wuskwatim site. The line from 15 Thompson, from Birchtree, would come in at the 16 northwest end of the switching station through the 17 construction power site. And the construction 18 power site is located so as to be convenient to 19 the construction power requirements for the 20 development of the generating station. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: I am referring 22 specifically to the northeast. 23 MR. HICKS: Yes, the northeast. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: You just said the 25 northwest. 02890 1 MR. HICKS: Yes, I did. The northwest 2 corner is where the construction power line, the 3 line from the Birchtree Station in Thompson would 4 come into the site, and would initially be tied to 5 the construction power station which is adjacent 6 to the access road and located so as to be in 7 proximity to the power requirements for the 8 generation station development. It would 9 subsequently be relocated easterly, and the 10 construction power location or station 11 decommissioned and removed. The permanent 12 location of the line from Thompson would then be 13 at the easterly, east of that location, but at the 14 northwest end of the switching facility, of the 15 switching station proposed to be developed at the 16 site. 17 The two lines to Herblet Lake are 18 located at the southeast. Again, when I say 19 southeast, I am referring to the switching 20 station, which is a component of the larger 21 generating station site. So, it would be at 22 the -- east central, if you will, in the larger 23 footprint of the generation station, but at the 24 southeast corner of the switching station 25 location. 02891 1 THE CHAIRMAN: All right, Mr. Hicks, I 2 don't necessarily need this explanation now 3 because -- but, I hope that you can show us that 4 particular area on the map somehow at some time 5 because you are talking northwest and what we see 6 here is northeast and it still confuses me, so 7 perhaps -- 8 MR. HICKS: We will arrange to have a 9 slide up -- 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you looking at the 11 same -- 12 MR. HICKS: I am. It is not precisely 13 the same map, but I am looking at a map that is 14 orientated with north at the top of the page -- 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I am looking at 16 this map and north is at the top. When you are 17 saying northwest, I see only the corridor as being 18 northeast. 19 MR. HICKS: I understand what you're 20 saying. Again, what I am referring to is not the 21 overall footprint of the generating station, in 22 which case, if I was, we would be talking about 23 the northeast, but I am not. 24 I am talking about the location of the 25 switching station within the footprint of the 02892 1 generating station, which extends linearly for the 2 600 metre distance you described and at the 3 northwest corner of that linear distance is where 4 the construction power line from Birch Tree would 5 come in. 6 At the southeast corner of that linear 7 extent is where the two lines to Herblet Lake 8 would exit the station to traverse across the 9 Burntwood and down to Herblet Lake landing -- or 10 rather Snow Lake. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, we will await to 12 look at that and maybe a map that shows a larger 13 area where we can understand and see that. 14 MR. OSLER: We will show that as an 15 undertaking so that we don't forget it. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 17 18 (UNDERTAKING MH-52: Produce larger map of location 19 of the switching station within the footprint of 20 the generating station) 21 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Any more questions? I 23 will ask Mr. Grewar to -- I think there are a few 24 more documents to file. 25 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 02893 1 Actually, just one document to file and then just 2 a few administrative matters I wanted to just go 3 over while everyone is here and can take note. 4 The exhibit that would be entered 5 actually was received by the Commission on March 6 8th and that hasn't been entered. It is 7 interrogatory responses. 8 In this case, it is from the Manitoba 9 Wildlands Canadian Nature Federation response to 10 the TREE/RCM, Time to Respect Earth's Ecosystems 11 and Resource Conservation Manitoba, requests for 12 additional information. That would be filed now 13 as Exhibit CNF-1012. So, CNF-1012. 14 15 (EXHIBIT CNF-1012: Interrogatory 16 responses from Manitoba Wildlands 17 Canadian Nature Federation to 18 TREE/RCM) 19 20 MR. GREWAR: That concludes the 21 exhibits. 22 I wonder if I could make an 23 announcement just while everyone is here because 24 there has been a number of questions from a number 25 of different parties as to the schedule for next 02894 1 week in Thompson and The Pas and if I might just 2 go over briefly the schedule as we outlined it. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Grewar. 4 MR. GREWAR: Thompson, of course, 5 convenes on March 22nd at 1:00 p.m. in the 6 afternoon. It will commence following brief 7 introductory remarks by the Chairman, with a brief 8 overview of the assessment process by the 9 Department of Environmental Approvals, Manitoba 10 Conservation, similar to what we have seen here in 11 Winnipeg, perhaps an abridged version. 12 It would then proceed to a full 13 presentation of the project overview, both Needs 14 and EIS by Manitoba Hydro/NCN and again, it is an 15 abridged presentation, primarily intended for the 16 benefit of the people in the Thompson area and 17 north area. 18 Depending on the length of that 19 presentation, we would then move into what we will 20 loosely refer to as local residents and 21 organization presentations. We currently have a 22 list which I can make available and have made 23 available to some, which is in the neighbourhood 24 of eight or nine individuals and groups that will 25 be presenting. This list will likely grow. It 02895 1 has grown by two just over the course of this 2 afternoon. So, certainly the list that we provide 3 today is not complete by any means. That process 4 will continue into the evening as well and also 5 the next day. 6 The hearing runs from 9:00 until 1700, 7 until 5:00 o'clock; from 9:00 a.m. to 1700. 8 Now, the other thing that I should 9 mention is that there will be an opportunity for 10 local residents to question both Hydro and NCN and 11 all of the other presenters, loosely referred to 12 as cross-examination, although it is generally a 13 form of questioning, really, and that opportunity 14 will be afforded to Hydro. However, the formal 15 cross-examination of the full panels, at least as 16 far as the Commission, will not occur until we 17 return to Winnipeg. So, I am hoping that is as 18 clear as mud. 19 When we do return to Winnipeg -- I 20 should mention The Pas. We basically repeat in 21 The Pas the same format entirely as in Thompson, 22 although we have fewer groups registered to speak 23 in The Pas at this present time. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Osler? 25 MR. OSLER: Mr. Chairman, before 02896 1 public involvement, there was an undertaking that 2 our colleagues in the Need For panel made for us. 3 It was undertaking number 30, March 9th, volume 5, 4 page 1259. If you like, I can dispose of it right 5 now to get it on the record before we adjourn 6 here. 7 The question related to -- explaining 8 how the consultations process was undertaken in 9 Winnipeg, et cetera. 10 I refer to the response to the first 11 supplementary filings in August 8th, 2003. CNF S 12 55 where this question was asked and answered in 13 some detail and rather than reading it into the 14 record, it is there. 15 I would also refer to a supplementary 16 filing made October 9th, PIP section items 2a and 17 2e. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 19 Mr. Wojczynski? 20 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, Mr. Chair, Ed 21 Wojczynski. We have a few undertakings that we 22 would like to deal with. 23 One was requested by the Canadian 24 Nature Federation earlier on a 450-megawatt wind 25 sensitivity analysis. So, that is just being 02897 1 handed out right now and extra copies were just 2 given to Mr. Grewar. 3 I won't read out the whole thing. I 4 don't think you want me to do that. What I will 5 say what we have done here, as requested, the 6 original request was we had presented an analysis 7 for 450 megawatts of wind generation, in addition 8 to the 250 we already were planning on. We had 9 been asked to do a sensitivity regarding life and 10 capacity factors. So, this presents that. 11 We have done sensitivities here now 12 with our best guess as to what the wind resource 13 would be for the 450. It may be somewhat higher 14 for the 250, but we think it would be a bit lower 15 for the 450. So, we think 35 percent is our best 16 guess. 17 We did a sensitivity where one was 40 18 percent and one was 30 percent. You will see in 19 the case of the IRR -- and if you turn to the 20 third page, you will see the IRR goes up from 6.1 21 to 7.9. 22 If you go to 40 percent -- I will wait 23 a minute. Then if you go -- conversely, it could 24 be lower, it drops to 4.2 percent. So, it is 25 quite sensitive to that; very sensitive to that. 02898 1 I should remind you that this already 2 has about a 19 percent cost reduction in the 3 capital cost from the earlier work from the 4 original submission -- I mean from 2002. 5 The second thing, we did a somewhat 6 longer life -- a five-year longer life. Our 7 consultants and the developers we have talked to 8 typically use 20 years is what they count on. 9 Although, there are some possibilities of a bit 10 longer. It tends not to be as reliable. 11 Certainly, it would have a higher O&M 12 cost and we have included it in here as a 13 sensitivity, although we think the 20-year life is 14 probably more realistic still. 15 Then we have done the same thing for 16 two other analyses that are attached in here, 17 including the social net benefit analysis from 18 Mr. Mark Shaffer. We have in-between, we have a 19 chart that shows still the net benefit of 20 proceeding with Wuskwatim 2010, instead of 450 or 21 so megawatts of wind with the same sensitivities. 22 Anyway, we think this fulfils that 23 undertaking. We have some other undertakings -- 24 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, just to 25 keep it accurate and as close as we can -- 02899 1 although, I know exhibits are all over the map. 2 But, we will indicate this as MH/NCN-1024. That 3 is the undertaking 35, 36, 37 requested by CNF re 4 wind sensitivity analysis. Thank you. 5 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Thank you. 6 7 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN-1024: Answer to 8 undertaking 35, 36, 37 requested by 9 CNF re wind sensitivity analysis) 10 11 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We had the request 12 earlier about the licensing and we appreciate 13 getting a copy of the information to look at. 14 Mr. Cormie wasn't here today. We had 15 understood his presence wouldn't be required. We 16 will have him back at another time. But, what we 17 thought we would do is provide a written response 18 and that would be the best solution. There are a 19 number of issues all in there and we are confident 20 we can answer it, but rather than try and wait, we 21 will provide a written undertaking on that. 22 Thirdly, there were some undertakings 23 earlier today in regard to the transmission. I 24 think I can provide what was being asked for. It 25 was not exactly what was asked for, but there were 02900 1 three undertakings. Mr. Hicks answered the first 2 one earlier this afternoon and then there were two 3 others. 4 One of them was the difference in the 5 value of Wuskwatim high head and low head, 6 essentially. As I had indicated, there was an 7 interrogatory that had more or less answered that. 8 It was CEC/MH/NCN round 1 EIS 112a. 9 But, fundamentally, the answer is 10 around in the order of 50 to $100 million is a 11 good ball park number. It is probably a little 12 bit higher than that, but in that order. The 13 difference in NPV between high head and low head 14 Wuskwatim. 15 MR. MAYER: What does "NPV" that mean? 16 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Net present value. 17 That is where you discount the cash flows and -- 18 so I have a range in there because that is low to 19 high export rates, but that was based on analysis 20 from a few years ago. We don't look at that any 21 more. So, that's why I said that the number would 22 be a bit higher today, but I think that is 23 probably close enough for what you're looking for, 24 Mr. Mayer? 25 MR. MAYER: Yes. 02901 1 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Now, the third 2 interrogatory was the value of the power and this 3 is the value of the Wuskwatim power going out over 4 the transmission. I haven't been able to do that 5 this afternoon. I am supposed to be paying 6 attention and I apologize, at one point I wasn't. 7 I think I can come up with an approximation that 8 may achieve what you're looking for. 9 The increase in losses by going to the 10 alternate transmission option would be 0.68 11 megawatts. Mr. Mazur had explained yesterday the 12 work he had done and I don't believe at that time 13 he just gave the megawatt number, he just gave the 14 dollar value. The megawatt number was 0.68 15 megawatt losses. If you just, as a first cut say, 16 Wuskwatim is 200 megawatts, 0.68 megawatts is 0.34 17 percent. 18 So, as a first cut, one could say 19 around a third of a percent loss in overall value 20 from the project. It would be higher for the net 21 value, but fundamentally, in terms of the value of 22 the power. So, you could think of one-third of a 23 percent less power that would be available and be 24 able to be sold. So, that may help you. 25 But, I think I need to explain that 02902 1 from an option selection point of view that 2 comparing Wuskwatim high head versus low head to 3 the transmission options, we have a qualitatively 4 different situation. Would it be useful for me 5 why I say that? 6 MR. MAYER: I am aware of the 7 qualitatively different situation we are talking 8 about. The reason for my question is you 9 sacrificed "X" number of megawatts for the 10 environment and at the request of NCN -- this is 11 what we have heard. 12 I suppose we have to make a decision 13 as to how much we might want to ask you to 14 sacrifice, if we should decide that it would be 15 better environmentally to move that transmission 16 line and how much could we legitimately ask Hydro 17 to sacrifice in revenue for the environment if we 18 thought it was necessary, or if there was that 19 much environmental value difference between the 20 two routes. 21 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: From about the 22 highest level -- and I am thinking of this as a 23 resource planner -- if I could just take a quick 24 stab and we can always come back to this, if 25 necessary. 02903 1 In both cases, there is an increase in 2 cost or reduction benefits, however financially, 3 and so that is similar. 4 But, in the case of us going from the 5 high head to the low head Wuskwatim, there weren't 6 much in the way of other trade-offs. From an 7 environmental point of view, everything was in the 8 same direction. We looked -- virtually everything 9 was that you were better off with the lower head 10 Wuskwatim. 11 In the case of the transmission 12 alternatives here, that isn't the case. If you go 13 from the option we are proposing to the 14 alternative option, there is some trade-offs here 15 and part of the trade-offs is that we have got 16 some negative environmental aspects by going to 17 the alternative option. 18 We have already talked about a much 19 longer line and Mr. Hicks has also referred to the 20 fact that we would now have increased access, like 21 a highway almost. From the existing highway, we 22 have a very short distance and a quick access into 23 the resource area that NCN has and we view that as 24 a huge issue and there would be a lot of 25 opposition from an increased access. 02904 1 So, there were trade-offs on the 2 transmission options that were not there on the 3 generation one. 4 MR. MAYER: I understand Hydro's 5 evidence. This is an area, however, that I expect 6 will be contested. We are -- we have already 7 heard from one witness from Calgary -- whose name 8 escapes me at the moment -- about that particular 9 problem or something he perceives to be a problem. 10 We have other evidence that we expect to be 11 coming, regarding the transmission lines and those 12 routes. 13 I got to ask the question now just in 14 case it comes up that somebody has some evidence 15 that is significantly different than Hydro's, 16 which the Commission, in its wisdom, happens to 17 prefer. 18 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, thank you. I 19 think that finishes our undertakings. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Grewar? 21 MR. GREWAR: Yes, Mr. Chairman, just 22 one other small administrative matter. 23 When the Commission reconvenes here in 24 Winnipeg on the 6th, 7th and 8th now, I just 25 wanted to advise that the time has altered just 02905 1 slightly. The Commission will convene at 2 10:00 a.m. each morning on the 6th, 7th and 8th 3 and run until 6:00 p.m. Just a slight change in 4 the schedule for timing. 5 MR. SARGEANT: What about the 13th 6 14th and 15th? 7 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, we should 8 probably announce -- although we will put out an 9 official notification early next week that April 10 13th, 14th and 15th have been identified as 11 hearing dates. The Commission is prepared to sit 12 on those dates. 13 MR. SARGEANT: 10:00 to 6:00. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: If need be. 15 MR. GREWAR: If necessary. And once 16 again, as the Commissioner mentions, 10:00 a.m. to 17 6:00 p.m. will be the standard. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Seeing no 19 other interveners, questions or otherwise, we 20 propose to continue where we leave off today. I 21 accept that we will be listening to people making 22 presentations in the north, starting at 23 1:00 o'clock on Monday. Mr -- yes, Mr. Bedford? 24 MR. BEDFORD: You were about to do it, 25 the prayer. 02906 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes. Yes, this is 2 the last thing. 3 I now call upon our elder, Mr. Sam 4 Dysart for the prayer. 5 MR. DYSART: Thank you. Most of all, 6 I thank the people that stayed around here, my 7 elders, my young people, university students and 8 most of all, all you people, Hydro, the people 9 there and I thank the people from Wabowden. 10 Now, this is what we used to do in our 11 community, they say at the beginning, "I prayed 12 for you." Now, I have the opportunity in my 13 community. We used to speak what we see in 14 ourselves, the way we see people work and that's 15 the way we think about it. I will speak on behalf 16 of myself and the way I see things and the way I 17 know it. 18 There are two things that we talk 19 about. I dreamed of a big mountain. I had a hard 20 time to get to the top. I am stuck at the top. 21 My people down below are crying and asking for 22 help. I went around this mountain three times. 23 It took me 30 years. That, my friend, is the 24 Northern Flood Agreement. 25 I see another project no bigger than 02907 1 this, where my children are crying, asking me for 2 help. Where do we get our jobs? How do we get 3 down? That, my friend, is the experience I'm 4 having. 5 I got no problems with listening to 6 lawyers like you. In the past two weeks, I have 7 listened to you. You make sure that people 8 understand what we are talking about and Hydro 9 understands the questions you're asking. 10 When it comes to -- not lawyers, 11 engineers, I have a little problem. I don't know 12 how their water system works. Thank you. 13 In the closing remarks, the thing that 14 hurts me most is that -- there are two things that 15 hurt me, but I forgive people easy. One is -- the 16 one they call dumb, I don't mind that. I can take 17 that. I can forget that. But one thing I cannot 18 forget is when somebody tells me I am trying to 19 sell my land. I can't take that. I am not here 20 to sell my land. For me, as an elder, I wouldn't 21 sign my name where it would hurt my people and my 22 young people trying to get down the hill. 23 Thank you. I will pray in my language 24 where I respect the elders and my young generation 25 who are back there. You can pray in your own 02908 1 language, for God will hear you anyway. God bless 2 you. Let us pray. 3 4 (CLOSING PRAYER IN CREE) 5 6 (ADJOURNED AT 3:56 P.M.) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25