5838 1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION 2 3 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT 4 Volume 24 5 6 Including List of Participants 7 8 9 10 Hearing 11 12 Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Project 13 14 Presiding: 15 Gerard Lecuyer, Chair 16 Kathi Kinew 17 Harvey Nepinak 18 Robert Mayer 19 Terry Sargeant 20 21 Friday, May 14, 2004 22 Radisson Hotel 23 288 Portage Avenue 24 Winnipeg, Manitoba 25 5839 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 2 3 Clean Environment Commission: 4 Gerard Lecuyer Chairman 5 Terry Sargeant Member 6 Harvey Nepinak Member 7 Kathi Avery Kinew Member 8 Doug Abra Counsel to Commission 9 Rory Grewar Staff 10 CEC Advisors: 11 Mel Falk 12 Dave Farlinger 13 Jack Scriven 14 Jim Sandison 15 Jean McClellan 16 Brent McLean 17 Kyla Gibson 18 19 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation: 20 Chief Jerry Primrose 21 Elvis Thomas 22 Campbell MacInnes 23 Valerie Matthews Lemieux 24 25 5840 1 2 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 3 4 Manitoba Conservation: 5 Larry Strachan 6 Trent Hreno 7 8 Manitoba Hydro/NCN: 9 Doug Bedford, Counsel 10 Bob Adkins, Counsel 11 Marvin Shaffer 12 Ed Wojczynski 13 Ken Adams 14 Carolyn Wray 15 Ron Mazur 16 Lloyd Kuczek 17 Cam Osler 18 Stuart Davies 19 David Hicks 20 George Rempel 21 David Cormie 22 Alex Fleming 23 Marvin Shaffer 24 Blair McMahon 25 5841 1 2 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 3 4 Manitoba Metis Federation 5 Jean Teillet 6 David Chartrand 7 Dan Benoit 8 Darryl Montgomery 9 Al Benoit 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5842 1 2 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 3 4 Number Page 5 6 7 MMF 1002: Presentation documents, 8 various from Manitoba 9 Metis Federation 5997 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5843 1 2 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS 3 4 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE 5 6 7 8 NO UNDERTAKINGS GIVEN 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5844 1 FRIDAY, MAY 14, 2004 2 Upon commencing at 9:05 a.m. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, it's 5 nine o'clock. Time to get to work. I call upon the 6 representatives of Manitoba Metis Federation for the 7 EIS questioning of the proponents. 8 Yes, Ms. Teillet, introduce yourself and 9 your colleague and you may proceed. 10 MS. TEILLET: My name is Jean Teillet. I 11 am legal counsel for the Manitoba Metis Federation 12 with respect to this hearing. And with me, I have 13 Mr. Al Benoit who is a senior staff with the Manitoba 14 Metis Federation. Good morning, everyone. 15 I have no idea who to address the 16 questions to so I'm just going to ask them and I'm 17 sure you'll figure out who needs to answer them. 18 I wanted to ask first in reading the EIS, 19 there is a discussion of the public and your 20 discussion early on in 3.3.1 of I believe it's Volume 21 1 of the generation project which is your sort of 22 consultation chapter. And in that, you discuss that 23 you arrived at the conclusion that there are several 24 publics. That there's a general public and an 25 Aboriginal public and then the First Nations. And I 5845 1 wanted to know how you arrived at that conclusion 2 because I don't understand how you got there. So if 3 you could explain that to us, please? 4 MR. REMPEL: Could you repeat the 5 reference in Section 3? 6 MS. TEILLET: I have it in 3.3.1. 7 MR. REMPEL: All right. We'll look at 8 the reference and Mr. Osler will answer the question 9 on the public involvement program. 10 MS. TEILLET: Just to be clear, I'm not 11 asking about the public involvement, I'm asking how 12 you arrived at your understanding of how to divvy 13 these up or define them. 14 MR. OSLER: Okay, page 3-11 I think of 15 Volume 1 of Generation is what we're looking at. The 16 discussion has already stated that the people we're 17 dealing with include NCN. And what we're talking 18 about here is moving beyond NCN to other groups 19 beyond those members of NCN and those otherwise in 20 the local region. 21 The program that we laid out discussed 22 two broad groups for that purpose, potentially 23 affected communities and segments of the public in 24 what we call the project region and other interested 25 groups and individuals. So I presume that the 5846 1 discussion you're asking me to get into deals with 2 the first of those two and the groupings within it, 3 right? 4 MS. TEILLET: That's correct, thank you. 5 MR. OSLER: So the focus here is beyond 6 NCN and the local area in talking about communities 7 that could be potentially affected and segments of 8 the public who could be potentially affected by these 9 projects. And our approach, we had to look at this 10 before we had done the analysis of effects. So we 11 were taking an approach that said who could 12 potentially be affected without yet judging whether 13 they would in fact be affected. And we looked at 14 that from the point of view of pathways of effects 15 from the generation project in the sense of waterways 16 and the areas to be affected by the construction of 17 the access road. And in the case of the transmission 18 route, it will be the land areas that could be 19 affected by the construction of a route which means 20 we had to take into account all the alternative areas 21 to where the route might go, not just the area that 22 we now know it's being recommended it should go. 23 On the basis of that, we defined a range, 24 an area, geography, of potentially affected 25 communities which meant, in the layman's sense of the 5847 1 word, communities, places with names on a map and 2 organized structures, be the municipalities, Northern 3 Affairs communities or First Nation communities. And 4 in that context, it was apparent that there were a 5 number of Aboriginal communities in the sense that in 6 page 3-12, we were aware, or are aware, that the 7 context for talking about Aboriginal communities 8 would be eventually a constitutional one. And that 9 point is made on page 3-12. And focusing on the 10 Aboriginal communities, we simply said these include 11 any First Nation or other Aboriginal communities. 12 Northern Affairs communities, for example, with 13 predominantly Aboriginal population in the project 14 region. 15 In the sense that we were developing this 16 approach, we were, as I said, looking at communities 17 in the sense of place with structures of governance 18 and names on a map or groups of people. But in this 19 case, we're talking about communities of that type. 20 And so the language that's reflected here is nothing 21 more than what you'd expect from that approach. 22 And we were looking at the pathways for 23 these communities to be affected by the project. And 24 we note, one of them being in their traditional 25 resource area as evidenced, for example, by 5848 1 registered trapline areas assigned to communities or 2 other information derived from consultation with 3 communities. So we were certainly looking at 4 traditional resource use areas in that sense. And we 5 were interested in their legitimate rights and 6 interests. And we said here as evidenced, for 7 example, by hunting, fishing or other such activities 8 or by any existing agreements with Manitoba Hydro. 9 And we used that as evidence. 10 In this case, it's not as though nobody 11 has been doing development before in this area. 12 Manitoba Hydro, in particular, has had prior 13 activities of one type or another throughout a large 14 part of the area we're talking about. And it 15 therefore has agreements with the communities in the 16 sense of the word I'm using it, with many of the 17 Aboriginal communities both along the transmission 18 route area, Cormorant and OCN being two by way of 19 example to do with the past developments relating to 20 the Grand Rapids project. And of course with other 21 communities, Aboriginal First Nation people in the 22 area. 23 So that's a long way of saying the 24 approach that has been taken by contact ultimately in 25 the communications public involvement sense of 5849 1 certain people. But that's how they were selected. 2 That was the approach taken and the rationale. 3 MS. TEILLET: It's very consistent with 4 the approach taken that was described to us by 5 Manitoba Conservation and by Mr. Topping who was here 6 the other day. Is that coincidence or was there 7 discussion with them while you were preparing to 8 decide how you were going to go about doing that? 9 Was there discussions with them to arrive at such a 10 similar idea? 11 MR. OSLER: We generally predated the 12 Section 35 by a considerable time period. The 13 document that's being summarized on these pages was 14 put on the public registry and public websites I 15 think in August of 2002. 16 MS. TEILLET: I'm sorry, when you say you 17 predated Section 35, you mean you predated their idea 18 of their Section 35 consultation mechanism? 19 MR. OSLER: Their consultation process. 20 MS. TEILLET: You don't mean Section 35 21 itself? 22 MR. OSLER: No, not at all. 23 MS. TEILLET: Thank you. 24 MR. OSLER: And the thought processes 25 that we took in developing this language that was put 5850 1 out as a public involvement plan pursuant to the EIS 2 guidelines, it was published in August of 2002, was 3 itself a product of consultation with these varied 4 people to the extent that we could in what we call 5 round 1 and round 2 of the PIP process which took 6 place in the August/September period, October period 7 of 2001 and the period of 2002 going up through about 8 May, through May. 9 So the language you see here reflected 10 some initial thinking and the fruits of the 11 consultations that we had in the first two rounds of 12 consultation. I can't say that there were no 13 conversations between our clients or some of us with 14 some of the people you've seen from the governments 15 here because there's so many activities going back 16 and forth all the time in consultation issues and 17 discussions. It's quite possible that we -- I never 18 talked to Heather Leonoff until fairly recently for 19 example. I don't think I had even met her until 20 fairly recently. But Mr. Hannon I've certainly had 21 many discussions with on other matters. And it's an 22 ongoing consultation that's involved the province 23 with Pimicikamak. And these matters certainly were 24 discussed in that process, called the Article 9 25 process as documented here. So there may be overlap 5851 1 because of that. But we had a job to do and we were 2 doing it starting in 2001. 3 MS. TEILLET: Thank you. Can you tell 4 me, did you attempt to come to any definition of the 5 Aboriginal peoples that you were talking to? Did you 6 try, in your own mind, to define what is a First 7 Nation or what is a Metis? I mean you collectively, 8 I don't mean you personally. 9 MR. OSLER: Well, that's not even any 10 easier if you're going to make me collectively. 11 MS. TEILLET: The royal you. 12 MR. OSLER: I don't have a royal me. I'm 13 a lowly consultant. The team and the clients were 14 certainly aware, and I think it's laid out in various 15 places, that the constitutional rights foundation for 16 discussing and separating out Aboriginal communities 17 related to Section 35 and dealt with the groups that 18 had been discussed here, Indian, and all of its 19 classifications not only just status but non-status 20 and other technical elements, Metis and Innu. 21 It is easy to know these days when you're 22 dealing with a status First Nation. And in this 23 case, in this region, the ones we're talking about 24 have agreements with Manitoba Hydro and the Crown 25 anyway relating to prior developments, so either the 5852 1 northern flood agreements or the Grand Rapids 2 agreements. So that wasn't any great mystery. 3 There are also agreements with some of 4 these communities, Cormorant for one, involving these 5 same players. And they also have a resource 6 management area. So in many people's mind, that 7 community is often referred to, without getting into 8 the basis for it, as a Metis community. 9 Frankly, beyond the fact that it would 10 appear there are Metis as well as non-status people 11 in addition to the status First Nation people in the 12 area, we did not direct our attention to trying to, 13 in advance, explore how you would define or break out 14 that information. We sought information on it. We 15 asked people about it. We tried to get information 16 about how many people in this community are from this 17 First Nation, Wabowden, Pikwitonei and Thicket 18 Portage communities which don't have agreements with 19 Manitoba Hydro who -- sorry? 20 MR. MAYER: Wabowden does have an 21 agreement. 22 MR. OSLER: With Manitoba Hydro? Sorry. 23 In the context of their breakdowns of their 24 groupings, they are a mixture of many different 25 elements as has been discussed briefly a few times on 5853 1 this transcript. But we didn't go into any 2 preconceived notions or attempts to impose any 3 earlier definitions on it. We were interested in 4 what people wanted to tell us. But we were 5 predominantly interested in making sure that we had 6 identified the range of people, Aboriginal or 7 otherwise, who could potentially be affected by these 8 projects and ensure that they were aware of these 9 projects, of the descriptions of these projects and 10 of what we thought would be the range of physical 11 effects and other effects of these projects and that 12 we would avail ourselves of any concerns, interests, 13 views, questions that they had of us so that we could 14 exchange information and leave ultimately to the 15 Crown the issue of who had rights under what 16 headings. 17 MS. TEILLET: You are aware of the recent 18 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Powley that came 19 out last September? Did you take another look at 20 your consultation policy or how you were carrying out 21 your consultation after that decision came down? 22 MR. OSLER: You're talking about the 23 Powley decision? 24 MS. TEILLET: Yes. 25 MR. OSLER: You said September or was 5854 1 that March? 2 MS. TEILLET: No, it was in September of 3 2003, September 19th. 4 MR. OSLER: Okay. In any event, it was 5 certainly after we had filed and written the EIS. 6 MS. TEILLET: I agree with you that it 7 postdates that but you are still -- I don't want to 8 put words in your mouth. Maybe you can just answer 9 the question. 10 MR. OSLER: I have recently read the 11 decision but I am not a lawyer so I don't make my job 12 to be reading decisions. We have lots of lawyers I 13 find who can advise me what the law is. And I 14 haven't really been focused in the period of time 15 we've been dealing with since the CEC process began 16 with redesigning any consultation process. But in 17 general, if I had read that beforehand, I don't think 18 I would have changed the approach we had taken, 19 particularly for the EIS consultations. 20 And in the case of the CEC process, we 21 knew in any event that the MMF was a registered 22 participant. So that no matter which views people 23 had, we were going to get the MMF perspective. And 24 we had arranged for workshops and other things as 25 part of the CEC process and we were quite confident 5855 1 there would probably be a question and answer process 2 and dialogue process as part of the CEC process. 3 So we had frankly had our heads down 4 dealing with the CEC process since about July or so 5 of last year, of 2003. 6 MS. TEILLET: So just to be clear, you 7 engaged in a consultation process with your -- you 8 made a decision about who to consult with in order to 9 fulfil the requirement, the information you thought 10 you needed to get in order to do the EIS. And once 11 the EIS was finished, is it that your process is at 12 an end? Is that the way you're looking at it, that 13 that was sufficient for that period and then this 14 process is a different process? I'm trying to 15 understand how we connect the dots between these 16 different things. 17 MR. OSLER: The EIS consultation process 18 started in 2001 with people beyond NCN. It had a 19 structure to it. It carried its way along. It 20 didn't stop with the filing of the EIS but it had a 21 dialogue going with communities based on the 22 structure that you and I have just been discussing. 23 And in some cases, in general, we've continued to 24 send information out to the people we've been 25 dialoguing with. And that included, in the sense of 5856 1 sending information out, MMF, locals and central 2 organization. 3 In the case of some communities who had 4 specifically engaged in discussion with us, there was 5 an expressed desire to go to another level of 6 discussion. And the consultation plans were 7 developed with those communities to allow for them to 8 retain some expertise to review the EIS and to carry 9 on a more detailed discussion with us. That's been 10 described in supplementary filings as Round 4 11 Consultation Process. 12 So we didn't stop. We hadn't planned to 13 stop. We carried on with those who wanted to carry 14 on at a level of detail that was suitable for them. 15 But we didn't, in the sense that you posed the 16 question to me a few minutes ago, go and review the 17 latest emerging law cases and other issues in order 18 to rethink the structure that we were following 19 through. 20 We were quite confident that all of the 21 key players were involved in the CEC process and 22 there would be adequate room for dialogue for those 23 who are interested in dialogue here through the 24 process of this exercise. 25 MS. TEILLET: So you said that people who 5857 1 had come to you and requested further information or 2 a more deeper engagement, that you did that with 3 them. Were you not in receipt of letters and 4 requests from the Manitoba Metis Federation saying 5 that it wanted exactly that process? 6 MR. OSLER: Certainly I wasn't. I think 7 there's some issue in the transcript as to when the 8 clients that we worked for were in receipt of 9 letters. And I'll let Manitoba Hydro and NCN discuss 10 that. But there wasn't a dialogue with those of us 11 dealing with the PIP process until we started to get 12 into meetings such as -- or we started to see 13 filings. 14 I think the most detailed filings I saw 15 from MMF were the ones in some of the hearing's 16 motions process that we saw here. MMF didn't come to 17 the workshop in July for example. We thought they 18 were going to but they didn't. So I didn't get a 19 dialogue myself on those issues there. 20 I've become aware that you've had some 21 correspondence with NCN and Manitoba Hydro at various 22 times initially on the employment process, employment 23 training if I'm not mistaken, but not directly with 24 the PIP process. 25 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Pardon me. 5858 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wojczynski. 2 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I'd just like to confirm 3 something that Mr. Osler had indicated earlier for 4 the record and that was when he was saying in this 5 line of questioning that Manitoba Hydro, in the 6 course of its ongoing work, has various discussions 7 with the provincial government and he, of course, 8 wasn't involved in those. And he was referring to 9 the specific activities for the Wuskwatim project and 10 the public involvement in consultation program. 11 So I just want to confirm as he said that 12 Manitoba staff and Manitoba Hydro staff do have 13 discussions on various issues on as-required bases 14 and that would include discussions between the 15 government and Manitoba Hydro on Aboriginal relations 16 and initiatives and initiatives partly to make sure 17 that we are aware of which each other are doing in. 18 And in the course of those clearly definitions of 19 Aboriginal communities in the broader sense would be 20 naturally part and parcel that. 21 And you mentioned the Powley decision 22 before or after that but it wasn't specific to the 23 Wuskwatim project, it's just part of the generic 24 overall discussions that are there on an ongoing 25 basis. 5859 1 MS. TEILLET: Okay. Just following up on 2 that. What is your definition of "Metis" since 3 you're saying you've had these ongoing discussions 4 and debates about it and dialogue. Can I ask what 5 your definition of "Metis" is? 6 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We don't have a 7 particular corporate definition of Metis. It's 8 something that we as long as others are working to 9 clarify including in the discussions with government. 10 And recognize that this is an area that, in society 11 and in a legal sense, is being clarified. And so we 12 don't have a particular definition of Metis at this 13 time. 14 MS. TEILLET: And so do I take it from 15 that that you've never asked, say, the Manitoba Metis 16 Federation who they think the Metis are? 17 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: My understanding is that 18 part and parcel of our process to get that definition 19 is discussion with the MMF and Metis people. 20 MS. TEILLET: So what you're saying is 21 that you're having ongoing discussions? I'm just 22 trying to understand. Are you saying you're having 23 ongoing discussions with the Manitoba Metis 24 Federation? And among the discussions you're having 25 would be the inclusion of discussion as to who the 5860 1 Metis are? 2 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We have had as a 3 corporation -- I personally haven't been involved, 4 others have, but we have had discussions with the 5 Manitoba Metis Federation on this topic in the past. 6 It's not that there's an established ongoing process 7 at this time. We have had discussions in the past 8 and we are in the process of setting up a task force 9 or a process with the MMF to have those discussions 10 in the future. 11 MS. TEILLET: I want to get back to the 12 previous discussion about the Manitoba Metis 13 Federation giving notice of its concerns. I have a 14 letter here. And, Mr. Chair, we have a pile of 15 documents that we will put into the record this 16 morning. So this letter will be before. It's a 17 letter from November 5, 1999 to, at that time, the 18 Honourable Gregory Selinger who was the Minister 19 charged with the administration of the Manitoba Hydro 20 Act. And it's from President David Chartrand. It's 21 not a very long letter but I'm not going to read all 22 of it, only to say that it says, 23 "Re the effects of Hydro development 24 on the Metis. During the past year, 25 the Manitoba Metis Federation has 5861 1 received requests for assistance from 2 the many Metis adversely affected by 3 northern Hydro development. Both 4 individual Metis and their 5 representatives have clearly 6 articulated the injustices they have 7 been and continue to be subjected to 8 by Manitoba Hydro and all levels of 9 government. Of particular concern to 10 the Metis is the lack of consultation 11 and fair compensation." 12 Now, they go on to say that they 13 represent the Manitoba Metis and have a mandate to 14 pursue the best interest of the Metis. So I think 15 that, and there are other documents in here. I'm 16 only picking one out here. The point being that as 17 of November 5, 1999, if Hydro or the Manitoba 18 Government was in doubt as to the fact that the 19 Manitoba Metis Federation had concerns about 20 consultation, would you not consider that to be 21 notice that they have concerns and want to be 22 consulted? 23 I know this letter is to the Minister 24 charged with Hydro but if they can't talk to the 25 Minister who's got administration of Hydro, it seems 5862 1 difficult to understand that if Manitoba Hydro is 2 saying that, as I thought I understood you to say, 3 that you weren't or hadn't been informed or didn't 4 know that the Manitoba Metis Federation was looking 5 for a deeper consultation or more consultation or any 6 consultation. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Was there a question in 8 there? 9 MS. TEILLET: I guess really the question 10 is this. Are you saying that you didn't know that 11 the Manitoba Metis Federation wanted to be consulted 12 about Hydro projects in general or Wuskwatim in 13 particular? 14 MR. ADAMS: I have trouble remembering a 15 specific letter to a Minister five years ago but I 16 understand there was a response to that. If you're 17 going to file the letter, I will try to undertake to 18 file the response. 19 Certainly Manitoba Hydro understood the 20 MMF was to be consulted and we invited MMF to all of 21 the public houses or the open houses. We invited the 22 communities that we were consulting with on a 23 one-on-one basis to bring along whoever they wanted. 24 So clearly, the consultation is available to anybody 25 and we invited MMF to participate. 5863 1 MS. TEILLET: Can I ask perhaps would you 2 consider an invitation to a First Nation to 3 participate in a public meeting, would you consider 4 that fulfilling your consultation obligation with 5 that First Nation? 6 MR. OSLER: From the perspective of the 7 PIP process, we didn't do it that way. But I go back 8 to the structure that I laid out. We focused on the 9 physical communities inside a defined area. We 10 contacted the people in those communities. We 11 discussed with them how they would like to be 12 consulted with and proceeded accordingly. And that 13 included First Nation communities or other 14 communities including the Wabowdens and the 15 Cormorants that we were just talking about. 16 In this particular area, and these 17 particular sets of Hydro projects, that is consistent 18 with the way in which agreements and discussions and 19 compensation has evolved to date with fishermen and 20 with communities and with trappers and everything 21 else. 22 The point that we made is nothing more 23 than in the process of all of this, we also provided 24 information to other organizations, other people, 25 including MMF, which is what has been put on the 5864 1 record. And except for the discussions that took 2 place on PPT, pre project training, sorry. It was 3 confirmed on the transcript in Volume 15, pages 3578 4 and 3579 that we had no correspondence as a result of 5 that process to the group that we're dealing with, 6 trying to deal with the Wuskwatim project, from the 7 MMF. It doesn't mean you didn't correspond with 8 ministers or with presidents or with chiefs or with 9 others, but in response to what we were responsible 10 for for this project in sending out information and 11 asking if anybody had any questions and wanted any 12 information they wanted to give us, we had received 13 nothing. That's the only point I'm making. 14 MS. TEILLET: I guess I'm not getting an 15 answer to the question I'm asking. Would you 16 consider inviting a First Nation to a public meeting 17 or inviting First Nations to an open house to fulfil 18 your consultation requirements with that First 19 Nation? 20 MR. OSLER: In some cases it might and in 21 other cases it wouldn't. It would depend entirely on 22 the nature of the pathways and the effects of what we 23 had to discuss with them. 24 MS. TEILLET: If the First Nation is in 25 the project area, would you consider an invitation to 5865 1 a public meeting to fulfil your consultation 2 requirement? 3 MR. OSLER: And I've answered that and 4 said no. 5 MS. TEILLET: Thank you. And if you sent 6 an invitation to that First Nation or a letter saying 7 please tell us what your concerns are and they didn't 8 respond, would you consider that to be the fulfilment 9 of your consultation obligation to that First Nation? 10 MR. OSLER: Well, dialogue requires 11 two-way communication. You can't consult with 12 someone if they don't consult with you. So I don't 13 want to go too far with hypotheticals. In general, 14 we didn't do what you're describing. We actively 15 went and discussed with people and the communities 16 and the regions and the trappers, the other people, 17 we actively sent letters many times to many 18 organizations. We did not rely on any formality of 19 saying, geez, we sent you a letter once and you never 20 got back to us. So I don't want to go down that 21 path. 22 MS. TEILLET: You gave quite a lot of 23 detail when we were here on Tuesday about the 24 consultation you've undertaken with NCN and the 25 consultation -- and I understand you included all the 5866 1 people who lived in South Indian Lake in that because 2 you recognized that, I think your EIS says 80 to 90 3 per cent of the people in South Indian Lake are 4 members of NCN? 5 MR. OSLER: Correct. 6 MS. TEILLET: And so you wrapped them 7 into the project area, not the local project area 8 but -- 9 MR. OSLER: No, they were actually in 10 what we called the local project region. 11 MS. TEILLET: So they are in the project 12 region and you wrapped them in and considered them to 13 be part of NCN and what you were doing. Can I ask 14 did you do the consultation with the off-reserve Band 15 members in South Indian Lake in a different way than 16 you did with NCN itself, with the people itself? 17 MR. OSLER: That's a very hard question 18 to deal with because when we deal with the community 19 of South Indian Lake, there are many organizations. 20 But in short, there is a consultation work plan with 21 the various elements of South Indian Lake, four or 22 five different groups including fishers and trappers 23 and Northern Affairs community and the CASIL and the 24 headman, where Manitoba Hydro and NCN provided 25 funding for them to retain expertise to review the 5867 1 EIS. So in that sense, all the groups that came to 2 us from that community were all worked together to do 3 this particular type of review that they wanted to 4 do. 5 MS. TEILLET: So you said there's a 6 headman there who was sort of -- 7 MR. OSLER: That's the First Nation 8 community, Mr. Chris Baker, First Nation community 9 that wants to become recognized as well as the role 10 of the headman in the NCN structure. 11 MS. TEILLET: Um-hum. And so he was the 12 representative? 13 MR. OSLER: He was one representative of 14 about four or five groups. And I don't have the list 15 in front of me but it included the Community 16 Association of South Indian Lake, it included the 17 trappers association, the fishermen's association, at 18 least. 19 MS. TEILLET: But I see in your EIS that 20 when you talk about trappers and fishermen, that you 21 consider those to be, I think I am going to quote you 22 and say that they are special interest groups. That 23 that's the way you dealt with commercial fishermen 24 for example. You described them as a special 25 interest group. When you're talking then to your 5868 1 special interest groups, do you consider that to be 2 consultation with the First Nation? 3 MR. OSLER: No. 4 MS. TEILLET: You said that you asked, 5 and it says also in your EIS at 3.3.4 I think that 6 participants were asked how they would like to be 7 consulted and what type of information would be most 8 useful. 9 Did you ask the MMF how it would like to 10 be consulted and what type of information it thought 11 would be most useful to provide for this project? 12 MR. OSLER: In a structured sense of 13 treating them as though they were a community in the 14 region, no. In the sense of the process of dealing 15 with any one of the public processes, open houses and 16 the newsletters always asked people if they had 17 questions or comments or wanted more information, 18 please let us know. In the context of dealing with 19 or describing in this conversation as special 20 interest groups, although it's not really the only 21 way you could describe it. In trying to deal with 22 the resource users who could be directly affected by 23 the project, trappers, fishers in particular, the 24 conversation process was more focused. And we did 25 certainly ask, in each case, what would they like, 5869 1 what were they interested in in terms of information. 2 MS. TEILLET: You were asking 3 individuals? 4 MR. OSLER: Groups of individuals and 5 individuals what information they need to understand, 6 from their point of view, the effects of this 7 trapline -- sorry, this transmission line or the 8 alternative routes we're looking at on their 9 activities as trappers. 10 MS. TEILLET: Now, when you were 11 preparing your EIS, is it your opinion that you have 12 sufficient information on how this project will 13 affect the Metis people in the project region? 14 MR. OSLER: I don't think that we have 15 ability, from what we get back from our process, to 16 have been able to reach the type of conclusions we 17 might like to reach on that because of the lack of 18 dialogue with an official Metis organization or 19 organizations or locals for that matter. 20 And in this particular region, there are 21 non-status as well as Metis people. And one would 22 want to be very careful about trying to draw 23 conclusions just because somebody isn't status on a 24 First Nation that they are necessarily Metis. 25 All I would say is I think we have 5870 1 provided information to all of the people in the 2 region who have direct interests and we certainly 3 made it available. We've had a dialogue with a very 4 large number of them, particularly those who would be 5 affected as trappers with transmission, we've had 6 very good dialogue with those particular individuals. 7 And that would be one of my major concerns in 8 practical terms when dealing with the transmission 9 routes. 10 In the case of the generation projects, a 11 generation project, we, I'm satisfied, had ability to 12 have extensive dialogue with those people whose 13 interests seem to be potentially affected. 14 MS. TEILLET: Your obligation in 15 determining the effects of the project are 16 environmental, you determine environmental effects, 17 socioeconomic effects and cultural effects; is that 18 correct? 19 MR. OSLER: Those are all included, yes. 20 MS. TEILLET: And do you have any 21 information with respect to how this project is going 22 to affect the Metis culture? 23 MR. OSLER: Well, going through the 24 process, we do not have information. I think the 25 discussion we had with South Indian Lake, the 5871 1 cross-examine of South Indian Lake. We have certain 2 information on culture at various levels. We have a 3 great deal of information on NCN at Nelson House 4 because that is a group that's being affected in a 5 large number of different ways. And we appropriately 6 looked at it at a very great level of detail. 7 In contrast, we didn't attempt to get 8 that or anything like that level of detail of 9 cultural information for others. We focused 10 primarily outside of Nelson House/NCN on element of 11 culture through trapping, fishing, hunting. And the 12 extent to which that led to discussions of broader 13 cultural issues, we were open to discuss it but we 14 didn't actively pursue a much broader cultural 15 community, be it First Nation or Metis, non-status or 16 Aboriginal communities. 17 So I'm satisfied we have the information 18 that is needed to do the EIS and that we could obtain 19 from the people who are willing to talk to us. I 20 don't think I would say we have in any way explored 21 or been able to explore a distinctive assessment of 22 culture of those Metis communities in the specific 23 geographic area. 24 MS. TEILLET: So in terms of the Metis 25 culture, you just said you don't have that so I 5872 1 gather then you can't have an idea of how those 2 effects could be mitigated or any other thing like 3 that, that will follow from your discussion that you 4 didn't get that information. 5 MR. OSLER: To the extent that someone 6 comes forward now and says that there is an effect on 7 a culture that we didn't address, we will attempt to 8 address it. But in dealing with the projects as we 9 know them and the range of effect pathways that they 10 have, I'm satisfied that any trapping interests that 11 we're relating to the transmission lines had direct 12 dialogue with the individuals involved, be they 13 status, non-status, Metis or otherwise. And that 14 whatever interests these people had in terms of where 15 to locate these traplines, how to deal with their 16 concerns were addressed to the best of our ability. 17 And that to the extent that they have issues that 18 arise because the trapline is, in the end, affected 19 by the construction of the transmission, they will be 20 addressed through the compensation policies that 21 Manitoba Hydro is addressing. 22 So I know what we have been able to do. 23 Beyond that, we didn't attempt to do what we couldn't 24 do. 25 MS. TEILLET: And with respect to the 5873 1 structure of the open houses that you conducted, were 2 those primarily public meetings where you tried your 3 best to give out as much full information about the 4 project as you could to the people who came to those 5 meetings? 6 MR. OSLER: They are generally a process 7 of providing access to information and people who 8 they could talk with about the information, they 9 weren't generally meetings in the sense of a formal 10 structured meeting. And so if people had follow-up 11 questions they wanted us to pursue, they would be 12 pursued. And if they had wanted more information, 13 we'd get it to them and that type of thing. 14 MS. TEILLET: I guess what I'm trying to 15 get at is they are primarily a dissemination of 16 information vehicle as opposed to a receiving 17 vehicle. They are not really structured for you to 18 sit down and hear the history of a people or anything 19 like that. It's primarily a vehicle for you to tell 20 people what the idea is, what the plan is, what you 21 think is going to happen? 22 MR. OSLER: In the general sense, that's 23 fair. There is opportunity for dialogue but it isn't 24 a public meeting, it's an open house. But for the 25 record, I don't want anybody to assume that the 5874 1 public involvement process or the discussion process 2 to deal with people who might be affected was in any 3 way, shape or form limited to public open houses. 4 That would be a gross inaccuracy. 5 Public open houses were there to make 6 sure that anybody who wasn't getting hold of 7 information through other routes, through the chief 8 and councils, the mayor in councils, the media, the 9 newsletters or whatever would receive public notice 10 and public opportunity to take part. 11 And in the case of local communities, not 12 as big a community as Thompson or The Pas, if 13 somebody had a problem with the leadership and they 14 wanted to get access to information that somehow they 15 didn't think they were getting access to it, that we 16 were making sure that this information was indeed 17 available. And that we could put on the record it 18 was available and we were available to answer 19 questions in such sessions. And if something came 20 from that that needed a meeting or a process, we 21 could follow up on it. 22 But in dealing with the communities I 23 talked about, the initial point was to make contact 24 with their leadership, ask them how they wanted to be 25 consulted with and have meetings with them. 5875 1 And dealing with the trappers, I'm 2 talking about far beyond open houses. One-on-one 3 discussions with the trappers associations and 4 dialogue and listening to what they wanted to tell 5 us. 6 MS. TEILLET: Right. And that's the 7 specific group of trappers. But it's the open houses 8 that you said is what the MMF were invited to? 9 MR. OSLER: That is true. 10 MS. TEILLET: Right. And that's really 11 it. 12 MR. DAVIES: I would like to answer that. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Davies. 14 MR. DAVIES: I'd like to add to that a 15 bit. The open houses at Nelson House were, to a 16 large extent, set up for a two-way dialogue of 17 information. The community consultants, the NCN 18 community consultants did take everyone around that 19 came in, everyone that wanted to, and explained the 20 storyboards to them and got input from those 21 individuals as they provided the information that was 22 on the storyboards. They did that in both English 23 and Cree as the person wanted. 24 In addition to that, there were note pads 25 that were set up at each of the main components of 5876 1 the open house that people could record their 2 comments on it. In addition to that, the experts 3 that had conducted the environmental studies and 4 socioeconomic studies and routing studies also 5 attended the open houses and were there to provide 6 input to the people and answer their questions but 7 also to ask questions. And that occurred 8 particularly in regards to heritage resources but it 9 did occur for all of the components. 10 In addition to that, there was a 11 questionnaire that was provided at the open houses 12 that specifically asked about the information that 13 was being presented, whether it was being presented 14 in a proper format, whether they liked the type of 15 consultation that was being provided and if they had 16 any additional ideas for providing information to 17 them. So there really was a two-way dialogue at the 18 open houses. 19 MS. TEILLET: That's the one at Nelson 20 House you're describing or is that a standard for all 21 of them? 22 MR. DAVIES: There was a number of open 23 houses at Nelson House and that's what occurred at 24 Nelson House. Similarly, it did occur at the open 25 houses in Thompson, slightly different but of similar 5877 1 nature. 2 MR. HICKS: If I might add a bit on the 3 transmission side. The meetings with the 4 communities, the initial round of meetings with the 5 elected representatives was, as much as anything 6 else, to obtain advice from them as to how to conduct 7 consultation and whom we should be talking to, how we 8 might want to advertise the meetings, how we might 9 want to organize the meetings. 10 The second and third round consultations 11 were to the extent that it's important for someone to 12 understand the nature of the project. Yes, there was 13 information provided in the form of storyboards and 14 presentations but the principal purpose of those 15 meetings was to hear from the people in attendance 16 what kinds of concerns, what kinds of issues that 17 they associated with the proposals in front of them. 18 MS. TEILLET: When you speak of the first 19 round was to the elected representatives, you were 20 speaking of mayor and council? 21 MR. HICKS: Mayor and council or chief 22 and council as the case may be. 23 MS. TEILLET: No Metis elected 24 representatives as in terms of Manitoba Metis? 25 MR. HICKS: Our consultation protocol, if 5878 1 you will, for many years in transmission has been at 2 the local level to open contact with the elected 3 representatives as much as a courtesy in protocal as 4 anything else, to give them some advice as to what's 5 going on in their constituency. And again, more 6 precisely, to ask their advice as to how to deal with 7 constituency residents in the area. 8 MS. TEILLET: Again, just to clarify, 9 you're speaking about the municipal elected 10 representatives? 11 MR. HICKS: Yes. Northern Affairs 12 communities, some municipalities, one local 13 government district, one Northern Affairs community 14 that's not governed by chief and council or rather 15 mayor and council but rather by an administrator and 16 by the First Nations themselves. 17 MS. TEILLET: And nothing with the 18 elected Manitoba Metis Federation locals? 19 MR. HICKS: They were invited to the open 20 houses, yeah. 21 MS. TEILLET: To the open houses, yes. 22 We've got that one. 23 I heard a lot about trappers, dealing 24 with trappers to try and find out what those 25 interests were. Now, how about food usage of the 5879 1 harvest? Because a lot of the Metis people up there 2 are obviously heavily reliant on the resources for 3 food. Did you have special consultations with 4 respect to the Metis use of the resources for food? 5 MR. OSLER: We're talking about each of 6 the developments? In each case, we were interested 7 in any party, Aboriginal or otherwise, who had any 8 activity, trapping, hunting, fishing, gathering for 9 food or otherwise, in any of the areas that we were 10 looking at for the projects. So to the extent 11 that -- the process was designed to make sure the 12 people would know where the projects are. That the 13 leaderships in each community and the various groups 14 in each community would know and that they could, 15 therefore, have the ability to talk to us about any 16 concerns they had including gathering or plants or 17 any other activity that they do traditionally or 18 otherwise in the area. 19 MS. TEILLET: I have a quote here from 20 your EIS, and I'm sorry, I seem to have deleted the 21 reference but it will be somewhere in this chapter 3 22 in Volume 1 of the Generation one. And it really 23 says that there is an ongoing commitment to meet with 24 interested communities in the project region to 25 examine together ways to address specific concerns. 5880 1 In this regard, Manitoba Hydro and NCN 2 are seeking to develop joint consultation plans with 3 interested Aboriginal communities to focus on 4 specific impact issues relevant to each Aboriginal 5 community. 6 I have two questions out of that which 7 will probably be my final questions. But the two 8 questions are this. Are you prepared to meet with 9 the MMF as you have committed to here in order to 10 address its specific concerns? And number two, are 11 you prepared to develop joint consultation plans with 12 the MMF that focus on their relevant and specific 13 impact issues? 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adams. 15 MR. ADAMS: I'm going to respond to that. 16 Our commitment is to meet with the communities and I 17 think we've made that extremely clear. If the 18 communities wish to invite MMF or any other 19 organization to consult with them, then certainly 20 we'll be prepared to include them. 21 We have a commitment to meet with the MMF 22 to discuss areas of a variety of interest. There is 23 a mechanism in place where we have a, I've forgotten 24 exactly what we call it, a joint task force or 25 committee that's ongoing with the MMF. I don't think 5881 1 it is appropriate for Manitoba Hydro to conduct a 2 joint consultation program with the MMF with respect 3 to the Wuskwatim project. 4 MR. OSLER: If I could just make one 5 other observation, is the quotes from the EIS 6 referred to the commitments during the process. Any 7 time during the process we had that type of approach, 8 particularly even during rounds 4 and 5, if somebody 9 had come at us and wanted to discuss it, that's why 10 we had the workshops and stuff. But beyond that, the 11 process has to deal with concerns of effects. 12 At the moment, the key Aboriginal issues 13 are being dealt with by the Crown and the Crown will 14 presumably take all of these things into account when 15 it gives us terms and conditions of any project that 16 it approves. 17 MS. TEILLET: Just one moment, please, 18 Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, we have no more questions for 19 the proponents at this time. Thank you. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Were there 21 other questions from other groups on the EIS at this 22 time or is that completed? Mr. Grewar, were there 23 other groups that had not proceeded? 24 MR. GREWAR: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There is 25 at least one other group that is preparing to 5882 1 cross-examine on the 25th I believe which is the 2 Displaced Residents of South Indian Lake. They are 3 not available for cross today. So we would proceed 4 presumably now to presentations. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you. So 6 that is all for now. So we're going to have a short 7 break so we can change things around. And we will, 8 when we come back, have the MMF presentation. I'm 9 told it will take approximately an hour and a half. 10 So that should carry us on till noon. So we'll 11 reconvene here now at quarter after ten. 12 13 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 10:00 A.M. and 14 RECONVENED AT 10:24 A.M.) 15 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Grewar. 17 MR. GREWAR: I wonder if I could ask each 18 one of you to individually state your name and 19 provide the spelling, please, for the transcriber. 20 MR. A. BENOIT: Al Benoit, A-l is Al. 21 Benoit is a little bit more complicated, B-e-n-o-i-t 22 MR. MONTGOMERY: Darryl Montgomery, 23 D-a-r-r-y-l, M-o-n-t-g-o-m-e-r-y. 24 MR. CHARTRAND: David Chartrand, 25 D-a-v-i-d, C-h-a-r-t-r-a-n-d. 5883 1 MS. TEILLET: Jean Teiller, J-e-a-n. The 2 last name is T-e-i-l-l-e-t. 3 MR. MORRISSEAU: John Morrisseau, 4 M-o-r-r-i-s-s-e-a-u. 5 MR. D. BENOIT: Dan Benoit, same as the 6 first. 7 MR. GREWAR: I'll ask you all then if you 8 are aware that it is an offence in Manitoba to 9 knowingly mislead this Commission? 10 MMF: Yes. 11 MR. GREWAR: Having all indicated in the 12 affirmative, do you promise to tell only the truth in 13 proceedings before this proceeding? 14 MMF: Yes. 15 MR. GREWAR: Thank you. 16 17 (AL BENOIT: SWORN) 18 (DARRYL MONTGOMERY: SWORN) 19 (DAVID CHARTRAND: SWORN) 20 (JEAN TEILLET: SWORN) 21 (JOHN MORRISSEAU: SWORN) 22 (DAN BENOIT: SWORN) 23 24 MS. TEILLET: This is Jean Teillet and I 25 am legal counsel for the Manitoba Metis Federation 5884 1 with respect to this matter. But in terms of the 2 fact that I am up here as part of the Manitoba Metis 3 Federation's presentation, I would also like to 4 inform the panel that I was born and raised in Red 5 River and that I am a descendant of the Riel family 6 and this is my turf, too. So I am legal counsel and 7 a member of the Manitoba Metis community although I 8 don't currently live here. 9 I had thought that a good title for the 10 MMF's presentation might be "plus ca change, plus 11 c'est la meme chose." I don't have to translate that 12 for the Chair. But for those of you who don't 13 understand French, it means the more things change, 14 the more they stay the same. 15 By the end of our presentation, I think 16 this Commission and the people attending will be 17 struck by how, with respect to the Metis people in 18 Manitoba, all parties here are walking the same path 19 and saying the same things that they have been saying 20 for more than 40 years. 21 Since the 1960s, Hydro has taken a fairly 22 consistent position with respect to the Metis; first, 23 that none of their projects will affect the Metis; 24 and second, that they need not consult with the Metis 25 as a people or with their elected representatives, 5885 1 the Manitoba Metis Federation. This is precisely the 2 relationship we are witnessing today and it has a 3 history that this Commission and the people in this 4 room need to understand. 5 We all know the old saying that if you 6 don't know your history, you are condemned to repeat 7 it. And so in order to tell you that history, we had 8 asked two Metis elders, Senator Head and Mr. 9 Morrisseau to speak briefly about the Metis historic 10 relationship with Hydro. Unfortunately Senator Head 11 is ill and unable to be here today so he has some 12 written comments that will be presented by Mr. Dan 13 Benoit. But Mr. Morrisseau will speak. 14 Now, Senator Head's comments will be 15 addressed to Hydro's historical refusal to consult 16 with the MMF and his own personal observations and 17 experiences as a fisherman in South Indian Lake. And 18 specifically he is witness to, and I am going to use 19 his own words, the destruction of that community by 20 Hydro. Mr. Morrisseau is going to briefly speak 21 about a specific Metis community, Grand Rapids, and 22 how its culture was destroyed by Hydro. 23 Now we know that Grand Rapids is not in 24 the project area but the fact is that the Metis 25 people are a highly mobile people for many reasons. 5886 1 First because it's one of their cultural markers. 2 It's one of the things that identifies the Metis as 3 Metis is their mobility. And second, because there's 4 a long history in this country and in this province 5 in particular of the destruction of their communities 6 which forces their mobility. 7 In recent times, a great many of these 8 communities have been destroyed by Hydro and the 9 devastating cultural and social effects from Hydro 10 projects have moved with those people as they 11 relocate into other communities. 12 Now, Grand Rapids shows us a perfect 13 microcosm of the cultural devastation which is 14 unacknowledged, uncompensated and unrepaired for the 15 Metis people. It is what we call the legacy of 16 Hydro. It is an example that we all have to bear in 17 mind because Hydro is continuing to change the face, 18 the physical face of Northern Manitoba which is the 19 traditional territory of the Metis people. Mr. 20 Morrisseau is also going to speak about the Manitoba 21 Government's promises, unfulfilled promises with 22 respect to compensation for the Metis. 23 Mr. Darryl Montgomery is the 24 vice-president of the Thompson region and he is also 25 from South Indian Lake and he is going to speak on 5887 1 the effects on South Indian Lake and as well on some 2 of the consultation issues with respect to the local 3 there. 4 And Mr. Al Benoit is going to present an 5 overview of MMF's written submission and give a great 6 deal of the evidence that we want you to hear. 7 Finally, President Chartrand is going to 8 make our final comments and he's also going to 9 present our proposed recommendations and solutions 10 with respect to how both the proponent and the 11 government and this Commission should deal with the 12 problems that have been consistent in this process. 13 Now, I'm going to begin by setting out 14 some of the legal framework. And we have handed out 15 several documents for putting in the record. So we 16 ask that these be included as exhibits in the record. 17 I'd like to start off by a discussion 18 about the mandate of this Commission, the CEC, the 19 Clean Environment Commission. And what we basically 20 say is that the CEC has a mandate in its terms of 21 reference to, and I'll quote, "consider the potential 22 environmental, socioeconomic and cultural effects of 23 the construction and operation of the Wuskwatim 24 proposals." In order to determine these effects or 25 what these effects are, this Commission is to 5888 1 consider the EIS, public concerns and consideration 2 of the evidence it received on the NFAAT. 3 Now, this Commission is also to provide 4 recommendations with respect to proposed mitigation 5 measures and future monitoring and research. 6 Now what we say is that the mandate of 7 the CEC necessitates an inquiry into the effects of 8 the Wuskwatim projects on the Metis in the project 9 region. 10 Now according to the EIS statistics, and 11 I think they are taken from the 1996 census, is that 12 there are approximately 30,000 people in the project 13 region. And that's total population numbers. Of 14 that, I'm giving approximate numbers, approximately 15 33 per cent of those or about 10,000 people are what 16 we would call status Indians. And the MMF submits 17 that there are approximately 10 per cent of the 18 people in the project region, that's about 3,000 19 people, who are Metis who are represented by the MMF. 20 Now the MMF figures we are telling you are low 21 minimum figures. And we are talking about the 22 project region itself. We're not talking about the 23 northern district or the other ways of slicing the 24 Northern Manitoba pie. 25 Now, we submit that unless this CEC 5889 1 receives information with respect to the potential 2 environmental, socioeconomic and cultural effects of 3 this project on the Metis, then you will not be able 4 to fulfil your mandate. You will not be able to make 5 full and complete recommendations on the effects 6 because you will be missing information with respect 7 to 10 per cent of the people who live in or use and 8 occupy the project region. And that 10 per cent is 9 specifically named as a distinct Aboriginal people in 10 the constitution of this country. And we say they 11 cannot be ignored again. 12 We also say, with respect to the EIS, we 13 say the EIS is deficient. We say the EIS is 14 deficient in providing the information this 15 Commission needs to fulfil its mandate with respect 16 to the Metis people. 17 The proponent was to prepare the EIS 18 pursuant to the guidelines which have several 19 sections directing them to provide information 20 required by government agencies to be considered. 21 And I'm just going to list a few of them. But 22 obviously they are to include information with 23 respect to potential socioeconomic and cultural 24 effects, descriptions of the use of traditional 25 knowledge, mechanisms to manage the effects of the 5890 1 project, effectiveness of mitigation strategies. 2 The scope of the environmental assessment 3 in the EIS was to include examination of current 4 human health, current use of lands and resources for 5 traditional purposes, domestic harvesting, commercial 6 use of resources. There is also supposed to be 7 sufficient detail regarding domestic harvesting to 8 predict project-related effects. The EIS was 9 supposed to describe the economic base of the 10 Aboriginal communities, a general description of the 11 personal, family and community way of life of 12 Aboriginal communities including population and 13 demographic profiles, way of life, culture, 14 spirituality, community cohesion and organization. 15 They were also to describe historic land use and 16 occupancy in the study area, culturally important 17 sites, burial sites, et cetera. 18 Now, what we say to you, and I think we 19 heard it again this morning, is that the proponent 20 has not provided any of this information with respect 21 to the Metis. And we ask you to ask yourselves to 22 the Commission when you are examining this EIS in 23 terms of making your recommendations, where, in the 24 EIS, is the description of family or community life 25 of the Metis population? Where, in the EIS, is the 5891 1 Metis demographic or population profile? Where is 2 the description of the culture of the Metis? Where 3 is the description of historic land use and occupancy 4 in the study area? Where is the description of Metis 5 culturally important sites? Where is the description 6 of the traditional knowledge of the Metis? Where is 7 the use of Metis traditional knowledge in the 8 analysis of potential effects? Where is the 9 examination of Metis health, socioeconomic and 10 cultural conditions? Where is the description of 11 Metis current use of lands and resources? Where is 12 the examination of Metis domestic harvesting or 13 commercial harvesting? And where, in the EIS, is the 14 sufficient detail regarding domestic harvesting to 15 predict project related effects? 16 And in the face of that total lack of 17 evidence on any Metis cultural, socioeconomic 18 effects, we would like to point out to the Commission 19 there's obviously no surprise that there are no 20 mechanisms to manage the effects of the project on 21 the Metis or on the effectiveness of mitigation 22 strategies employed with respect to the Metis. 23 We are asking the Commission to take note 24 of this complete lack of evidence with respect to the 25 socioeconomic and cultural effects on the Metis 5892 1 people and include this deficiency in your 2 recommendations report. 3 Now, having said that, we know that 4 issues with respect to the Metis are not easy. There 5 are complexities here that need to be grappled with. 6 And so we want to make some statements about those by 7 way of trying to help. 8 When we were here on Tuesday and I asked 9 a question of the -- I actually can't remember 10 whether it was a question I directed to the project 11 administration team or to Manitoba Conservation but 12 it was to one of them, and I made the comment that 13 Metis were a minority in many of these communities 14 that we're dealing with. And from behind us, we 15 heard comments from Manitoba Conservation saying no, 16 no, no, they are not. And I take that as a need for 17 information. That's the spirit we're trying to 18 approach, that you all need information here in order 19 to properly do your jobs. So that is the spirit in 20 which we're going to operate here. 21 So I want to point out first that we know 22 there's problems with who are the Metis. It's an 23 issue. We're not trying to side step that. 24 I want to point out that prior to 1982, 25 there were different names for all of the Aboriginal 5893 1 peoples in Canada. We used to know them as Indians, 2 Eskimos and half-breeds. The fact is that none of 3 those terms accurately reflect the cultural societies 4 of the people they are supposed to describe. Indians 5 is a legal term. It encompasses many different 6 peoples. Eskimos is completely jettison to these 7 days. And half-breeds has been replaced. They are 8 all replaced now. We call First Nations, Inuit and 9 Metis. 10 To most outsiders, including government, 11 we would suggest to Hydro and perhaps to this 12 Commission, the term "Metis" is confusing and there 13 are lots of reasons for that and we're going to just 14 walk through a few of them. 15 The first one is we say there's confusion 16 here because often the term is used to apply to two 17 distinct groups of people as if they are one group of 18 people. Many people think that the term "Metis" 19 means all off-reserve Aboriginal people or all 20 individuals who have some mixed 21 Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal ancestry. Often these 22 individuals are called non-status Indians, a term 23 that reflects simply the fact that these people are 24 not registered under a Registry Act in Ottawa. 25 We would like to make it clear that the 5894 1 use of this term to encompass those people, the use 2 of the term "Metis" to encompasses those people is 3 incorrect. Anyone, any individual who identifies as 4 a Cree or as a Dene or as a member of a First Nation 5 is stating that their allegiance and association is 6 with that First Nation. That's what they are telling 7 you by saying that, is that they are legally, and I 8 don't really actually want to get into the legalities 9 of Indian because it's very misleading, but they are 10 stating that their allegiance and association is with 11 the First Nation. And by the very fact that they 12 have said that, that is not identification as Metis. 13 Now there's another source of confusion 14 and it arises from our ongoing terminology here. Now 15 as I said, up until actually the 1960s and seventies, 16 we used the term half-breed in English. And there is 17 an ongoing naming evolution that's been going on all 18 across North America and it's probably easiest 19 understood if you look at what's happened with 20 American Blacks. We used to call them Negros or 21 coloureds. I won't say some of the other derogatory 22 terms that they have been called. They now ask to be 23 called African Americans. And what it is is an 24 evolution trying to get away from describing people 25 by their colour and trying to describe them rather by 5895 1 their historical roots or where they come from. It's 2 an ongoing process. 3 The same process has been happening for 4 all Aboriginal people in Canada. So First Nations 5 now are changing. They don't want to be called 6 Indians for the most part anymore, they want to be 7 called First Nations. But at the same time, they are 8 often taking back their own language names for 9 describing who they are. 10 And I am not going to insult the people 11 from NCN by trying to pronounce your name badly but 12 it's a perfect example. You're not calling yourself 13 the Nelson House Indians anymore, Indian Band, you 14 have taken your own language back to self-identify as 15 who you have always been. And the Metis people are 16 the same. 17 So you should understand that the term 18 "half breed", it's in the 1960s and seventies, as 19 this evolutionary language process is going on, that 20 we started as a greater Canadian public to understand 21 that the term "half breed" is incredibly derogatory. 22 Breeding is not something we do with people, it's a 23 term that comes with animal husbandry. We breed 24 animals and I leave it to you to decide which part of 25 the half-breed is the human being. 5896 1 Now when we decide gradually in the 2 sixties and seventies that half-breed was too 3 derogatory to use, the term gradually evolved into 4 Metis. Now Metis was a term that is an ancient 5 self-described term by the Metis nation here. But 6 the general spreading out to use it to include what 7 had previously been half-breeds, meaning other 8 Aboriginal people who have mixed ancestry, is what 9 began to happen in the sixties and seventies. And 10 that's still the problem we're dealing with today. 11 I'd like to also point out using the term 12 "half-breed" is very convenient for government or was 13 convenient for government because it's, how should we 14 say, it has much less political significance to say 15 that somebody is a half-breed. It implies that they 16 have a questionable claim to Aboriginal rights and 17 title and that they are not a people. It implies 18 that you are simply a half an animal or half a person 19 and that you have no political rights. 20 Now, third source of the confusion about 21 Metis identify of course stems from the continuing 22 changes to the Indian Act. Started in the 1870s when 23 the government started to say that only people who 24 were descended from their fathers who were status 25 Indians could become and people who married out or 5897 1 were descended of mothers would be struck off. That 2 was a huge change. It followed through for many 3 decades. 4 And then in 1985, I don't probably have 5 to go into great detail about Bill C-31. Suffice it 6 to say that the amendments to the Indian Act have had 7 a considerable effect on politics of Indians and 8 Metis in Canada. 9 Another contributing factor to the 10 confusion about Metis is that the Federal Government 11 accepts jurisdiction for Indians on reserve. Many of 12 us question that. But 91.24 says that they have 13 jurisdiction for Indians and lands reserved for the 14 Indians. The Federal Government interprets that as 15 Indians on lands reserved for Indians. It's a much 16 narrower interpretation. 17 But what they say then is that the 18 Provincial Government has jurisdiction for all 19 off-reserve Indians and for Metis. Of course this is 20 denied by the provinces who say they don't have 21 jurisdiction for these people at all. But it has 22 contributed to this tendancy to lump these two 23 separate peoples together into one bag. 24 The other problem is that prior to the 25 creation of reserves, both Indians and Metis share a 5898 1 territory. And I want to say it has usually been 2 very peaceful. They've shared overlapping harvesting 3 areas and they have very close family ties. So this 4 closeness between Indians and Metis has also been one 5 of the confusing factors. 6 After treaties were entered into and 7 Indians were gradually relocated to reserves, Metis 8 were never relocated though. So what we have there 9 is confusion. We have a gradual solidification of 10 identification of Indians but a continuing, shall we 11 say continuing confusion about identifying Metis who 12 remain as they were before reserves were created. 13 I have just given you a whole bunch of 14 reasons why we're confused. So then we sort of go 15 okay, well then who are they? Who are the Metis? 16 I think that the Royal Commission on 17 Aboriginal Peoples and recently the Supreme Court of 18 Canada and Powley has given us a very clear 19 statement, that Metis are a distinct Aboriginal 20 people. They are not merely individuals with mixed 21 Aboriginal blood. And what we would say to you is 22 this. This is an old fact of history. And it has 23 been reaffirmed in Section 35. 24 What's new about Section 35 is the 25 recognition and the commitment that the government, 5899 1 supposedly from Section 35, is going to deal with the 2 Metis as a people from now on. They are not going to 3 deal with them as individuals anymore. In support of 4 that, I point out to you the word "peoples" is used 5 three times in Section 35. It's clearly not meant to 6 deal with individuals who have constitutional rights 7 but rather collectivities that have human 8 constitutional rights. 9 Now, the Supreme Court of Canada said in 10 Powley just six months ago, September of 2003, that 11 the Metis refers to distinctive peoples who, in 12 addition to their mixed ancestry, developed their own 13 customs way of life, recognizable group identity 14 separate from Indian or Inuit and European 15 forebearers. 16 Now, the Ontario Crown in Powley all the 17 way up at all levels of court tried to argue that the 18 Metis were not a people and that they should be 19 treated as part of that big lump of off-reserve 20 Indians and non-status people and Metis, that they 21 were all the same, that they should all be treated as 22 one group. And all levels of court rejected this 23 idea, and I mean all levels. Fourteen judges 24 rejected this theory. There's not even a dissenting 25 judgment in the pile. Fourteen judges said that 5900 1 approach is wrong. 2 Now, this unfortunately -- exactly what 3 was disapproved by all those 14 judges in the Supreme 4 Court of Canada is exactly what we have heard is the 5 process that's being followed in this environmental 6 assessment, in the EIS, by the proponent and by the 7 Manitoba Government. So they have treated Metis as 8 if they are merely individuals with a questionable 9 claim to Indian rights. And the proponent has made 10 no attempt, and I think we heard that this morning, 11 to treat the Metis as a people with distinct 12 practices, customs, traditions, cultural way of life. 13 Now, I'm going to provide you with the 14 definition of the Metis that has been recently 15 adopted by the Metis nation. And the Metis nation is 16 the self-described name of the distinct Aboriginal 17 people, the historic Metis nation sometimes called 18 the Red River Metis or sometimes called Riel's people 19 which is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada 20 guidelines set out in Powley and that is this. A 21 Metis means a person who self-identifies as Metis, is 22 of historic Metis nation ancestry as distinct from 23 other Aboriginal peoples and is accepted by the Metis 24 nation. 25 So what they are saying to you is that 5901 1 self-identification, a tie, a genealogical tie 2 descended from the historic Metis nation, not just 3 lost your Indian status, but descended from the 4 historic Metis nation and accepted by the Metis 5 nation. Now, so we've given you the basics of who 6 are the Metis. 7 Now with respect to consultation. 8 MR. SARGEANT: Could I ask for an 9 elaboration, Ms. Teillet? Who or what is the 10 historic Metis nation? 11 MS. TEILLET: The historic Metis nation 12 that we're talking about are the people who lived, 13 used and occupied an area that the Metis nation 14 itself generally says stretches from some sort of 15 perhaps the Sault Ste. Marie in Ontario, maybe 16 somewhere in the north. We don't know the outer 17 boundaries of it, but somewhere around there and 18 comes west. Certainly it would include all of the 19 prairie provinces. It goes a bit into the Northwest 20 Territories where it's sort of the bottom of the 21 Great Slave Lake and a little bit into the 22 northeastern corner of British Columbia. Certainly 23 that Kelly Lake area up around northeastern British 24 Columbia. And also dips down into the northern 25 United States, into Montana and North Dakota, that 5902 1 kind of area. These are the people who have 2 fulfilled, and if you read the Royal Commission 3 report, if you're looking for it, it's in Volume 4 of 4 the Royal Commission report. There's a whole 5 chapter, I think it's chapter 5, that's on the Metis. 6 And there's a complete description there of this 7 historic Metis nation. 8 MR. SARGEANT: I don't know if it's just 9 coincidental, but that's a similar area to that 10 covered by the numbered treaties, the post 1870 11 numbered treaties. 12 MS. TEILLET: Yeah, I think you're right 13 with the exceptions of these into Sault Ste. Marie 14 area which is Robinson Superior Treaty. But I think 15 essentially you're right, that that area has been 16 covered by the treaties. 17 I would point out to you with respect to 18 the treaties that the Supreme Court of Canada in 19 Powley said specifically that the treaties did not 20 extinguish the Aboriginal rights of the Metis because 21 they didn't sign on as collectives. But I never 22 thought about it that way before. 23 All of this leads us to the issues at 24 hand. The president is pointing out to me that the 25 Manitoba Act is considered by some people to be a 5903 1 Treaty or certainly the negotiated agreement that 2 Ritchot made with the government that was implemented 3 by the Manitoba Act could be considered treaty. And 4 of course if you know the history of the numbered 5 treaties, you know that there is a half-breed 6 addendum to Treaty 3 which is the only other 7 collective signing on of the Metis to Treaty. But I 8 guess I should point out that the Manitoba Act refers 9 to the postage stamp province and not the project 10 area. 11 All of this leads us to the conundrum 12 we're facing which is the complexities of 13 consultation with the Metis. 14 Now with respect to the Metis, it's 15 suggested, we suggest, that the proponent and the 16 Crown have the same consultation obligations to the 17 Metis as they have to all other Aboriginal people. 18 And we say that the consultation obligation really 19 has two parts to it. The first one is it must take 20 steps to inform the people who are going to be 21 affected about what it's going to do. I think that's 22 probably the part of consultation that we all accept 23 and understand the best, is that the proponent, in 24 this case Hydro and NCN, have an obligation to tell 25 us what it is they are thinking about doing in a fair 5904 1 amount of detail. 2 But there's another part to consultation. 3 It's a second part of it and an important part. They 4 have to inform themselves about the people who are 5 going to be affected so that they can -- they have to 6 understand the culture, what we called I think on 7 Tuesday we were talking baseline information and 8 that's baseline cultural information too, not just 9 baseline wildlife information or baseline geography. 10 But what's the baseline culture that you're looking 11 at? Because if you don't understand what's there to 12 begin with and you don't really look at what's there 13 to begin with, you can't possibly understand how the 14 project is going to affect those people. So that's 15 step two. 16 One first step, give out information. 17 Second step, inform yourself fully about the cultures 18 that you're looking at. 19 Now with respect to consultation 20 obligations, we say there's really two issues that 21 are raising their head here over and over and over 22 again. And the first one is this, who do you have an 23 obligation to consult with? Who is it you consult 24 with that will fulfil your obligation? Maybe that's 25 a better way of stating it. And then the second one 5905 1 is this. Is a Metis collective synonymous with a 2 physical community? Like can you consult with a 3 physical community and say that fulfills your 4 obligations? So those are two issues that I really 5 want to look at here because I think they are the 6 issue that keeps coming up whenever we hear everyone 7 talking about what's happened here. 8 What we say to you is that as a general 9 principle, the government's consultation obligation 10 must be directed to the Aboriginal peoples as a 11 collective because Aboriginal rights are collective 12 rights. Consultation with individual members of the 13 collective will only inform about that individual's 14 interests. They cannot inform about the collective 15 rights or aspirations of a whole people. 16 Now as with consultation implemented with 17 Indians, consultation with Metis must begin with 18 their elected representatives. Now we admit some 19 more complicated task for Metis than for Indians. 20 That's because, as we said earlier, Metis don't live 21 in discrete physical communities equivalent to 22 reserves. 23 And as I said earlier, the government 24 gathered up Indian people and plunked them down on 25 reserves. We can have a long discussion about 5906 1 whether that was a good thing to do or a bad thing to 2 do. I'm going to stay away from that conversation 3 for today. But the fact is that's what happened. 4 And so the government itself created 5 these bodies called Chief and Council. They created 6 the physical thing, entity, geographic entity and 7 they created Chief and Council. And now they accept 8 that and we accept it in law as the body that 9 represents Indian people and so we talk to it. 10 Now what's happening here is that the 11 Metis people, in any given region, are rarely 12 synonymous with any physical village, city or town. 13 And this is because the Crown didn't pick them up and 14 plunk them onto a reserve. Metis people continue to 15 live, as most Aboriginal people lived prior to the 16 creation of reserves, scattered throughout their 17 traditional territory. Some live on reserves. Some 18 live adjacent to reserves. Some live in the bush. 19 Some live in cities, towns or villages. 20 Now I told you earlier that one of the 21 cultural markers of Metis is that they are very 22 mobile. And it's really interesting to note that the 23 latest census statistics bear out the fact that this 24 cultural marker for Metis hasn't changed. The census 25 data from 2001 shows that the Metis people that they 5907 1 surveyed, 25 per cent of them have moved within the 2 previous year. And that is almost double, if not 3 more than double, what the average Canadian moves. 4 So what we say to you is that under these 5 circumstances, the mobility of the people and the 6 fact that they are scattered does make consultation 7 complicated. But I'd like to quote from the Supreme 8 Court of Canada. It may be complicated but it is not 9 an insurmountable task. 10 Now what we say to you is the issue has 11 come up over and over again. The proponents said it 12 this morning and the Crown said it earlier that they 13 consulted with local elected municipal 14 representatives. And our question has to be this. 15 does that fulfil the Crown's constitutional 16 obligations and does it fulfil the proponent's 17 obligations under the guidelines in the EIS? 18 Now we note we're not trying to suggest 19 in any way that it isn't important for the proponent 20 or for the Crown to consult with municipal 21 representatives because it is important. You can't 22 do something without talking to mayor and council in 23 Thompson and The Pas. It's got to happen. However, 24 those municipal representatives have no 25 jurisdiction, authority or mandate to deal with 5908 1 Metis, qua Metis. I'm going to -- qua is one of 2 those lousy legal Latin terms. It really just means 3 like or as. So deal with Metis in their capacity as 4 Metis as opposed to Metis in their capacity as 5 Canadian citizens. 6 So what we say to you is that those 7 municipal representatives have limited jurisdiction 8 that comes from their governing statute and within 9 the geographic territory of their municipality but 10 they have no mandate or authority to represent Metis 11 with respect to the exercise of Metis rights and 12 title. 13 We also say they are very inappropriate 14 bodies to consult with especially when one considers 15 the municipal representatives may not even be Metis 16 and that the exercise of most Aboriginal rights takes 17 place way outside municipal boundaries. 18 Finally we'd also like to note that mayor 19 and council in Northern Affairs communities are not 20 decision-making bodies. Their every decision is 21 subject to review by the Minister who has the 22 ultimate authority. So one could question, who is 23 the Minister consulting with when he consults with 24 mayor and council? Is he consulting with himself? 25 It's a possibility because it's certainly not 5909 1 consultation we would submit with the Metis people. 2 Now the other question that's come up is 3 that the proponent has submitted that consultation 4 with Metis can be effected within the purview of 5 public meetings or open houses. I think that's what 6 they told us today was that they had invited the 7 Metis to participate in public meetings and open 8 houses. 9 The Manitoba Metis Federation is not 10 denying that they got invitations to attend public 11 meetings and open houses. But one of the things we'd 12 like to point out is -- and remember the statistics 13 that I told you at the beginning, the Metis are a 14 minority group here and a significant minority group, 15 10 per cent of the population. And particularly when 16 you look at a place like South Indian Lake, the EIS 17 itself says that 80 to 90 per cent of the people in 18 that community are members of NCN. Ask yourself who 19 is the other 10 to 20 per cent? Who is it? 20 So what we're saying to you is the 21 statistics show Metis in the project area itself are 22 a minority. And to the extent that they will be 23 expected to be totally forthcoming with their needs 24 and perspectives as individuals in a huge group 25 atmosphere where they are completely overwhelmed by a 5910 1 majority group whose interests may be entirely 2 contrary to theirs I think is placing an unreasonable 3 expectation. And we also say that it denies their 4 special status as constitutionally protected people. 5 And we'd also like to point out that the 6 Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec secession 7 reference talked about the constitutional protection 8 of minority rights. So I think one has to ask 9 whether a municipal representative who is elected to 10 dog catch and snow remove and fix sewers and who may 11 have interests that are entirely contrary to the 12 Metis in fact could be antagonistic can be expected 13 to represent the interests of a significant minority 14 group. 15 Now the next question then is if that's 16 wrong, which is what we're proposing, would the 17 Crown's consultation obligation be fulfilled by 18 consulting with Metis organizations? Now again, we 19 note that Indians have Chief and Council and that the 20 Crown recognizes these bodies. The Crown has never 21 created a similar political or legal body for the 22 Metis. So as a result, what we have here is that the 23 self-created ballot box Metis organizations are the 24 only entities in existence that have the structure 25 and mandate to represent Metis qua Metis. 5911 1 Now we know, governments are very 2 reluctant, very reluctant to consult with Metis 3 created organizations. They question membership 4 rules, they question their authority. They deny them 5 recognition, resources, respect. The list goes on 6 and on. Really what we say to you is that the 7 government in questioning the Manitoba Metis 8 Federation's authority and ability is questioning the 9 results of their own handy work. 10 The fact is that the Crown has neglected 11 to maintain its own Metis records. It has not 12 adequately funded these organizations to enable them 13 to develop or maintain verifiable records. And what 14 we would say to you is that in the absence of any 15 other viable entities, it is very difficult to 16 understand how the Crown or the proponent could 17 fulfil its obligations without consulting the 18 Manitoba Metis Federation. 19 And we'd like to point out to you that 20 the MMF in fact is the only Metis organization in 21 this whole country that has been recognized by the 22 courts as being legally capable of representing Metis 23 people. 24 And I'm going to point you to the 25 Manitoba Metis Federation versus Canada court case 5912 1 which went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada 2 on a preliminary motion. But the issue was -- one of 3 the big issues was really who can represent the Metis 4 in terms of the claims that arise out of the Manitoba 5 Act, 1870. And the Court of Appeal said no and tried 6 to strike the claim. But O'Sullivan dissented and I 7 want to quote you what he said. He said, 8 "The problem confronting us is how can 9 the rights of the Metis people as a 10 people be asserted? Must they turn to 11 international bodies or to the 12 conscience of humanity to obtain 13 redress for their grievances as a 14 people or is it possible for us, at 15 the request of their representatives, 16 to recognize their people claims as 17 justiciable. 18 In my opinion, the rights of the Metis 19 people must be capable of being 20 asserted by somebody, if not by the 21 present plaintiffs, then by whom? 22 Now the Supreme Court of Canada 23 overturned the Court of Appeal decision which has the 24 effect of reinforcing O'Sullivan's finding that the 25 Manitoba Metis Federation is the appropriate legal 5913 1 entity to represent Metis with respect to their Metis 2 rights. And we would say to you this. It seems 3 logical that if the MMF can sue on behalf of the 4 Metis with respect to their Metis rights, then the 5 Crown should consult with them in respect of those 6 same rights when it contemplates activities that 7 stand to affect them. 8 I'm going to leave it to Mr. Al Benoit to 9 give you examples of the inconsistency of the 10 Manitoba Government's approach and Hydro's 11 inconsistency. 12 I want to move on very briefly to the 13 Aboriginal rights of the Metis because Ms. Leonoff I 14 believe left you with a position that we disagree 15 with strongly. She said no one knows. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you go a little. 17 MS. TEILLET: I apologize. It will come 18 as no surprise to you that we disagree with what Ms. 19 Leonoff stated. She said no one knows whether Metis 20 harvesting rights exist in Manitoba. And I suggest 21 to you that that is wrong in law. 22 First of all, there is a Queen's Bench 23 decision in Manitoba called the MacPherson and 24 Christie case that confirms that Metis have Section 25 35 harvesting rights. And that case came out of The 5914 1 Pas. It didn't come out of Southern Manitoba, it 2 came out of Northern Manitoba. 3 Now the other issue is that there is 4 another Queen's Bench decision in Saskatchewan called 5 the Morin and Daigneault case. And that case 6 specifically dealt with the issue of whether scrip 7 extinguishes harvesting rights. And the decision 8 there was that no one was going to talk about the 9 effect it might have on title. But with respect to 10 harvesting rights, both the trial judge and affirmed 11 by the Queen's Bench judge said that scrip didn't 12 meet the clear and plain extinguishment test. It 13 doesn't speak about hunting rights, hunting and 14 fishing rights. So therefore, whatever effect it 15 might have had on title, which was not before the 16 courts, it had no effect on their hunting. 17 Now even in Blais, which went to the 18 Supreme Court of Canada and the court found against 19 the interpretation of the natural resources transfer 20 agreement, the trial judge found, and I'm going to 21 quote him, he said, "Hunting was as the very air they 22 breathed." 23 Now, that fact was not overturned by 24 anybody all the way up the line. And the Court, 25 actually the Supreme Court of Canada went out of its 5915 1 way to say that just because Metis weren't included 2 in the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement didn't 3 mean that they didn't have rights under Section 35 in 4 this Province. So what we say to you -- and then of 5 course Powley also affirms that there are Metis 6 people who have unextinguished harvesting rights in 7 this country. 8 So we say to you that it would be far 9 more logical and more appropriate for the province 10 and all other bodies to act as if the Metis do have 11 the harvesting rights they claim and treat them 12 appropriately and not put projects such as this at 13 risk by ignoring that. 14 Now, the Manitoba Metis Federation has 15 given you a response to your information request and 16 I've dealt quite thoroughly there with the duty to 17 consult when it's triggered and the law with respect 18 to consultation. So I'm not going to go into that in 19 great detail right now except to quote the Supreme 20 Court of Canada briefly where they say that, "There 21 is always a duty of consultation with Aboriginal 22 people." And the second part of it they say is that, 23 consultation must be in good faith and "with the 24 intention of substantially addressing the concerns of 25 the Aboriginal people." 5916 1 Now, we would say to you that's a 2 substantive component, it's not just a procedural 3 requirement. And what we also say to you is a duty 4 to consult has a long history in this country. It 5 arises out of the Crown's duty to protect Aboriginal 6 peoples, to protect their interests, to protect their 7 lands and their resources that they rely on. 8 So the idea of consultation is to prevent 9 harm before it occurs. So what we say is that duty 10 rests with all parties who are contemplating actions 11 that will have an effect on Aboriginal people's 12 resource use. Government, any government entities it 13 establishes to facilitate that activity carry that 14 duty which is what we would say usually implemented 15 through a process like this, an environmental 16 assessment process. 17 We say the proponents have a duty to 18 consult pursuant to their guidelines and the reality 19 is that it has to be substantively carried out. In 20 other words, excuses about why it didn't work won't 21 work because that's just using procedural excuses. 22 Now what we say to you is that it's not 23 possible to neatly distinguish. You cannot draw hard 24 and fast walls between they have this responsibility 25 and these other people over here have this one. The 5917 1 idea is that eventually the information has to be 2 gathered. 3 And what we say is for the Clean 4 Environment Commission, you're the oversight body and 5 you are the ones who have to assess whether you've 6 got that information. We're not suggesting it's up 7 to you to go out and do the consultation, it's up to 8 you to review what's before you and decide whether 9 you have sufficient information. If you don't have 10 the information, you have to tell the Minister that, 11 that he's missing information. 12 Now, I want to look just briefly at what 13 are the implications if there is no meaningful or 14 proper consultation. I think there is some case law 15 to guide us on this. First I want to talk about what 16 would be evidence that would show that there was no 17 genuine intention to do the consultation or to gather 18 this. And we would say that many of the things that 19 we've heard about here in this process have been 20 shown. And we'd say the evidence is this. Failing 21 to recognize that there is an Aboriginal people in a 22 project area, especially when put on repeated notice. 23 Suggesting that the Aboriginal people themselves are 24 at fault for not nagging enough for consultation. 25 Suggesting that the obligation lies with the 5918 1 government but not with the proponent or with the 2 proponent but not with the government or with either 3 the government or the proponent but not with the CEC. 4 In fact, suggesting that the obligation lies anywhere 5 but with anyone even remotely responsible for the 6 process. 7 MR. MAYER: I don't want to interrupt but 8 I'm trying to understand at this point which 9 consultation we are addressing. We're addressing the 10 consultation as set out in our Terms of Reference or 11 are we discussing Section 35? And I'd really like to 12 keep the two separate. 13 MS. TEILLET: It's been made very clear 14 by the Manitoba Government that they believe that the 15 Section 35 consultation is an entirely separate 16 process -- 17 MR. MAYER: We've heard that. 18 MS. TEILLET: -- from yours. But I've 19 heard it too. I have to say to you that my 20 understanding of the law of environmental assessment 21 and of these issues is that consultation has to be 22 carried out. And your obligation is to make 23 recommendations on the effects of the project and 24 mitigation, et cetera. 25 Now, in order to do that, you have to 5919 1 have information. What we say is the obligation is 2 on the proponent to provide you with that 3 information. 4 MR. MAYER: This is the consultation 5 process or at least the information as set out in our 6 Terms of Reference as separate from Section 35 of the 7 Constitutional Act consultation you'll find 8 elsewhere. 9 MS. TEILLET: I have to say that my 10 analysis of the law doesn't break down into those 11 neat little packages that have been put forward by 12 the Manitoba Government. I think it's wrong in law 13 to draw these hard and fast distinctions. 14 The way I think is the best way to look 15 at this is that this Commission has to have the 16 information. And consultation has to be carried out 17 by the proponents and by other -- whoever. It has to 18 be carried out so that the information is there. And 19 that if you don't have that information, then you can 20 find either the EIS deficient or the fact that you're 21 lacking information. 22 In this case, you are lacking the 23 information from any source. Now whether you want to 24 say in your recommendations to the Minister that it 25 is because the proponent failed to provide it to you 5920 1 or because the government failed to provide it to you 2 and maybe they should be giving it to you as well, 3 that's another option here. But the reality is you 4 don't have it from any source. 5 So what we would say to you is if you 6 choose to interpret your mandate narrowly to say that 7 there is no Section 35 obligation on you to at least 8 look at the sufficiency of your Section 35 9 consultation. 10 MR. MAYER: Is it your position that we 11 have a Section 35 obligation? I'm not an expert in 12 criminal law but I've been in the business for 35 13 years and I have always thought that the 14 Constitutional Act and the obligations thereunder 15 were placed upon governments. Am I wrong? 16 MS. TEILLET: You are a body established 17 pursuant to the Environment Act to carry out an 18 environmental assessment on this and you are 19 reporting to it now. It's what I said to you at the 20 beginning, I'm not suggesting that you as a body has 21 the obligation to go out and do the Section 35 22 consultation. In fact, I have to tell you, I do 23 these environmental assessments in the Northwest 24 Territories, in British Columbia, in Ontario and I've 25 never heard anybody call them Section 35 5921 1 consultations before. Everybody else just calls it 2 the obligation to consult. And nobody else divides 3 it up into these tiny little packages. 4 MR. MAYER: I accept the fact that there 5 is an obligation to consult, and that is defined in 6 our Terms of Reference and we are somewhat restricted 7 by our Terms of Reference. I'm sure you are aware of 8 that. We have no inherent jurisdiction. 9 MS. TEILLET: I understand. 10 MR. MAYER: But I always looked upon 11 Section 35 rights as something separate and distinct 12 and an obligation that falls upon the government as 13 the protector of Aboriginal people. And I think you 14 made the argument. So clearly there is a distinction 15 here. 16 MS. TEILLET: Again, I can only say that 17 I think that that hard and fast distinction is not 18 helpful to anybody in trying to fulfil the 19 obligations here. The reality is we have to get the 20 information. And if you want to call that 21 consultation pursuant to the guidelines or pursuant 22 to your mandate, that's one thing. If you want to 23 call it Section 35 -- I would say that consultation 24 pursuant to the guidelines and to the proponents 25 obligations is the same thing. It's the information 5922 1 that you need. And bearing in mind it's a 2 substantive obligation to get that information. And 3 I don't know, maybe we can keep going back and forth 4 on this. I don't know if it's helpful. 5 MR. MAYER: I have your position. 6 MS. TEILLET: I want to continue with the 7 evidence that we say shows that there has been no 8 genuine intention to gather this information. And so 9 that the consultation obligation is not fulfilled. I 10 suggested that there is a bit of a hand off the 11 football game going on here that everybody else has 12 the obligation. We also suggest that public meetings 13 or signs in the post office saying that come to a 14 public meeting won't fulfil the constitutional 15 obligation or the obligations of the proponent under 16 its guidelines. 17 The other suggestion that Ms. Leonoff 18 made to us was that, well, everybody knows about 19 this. And even if we could say that that fulfilled 20 step one of the obligation, in other words the idea 21 of disseminating information, certainly doesn't 22 fulfill the secondary obligation which is informing 23 yourself about what they need to -- to inform 24 themselves about Metis culture. 25 The third point we would say is the 5923 1 suggestion of meeting with individual trappers or 2 fishermen and we would note that these are recognized 3 as special interest groups when it comes to First 4 Nations consultation. It's not considered that they 5 substitute for consultation. We'd suggest that 6 saying you met with individual trappers and know how 7 the transmission line or the project will affect them 8 simply doesn't fulfil the obligation. And finally, 9 we'd say another piece of evidence would be the 10 refusal to deal with the duly chosen representatives. 11 Now the case law is very informative for 12 this Commission with respect to the recommendations 13 you're going to make and this lack of evidence. And 14 I'd like to point you to a case. I have a copy of it 15 here but I don't think we made full, I didn't want to 16 bury you in case law but it's called the Athabasca 17 Chipewyan First Nation versus British Columbia and it 18 is a Federal Court of Appeal decision from 2001. 19 And it's a National Energy Board issue 20 and I'd like to read to you. I'm on an electronic 21 version of it, so it's page 6 here. Actually there 22 are paragraph numbers. Would that be more helpful to 23 you? I think it's paragraph 22 to 24 where the 24 Federal Court of Appeal, and this is a unanimous 25 judgment. 5924 1 THE CHAIRMAN: We don't have that 2 document. I don't think you've tabled that document. 3 MS. TEILLET: I'm sorry, I realize we 4 didn't but we will make it available to you right 5 after this. I'm sorry about that. 6 The issue was whether there was 7 sufficient evidence. And it's about exporting 8 energy, obviously a National Energy Board case, and 9 about the impacts on the environment. And this is 10 the Court of Appeal. The finding that there was 11 insufficient evidence that the scientific exports 12 proposed to be made would have an impact on the 13 environment is problematic. 14 One interpretation of this finding is 15 that the Board placed the burden on the intervenors 16 to demonstrate adverse environmental impacts. If the 17 Board purported to do so, it was wrong. The 18 applicant for the permit must provide the Board with 19 sufficient information to enable the Board to make 20 its decisions. I'm skipping a bit. This has simply 21 not been addressed by the Board. Even if it did not 22 place a burden on the intervenors, it was not open to 23 the Board to infer from B.C. Hydro's silence as to 24 its changes to its operation due to the granting of 25 the permits that there would be no changes or 5925 1 significant adverse environmental effects. 2 So I think it's pretty clear. Lack of 3 evidence and silence or we didn't get it is a 4 significant problem. And I want to tell you, the 5 Court of Appeal quashed the permits here. 6 Now, they delayed it because it had been 7 already operating for two years by the time it got up 8 to the Federal Court of Appeal. But the fact is they 9 quashed the permits because of lack of evidence. And 10 what they are telling you is that you can't interpret 11 lack of evidence in a favourable way. You've got to 12 have the evidence in front of you. 13 Now, obviously what we say to you is that 14 if the Crown chooses to authorize this project 15 without the evidence that you're looking for, it 16 proceeds at its peril. 17 Now, I want to talk about the National 18 Energy Board a bit. We were here on Tuesday and we 19 asked if there was a need for a permit. And we were 20 told that there was no need for a permit here and we 21 were very puzzled by this because it was our 22 understanding if you're exporting energy, you need a 23 permit. That's my simplistic understanding of the 24 law. 25 So we called the National Energy Board 5926 1 yesterday to ask them why don't they need a permit? 2 And the answer we got was very interesting. We 3 talked to a policy person and she said that they have 4 in fact been following this hearing quite closely and 5 they've been reading the transcript and they are, 6 shall we say, I think I'm going to use her exact 7 words, but they were puzzled by Hydro's presentation 8 that they don't need a permit for this, very puzzled 9 by it. And they pointed out to us that there are 10 some blanket permits that Hydro has, and there is 11 upper level limitations that they can move up to and 12 there's obviously ability for some short-term spikes 13 above that. But they have three, what we understand 14 is three blanket permits come due next year. And 15 those are not just automatic renewals, they have to 16 apply to have those permits renewed. 17 And what we were told by the National 18 Energy Board is that they would have to, in their 19 application, provide full information as to the 20 Aboriginal consultation that they have undertaken in 21 order to have those permits renewed. And that 22 therefore, the NEB consultation guidelines are 23 triggered. 24 And we have provided for you the NEB 25 consultation guidelines. I'm sure you've seen them 5927 1 before anyway, but we have provided them for you and 2 we also provided you with a letter that we have sent 3 to Hydro. And Hydro said they have been in receipt 4 of our letter and they are on notice that we 5 believe -- sorry, NEB has received our letter and 6 they are on notice that we are raising the 7 sufficiency of the consultation with respect to the 8 Metis. 9 So I'm going to leave that with you 10 because we want to raise it for you that I don't know 11 whether you want to call someone from the NEB to 12 speak to this issue to confirm it or what. I'm 13 making no position on the law on this, I'm telling 14 you that our information from Hydro contradicts what 15 we were told at this hearing on Tuesday. 16 Now, I do want to note that those NEB 17 consultation guidelines are quite significant and 18 they are -- they have detailed information 19 requirements, none of which you have with respect to 20 the Metis. And the idea that Hydro will have to 21 apply within a year for another permit, I personally 22 see very little difference between them having to 23 apply for a land use and occupancy permit in the next 24 year or so and having to apply for another blanket 25 permit which will have to include all of the 5928 1 developments with respect to Wuskwatim in it. 2 Now, I'm just going to conclude now and 3 say that in this hearing -- 4 MS. AVERY KINEW: I was wondering, you 5 did table with us National Energy Board March 4, 6 2002. Are these the guidelines you are referring to? 7 MS. TEILLET: Yes. 8 MS. AVERY KINEW: Is that a result of the 9 case that you are referring to? 10 MS. TEILLET: Actually, I think they 11 did -- there's also a Supreme Court of Canada case 12 that came out. And I think they've been revising 13 their guidelines fairly consistently in response to 14 that. But I wouldn't want to be the final say on 15 when and why they put their consultation guidelines 16 in place. 17 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you. 18 MS. TEILLET: In concluding, I want to 19 say that in this hearing and throughout this project 20 and indeed for the past 40 years, Hydro and the 21 Government of Manitoba have consistently resisted the 22 conclusion that they have constitutional duties to 23 protect lands and resources of Aboriginal peoples 24 generally but certainly Metis people specific. 25 And since 1982 when the Constitution came 5929 1 into effect in court and at this hearing, the 2 Manitoba Crown has argued, I'm going to give you a 3 list here, any one or more of the following, that 4 Section 35 is merely of a preambular character. That 5 Section 35 undermines the balance of federalism. 6 That Section 35 prevents government from governing. 7 That the Courts or this Commission ought not to 8 inquire into provincial decision making. That the 9 Crown cannot discharge its burden. That the Crown's 10 duty is not engaged. That the province is not in a 11 position to. That the duties stop short of. That 12 their obligations are political, not legal, not 13 enforceable, not fiduciary, not constitutional. In 14 essence, the Crown has argued for 40 years, no, not 15 us, or at least not yet. 16 Now with respect to Metis, the litany of 17 denial is slightly different. For the Metis, the 18 complaint is that we don't know who the Metis are. 19 That the Metis are merely individuals with Aboriginal 20 ancestry. That their rights are derivative or 21 dependent on Indian rights. That while Indians may 22 have Aboriginal rights, Metis have none. That while 23 Indians may have Aboriginal title, Metis have none. 24 That Metis organizations are not legally capable of 25 representing them. That they are not collective. 5930 1 That neither the government nor the proponent nor 2 this Commission has obligations to the Metis. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Slow down, please. 4 MS. TEILLET: That the Metis are a 5 federal responsibility. This is from the Provincial 6 Government. That the Metis are a provincial 7 responsibility. That's from the Federal Government. 8 That there might be Metis with rights in that 9 province but not in this province. That wherever and 10 whenever or whoever these people might be, they are 11 not rights holders. They are not really Aboriginal 12 or at least they are not Aboriginal enough. And 13 anyway, they all disappeared when Louis Riel was 14 hanged in 1885. 15 The Metis are, according to the Crown and 16 Hydro, non-existent and non-ascertainable as a people 17 and certainly not anyone or any entity that engages 18 the recognition or any obligations of the proponent. 19 As a result of this, the Manitoba 20 Government and the proponent have set up a unique and 21 impossible access route for consultation for the 22 Metis. All over, people in Manitoba can be consulted 23 without first getting permission from another body 24 but not the Metis. Only the Metis will not be heard 25 from, Metis as a people, will not be heard from 5931 1 unless another body, Mayor and Council, invites them. 2 Only Metis are subjected to a gatekeeper who may be 3 ignorant about, inattentive, indifferent or actively 4 hostile to Metis collective aspirations. 5 This is all wrong. And we are asking 6 this Commission to do the right thing. We are asking 7 the Commission to take note in your recommendations 8 report of all of the inequities of the consultation 9 process with respect to the Metis and to recommend 10 that this project not proceed until the MMF has been 11 fully consulted and the socioeconomic and cultural 12 effects of these projects with respect to the Metis 13 are determined. 14 Now I am going to pass the microphone 15 over to one of our respected Metis elders who is a 16 former president of the MMF and who has some direct 17 experience with this, Mr. John Morrisseau. I thank 18 you for your attention to my presentation. 19 MR. MORRISSEAU: Thank you, Jean. Good 20 morning. I'm here this morning as an elder for the 21 Metis Nation of Manitoba. But before I speak, I just 22 wanted to give a bit of background on my past and the 23 things that I had done. 24 I was born a Metis in a small Metis 25 community, isolated community of Crane River and my 5932 1 wife and I got married in Grand Rapids in 1960. I 2 just want to say we walked to church because there 3 was no roads. Or sometimes I tell a funny story and 4 say that she ran to church and I walked behind. 5 But over the years, I've had the 6 opportunity to work for government. I worked for 7 government in Grand Rapids in 1960 -- '68, '67/'68, 8 shortly after my release from the Canadian Armed 9 Forces. 10 Following that, I went on working for 11 government until 1976 when I became the President of 12 the Manitoba Metis Federation for five years. I 13 stepped down from the position of president in August 14 of 1981. I then went on to work back with 15 government. I ended up as the Assistant Deputy 16 Minister with the Province of Manitoba in Thompson, 17 Manitoba and then moved from there to the Deputy 18 Minister position here in Winnipeg, a position I held 19 for eight and a half years. 20 Following that, I worked with the Royal 21 Commission on Aboriginal People. I was the Director 22 of Public Participation for all of the public 23 hearings that went on with the Royal Commission 24 across Canada. 25 And I give you that information to tell 5933 1 you that I have had a varied experience of work with 2 Aboriginal peoples across this country. So I have 3 some understanding. 4 But today, I'm here as an elder. I am 5 semi-retired and so I have a chance to now relate 6 some of the stories. And what I want to do today is 7 to relate a story of the Community of Grand Rapids 8 who was flooded some 44 years ago this year when the 9 construction actually started at Grand Rapids. 10 I want to tell you that in Grand Rapids 11 in 1960, there was no Clean Environment Commission, 12 there was no information shared. Manitoba Hydro and 13 the Province of Manitoba came in to Grand Rapids and 14 basically did what they wanted to do. 15 And so therefore, I want to tell you that 16 Grand Rapids, in 1960 and prior, was a very small 17 isolated remote community. Grand Rapids was 18 basically a community that started in the fishing and 19 fur industry following the transportation of goods 20 through the portage that took the freight off Lake 21 Winnipeg down the North Saskatchewan River to far 22 away places of Edmonton. 23 Grand Rapids became a community where 24 their only contact with the outside communities was 25 either through canoe in the summertime or dog team in 5934 1 the wintertime. The elder people at Grand Rapids 2 told me that they used to haul the mail to Grand 3 Rapids prior to 1960 with a dog team in the 4 wintertime. That would take them sometimes a week, 5 depending on weather, maybe longer to bring mail back 6 and forth. 7 And the reason I raise that is to show 8 you or to tell you that Grand Rapids wasn't 9 well-informed from the communication point. In the 10 summertime, they travelled by canoe. 11 My wife always told me how great it was 12 to shoot the rapids at Grand Rapids, how much fun 13 they had in doing that. But the boats went back and 14 forth. Our only other contact of course was by bush 15 plane if one could afford that. So Grand Rapids was 16 fairly isolated in 1960. 17 When I went to Grand Rapids in 1960, 18 people knew that Hydro was coming but they knew very 19 little about what was going to happen. They had some 20 information that said Hydro was going to build a dam. 21 And when I spoke to people at Grand 22 Rapids in those early days and asked, well what does 23 that mean for jobs? What does that mean for your 24 community? What is going to happen? No one seemed 25 to know. No one in those days understood what Grand 5935 1 Rapids was about to experience. 2 So in the early times of construction, 3 Hydro moved in to Grand Rapids. And I want you to 4 know that Grand Rapids is the only community, and I 5 think you'll want to make note of that, is the only 6 community in Northern Manitoba that Hydro has 7 actually constructed their generating plant right in 8 the centre of that community. There is no other 9 community in Northern Manitoba where Hydro has that 10 close of a relationship to the community. 11 The construction that took place in 1960 12 by Manitoba Hydro was that they built a dock right in 13 the centre of the community. We have senior housing 14 there today on top of that slab of cement that was 15 left. They brought their boats in and they unloaded 16 their equipment. 17 And one just has to stop and realize the 18 kind of social destruction that took place. And 19 because people being somewhat naive about the things 20 that were happening to them and they had no control. 21 And I said earlier that there was no Commission, 22 there was no information. 23 When Hydro moved in, when they brought 24 the equipment in, overnight, 1,500 men moved into the 25 community of Grand Rapids. Overnight, these people 5936 1 come in and they set up a tent village because that 2 was the way in which Hydro started to keep their men 3 in Grand Rapids before they were able to bring in 4 construction trailers or housing. People lived in 5 the bush in Grand Rapids and they were part of the 6 construction crew. 7 And old people, and I'm going to refer to 8 their type of language, the old people said, tell me, 9 the first building that was built in Grand Rapids in 10 1960 they said was the beer parlour and the second 11 one was the liquor store. Could you just imagine the 12 kind of devastation that took place in the Community 13 of Grand Rapids that was so naive to the outside 14 world what 1,500 men, a lot of money, now a new -- 15 two new liquor outlets and the problem that money, 16 alcohol and a lot of free men would do to a small 17 community like Grand Rapids. 18 It wasn't long before we began to see and 19 we began to hear the kinds of things that went on at 20 Grand Rapids in the early sixties. Families started 21 to break up. Moms and dads started to drink. 22 Oh, by way, when I got married in Grand 23 Rapids in 1960, we danced for three nights. We never 24 had one man or one woman drink. We just danced and 25 had a good time. 5937 1 In 1963/64, we had families that were 2 totally broken up. One has to visualize a community 3 like Grand Rapids in the sixties, close-knit, fishing 4 community, trapping community, where the children 5 came home at night and mom was there with a hot meal 6 and the family was together. And almost overnight, 7 that whole thing disappeared because money and 8 alcohol was beginning to take over that community. 9 I had a friend, I ended up as the Limited 10 Jurisdiction Magistrate at Grand Rapids in 1967/68 11 and my friend Lou Greenberg, who I believe is passed 12 and gone, from Selkirk was the probation officer. 13 Used to come to my place for coffee after we had 14 court. And one night he sat and he was crying and he 15 said to me, you know, John, I've been into this 16 community for a long time since the construction 17 started. He said I believe now that the juvenile 18 delinquency rate in Grand Rapids is the highest per 19 capita in Canada. 20 If you look at the juvenile delinquency 21 rate prior, 1960, we didn't have that. What was 22 happening to our children? What was going on in our 23 community? Those young boys and girls that were four 24 or five and six and seven years old and with that 25 close-knitness of the community and that support that 5938 1 they had all of a sudden had found that it 2 disappeared. Mom was gone, dad was gone. There was 3 no attachments to those communities anymore and they 4 started to rebel. And our juvenile delinquency shot 5 right up. 6 That was a gift for our children from 7 Manitoba Hydro because our people never got to be 8 consulted and understood what was to happen to them. 9 That whole thing that went through in 10 Grand Rapids in the early days when they unloaded 11 their equipment at the docks, people would say the 12 caterpillars got off the boat and started down the 13 road. They didn't ask Metis people in that 14 community. 15 And by the way, they were all Metis. It 16 was prior to 1975 part of the Section C-31. Those 17 people that lived on the northwest bank of the 18 Saskatchewan River were Metis. The First Nations 19 lived on the southeast bank of the Saskatchewan 20 River. 21 One has to ask that question also. Why 22 did Manitoba Hydro land on the northwest side and not 23 land on the southeast side of the Saskatchewan River? 24 If anyone is familiar with where the Floodway was 25 built, it was approachable by going through the First 5939 1 Nations land over to that side of the floodway. But 2 they decided to build it on the northwest. And my 3 only conclusion is is that the Metis people of Grand 4 Rapids were considered squatters. That they were 5 landless, that they had no organization, that they 6 had nothing to represent them. And so therefore, 7 those kinds of things took place because they were 8 helpless. Hydro could do to them whatever they 9 wanted and there was nothing that the Metis people 10 could go and do back. 11 When they started the devastation, and I 12 call it social destruction of the community, there 13 was no support structures in place for the Metis 14 people. There was no such thing as alcohol 15 counselling or counselling for those children that 16 were finding it difficult. If they became 17 troublesome, they were taken out and put into foster 18 care, causing a lot of those young people today to 19 have lost their language and their identify. There 20 is still those young people that are wandering 21 somewhere in Canada outside of Grand Rapids that 22 doesn't belong or feel they don't belong to home 23 because they have lost their identity and their home 24 through that kind of destruction. 25 So when I listen to the things that are 5940 1 going on, and this is the reason why I decided that I 2 wanted to come today and come and tell the story of 3 Grand Rapids. Because to date, Grand Rapids and the 4 residents of Grand Rapids and all of those Metis 5 people have not received one bit of compensation from 6 the Government of Manitoba or Manitoba Hydro. They 7 have refused to recognize that. Although they say we 8 were squatters, Hydro and Manitoba did not realize 9 that land scrip was given to the Metis in Grand 10 Rapids in the late 1800s. And some of that land 11 scrip is still being held as titles today by some of 12 those people who were part of that family or those 13 families. 14 In 1976, when I became the President of 15 the Manitoba Metis Federation and because I knew the 16 story of Grand Rapids and what was happening to the 17 Metis people, I began to approach the Government of 18 Manitoba to say things needed to be done to resolve 19 this issue. So it's not an issue that just comes up 20 today, it's an issue that's been outstanding for a 21 long time. And I asked to have that story or that 22 destruction be resolved in some form of compensation 23 for those people. 24 At about that time, the Northern Flood 25 Agreement was starting to be discussed with the 5941 1 Federal Government on behalf of the First Nations. 2 And it's interesting to note that in those years, 3 under the leadership of Ed Schreyer, the New 4 Democratic Party of Manitoba, we were having 5 discussions about how we could get involved in that 6 Northern Flood Agreement. 7 Mr. Schreyer said to me and we were at a 8 meeting and as the leader of the Metis people in 9 Manitoba at that time, John, let's just take a back 10 seat as Metis people. Let's allow the Federal 11 Government to upfront the cost of the Northern Flood 12 Agreement. Once that agreement is in place and we 13 have the consultation with the First Nations done, we 14 will just turn it over and Metis will be allotted the 15 same thing. I agreed with that. Well, as we know 16 today, that has not taken place. That is still a 17 promise that has not been done. 18 And again, today, we're looking at 19 similar situations with Metis people in this province 20 not being listened to and understood. 21 Those are some of the things. And you 22 know, I can go on for a number things but I believe 23 that Metis people in this province, and that's the 24 reason why I'm here, needs to bring this case to the 25 public's attention. You know, if we can do that and 5942 1 we can get some understanding from the Clean 2 Environment Commission, so be it. But I don't 3 believe that we can leave this thing sit and allow 4 the kind of devastations that I talk about continue 5 to happen to our people in the north. And what I 6 talk about the kinds of things that I say for Metis 7 people, I'm here on behalf of Metis people. But I 8 know that the devastations for our First Nation 9 brothers and sisters on the other side of the river 10 is no different. We've all suffered. 11 So it is important that the history of 12 the Metis community of Grand Rapids be documented and 13 that the gross infringement of the Aboriginal and 14 human rights of Metis people in Grand Rapids by 15 Manitoba Hydro be brought to light. And I believe 16 that we need to do that. 17 And that's the reason why I am here 18 today, is to talk about those kinds of things. And I 19 think that if we don't get our story out, they will 20 keep pushing us. They will keep pushing us to the 21 point that we have nothing left. You have already, 22 Manitoba Hydro, taken a lot of our good people of 23 Grand Rapids. Thank you. 24 MR. D. BENOIT: Good morning. I'm Dan 25 Benoit. Senator Edward Head is not able to be here 5943 1 this morning. He had dialysis yesterday and he's 2 under the weather unfortunately. I will be reading 3 into the record a statement that he wanted us to 4 make. 5 Good morning, Elders, Commissioners and 6 all here today. I am Senator Edward Head and I was 7 born in Cold Lake, Manitoba. I have lived and worked 8 in many parts of Manitoba including South Indian 9 Lake. 10 Prior to the flooding and devastation 11 caused by the CRD, Churchill River Diversion, I 12 worked as a fisherman on South Indian Lake. Fishing 13 was good. Ten nets for three fishermen were more 14 than we could handle, the fishing was so good. 15 Southern Indian Lake was an export 16 fishery before CRD. After the flooding, there was 17 nothing, just devastation. I saw the damage of what 18 CRD and Hydro produced firsthand. 19 Before the Churchill River Diversion, 20 Metis lived well off the land. Metis have 21 traditionally chosen areas because of the ample 22 resources. After the Churchill River Diversion, the 23 people tried to deal with the debris, the flooding 24 and the changes in the quality and quantity of fish. 25 But eventually most moved elsewhere. And those that 5944 1 remained faced increased poverty and social 2 disharmony. It really devastated the community, our 3 community. 4 When the Metis first learned of the 5 Churchill River Diversion, we held a series of 6 meetings in South Indian Lake and Metis were flown in 7 from all over. At the first meeting, Hydro and 8 Manitoba told us that the Churchill River Diversion 9 would cause only minimal damage. At this time, I was 10 the regional representative of the Manitoba Metis 11 Federation. 12 We didn't believe Hydro or Manitoba. 13 Minimum damage according to whose criteria? We told 14 Hydro that any damage to the land and to our 15 livelihoods would be significant. As history has 16 proved, we were right, Hydro was wrong. 17 At a second meeting in South Indian Lake, 18 the Metis heard that they were going to move South 19 Indian Lake. In compensation, many promises were 20 made such as a road, but few have been kept. 21 It took Hydro and Manitoba over 30 years 22 to build that road that they had promised to us. 23 When I was president of the MMF in the 24 seventies, I was asked to the NFC table. In fact, I 25 demanded to be there. However, at the table, I was 5945 1 told that I was only an ex officio member. I didn't 2 know what that meant. I was told that what that 3 meant was that I was not able to talk or able to make 4 any decisions for my people. This was totally 5 unacceptable to the Metis people, to have its elected 6 president gagged. 7 As we would not really be at the table, a 8 decision was made not to be there at all, not to give 9 any credence to the process. We were told at the 10 time the reason for our treatment was that Indian 11 Affairs was funding the process and Metis, not being 12 Indians, could not sit there. We had to be 13 invisible. 14 Over the course of the NFA negotiations 15 and afterwards, the MMF tried to re-engage Manitoba 16 and Hydro but were literally turned away at the door. 17 Today I am here to tell you that nothing 18 has changed nor will anything change in Hydro and 19 Manitoba's treatments of the Metis nation unless 20 bodies such as you, the CEC, force the government and 21 Hydro to treat us fairly. 22 In their arrogance, Hydro will treat us 23 today like they treated us 30 years ago. Thank you. 24 MR. MORRISSEAU: Can I just add. Dan 25 talks about the road and the length of time that 5946 1 people wait for the road. When we got married in 2 Grand Rapids in 1960, we flew in and we flew out of 3 the community. At Christmas time on the 25th or just 4 before the 25th of December, we came back from 5 Edmonton when I was in the Armed Forces and we came 6 back for Christmas holidays and my dad said they 7 built a road to Grand Rapids. And I said it can't 8 be. There was no road. There was no construction 9 there three months ago. 10 That 117 miles from Gypsumville to Grand 11 Rapids was constructed in less than three months 12 after Manitoba Hydro decided to build the dam at 13 Grand Rapids. So when you want to do something, you 14 surely have the power to do it. 15 MR. MONTGOMERY: Hello, everybody. My 16 name is Darryl Montgomery. I'm originally from South 17 Indian Lake but I've been living in Thompson for the 18 last six or so years with my wife and son. 19 I am currently the vice-president of the 20 Manitoba Metis Federation, Thompson region, 21 provincially responsible for the Hydro portfolio for 22 the MMF. 23 I was very fortunate growing up in South 24 Indian Lake. I was able to spend the summers working 25 with my uncles commercial fishing on lakes like Moss 5947 1 Lake, Waddy Lake, Dickinson. All inland lakes by the 2 way. It has taught me to respect and be proud of the 3 lives of these men that made a living providing a 4 product of great freshwater fish for all of us to 5 enjoy. 6 My comments reflect on the historical 7 effects of the Churchill River Diversion project on 8 the Metis First Nations non-status Aboriginal 9 citizens living in the Community of South Indian 10 Lake. Those historical effects discussed here shed 11 light on the devastation of the economy, traditions, 12 day-to-day living and sustainability of South Indian 13 Lake by past Manitoba Hydro projects such as the CRD. 14 My main purpose in making this 15 presentation to the Commission today is to spell out 16 some essential factors that must be considered by 17 this Commission in the hopes of realizing that the 18 Metis people of South Indian Lake and also all others 19 who may be affected by the proposed project are 20 respected, honoured, and most importantly, consulted 21 where their rights are protected by Section 35 of the 22 Constitution of Canada. 23 And I hereby quote this Constitution 24 article, even though everybody says they've heard it 25 a lot. Section 35.1. 5948 1 "The Aboriginal people and Treaty 2 rights of the Aboriginal peoples of 3 Canada are hereby recognized and 4 affirmed." 5 Section 35.2. 6 "In this Act, the Aboriginal peoples 7 of Canada includes the Indians, Inuit 8 and Metis peoples of Canada." 9 In making this presentation, I would like 10 to point out that I grew up in South Indian Lake. 11 And keeping this in mind, I know with sincere honesty 12 that I can tell you the effects of past Hydro 13 development upon my community directly resulting in 14 irreparable harm to the socioeconomic way of life, 15 including hunting, fishing and trapping. 16 Before I move on, I would like to point 17 out that as a member and leader of the Manitoba Metis 18 Federation, my concerns over the development of the 19 Wuskwatim Hydro project does not lie with the 20 aspirations of Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation and its 21 partnership with Manitoba Hydro. My concerns are 22 directed at the history of Manitoba Hydro in its 23 unfair and dishonest treatment of my community. 24 Keeping in mind that you, Hydro, are a Crown 25 corporation funded by the people of this province. 5949 1 One further stipulation is necessary 2 here. As the vice-president of the MMF, I am 3 presenting my concerns on behalf of the Metis people 4 that have been negatively impacted by the Hydro 5 project. 6 South Indian Lake, prior to the flooding, 7 was a Metis community with economic prosperity 8 through hunting, fishing and trapping. Natural 9 resources were rich and South Indian Lake was 10 self-sustaining. We did not have to worry about 11 eating as we lived off the land and fish and game was 12 plentiful. 13 Today, after years of erosion of our 14 natural resources by the flooding, we no longer can 15 fish our lakes productively. Species of fish have 16 disappeared or are near extinction. Flooding has 17 devastated our traplines and wildlife resources such 18 as the porcupine are a thing of the past. 19 Furthermore, Manitoba Hydro is a champion 20 of the CRD, impressed upon our people of South Indian 21 Lake that life would be enhanced. But if you look at 22 our community today in 2004, people are still heating 23 water to wash their face and are using five gallon 24 slop buckets for sewage. 25 Is this what you call an enhanced way of 5950 1 life and progress? 2 My grandfather Bob Dysart moved to South 3 Indian when he was about 19 and he worked his whole 4 life to provide for and help in the development of a 5 community and made it home by raising a family of 17 6 children with his wife Mary. Once we, as a family 7 and as a community, could not take care of him due to 8 his health, he was forced to leave the community. 9 And after a short while, passed away. 10 11 (CREE SPOKEN) 12 13 Now, Manitoba Hydro is back at our table 14 making us promises. What do we do? Their honesty, 15 in Manitoba Hydro's words, could we trust them? 16 Should we walk on this trail with them with promises 17 of our children? Will the Creator forgive us if we 18 choose to walk with Manitoba Hydro? If we walk with 19 them on this unknown path, there is no turning back. 20 As a final statement, I would like to say 21 that Manitoba Hydro must consult with all northern 22 and Aboriginal people on Wuskwatim including the 23 Metis. Please remember these words of one of the 24 great leaders of South Indian Lake, Mr. Basil Colomb, 25 as he remarked in the past, we are still holding our 5951 1 meetings blindfolded. 2 And the former Premier of this province 3 Ed Schreyer when he said, and I quote, 4 "In Canada and North America in recent 5 decades, resources have been spoiled 6 usually for selfish financial gain 7 often in the name of progress, wrongly 8 understood I might add. We owe it to 9 the generations who will follow us. 10 To use our best knowledge and 11 experience in order to avoid the kind 12 of mistakes which our less 13 well-informed predecessors made in 14 years long past." 15 16 (CREE SPOKEN) 17 18 Al is presenting next. 19 MR. A. BENOIT: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, 20 Elders, President Chartrand, Vice-president 21 Montgomery, I'd like to thank all of you and all of 22 those who are here today. I thank you for the 23 opportunity and the honour to speak with you at this 24 hearing. 25 As the Commission already has our 5952 1 previously written submission and as you have heard 2 presentations from for Manitoba Metis Federation 3 presidents, Senator Head and John Morrisseau as well 4 as legal counsel and Vice-President Montgomery, I 5 will only briefly summarize some of the major areas 6 of our submission. 7 I would like to discuss four areas. I'd 8 like to discuss the Metis nation's experience with 9 Manitoba Hydro development. I'd like to discuss 10 government and Hydro recognition of the MMF as 11 representative of the Metis nation. I would like to 12 discuss what our people said about Wuskwatim and 13 Hydro development this past winter. And finally, the 14 complete omission of the Metis nation in the 15 Wuskwatim Environmental Impact Statements. 16 When we heard the stories being told of 17 the past, I've heard whispering about how is this 18 applicable today? There is a famous line. 19 Unfortunately I don't know who it was. It may have 20 been Santayana philosopher, but it goes something 21 like this. That if we don't know our history, we are 22 doomed to repeat it. 23 I would like to add to the stories told 24 by Senator Head and by Elder Morrisseau. Since the 25 1960s and seventies, the Metis had been adversely 5953 1 affected by hydroelectric development. Since that 2 time, the Metis have never been treated fairly and 3 equally and recognized as a distinct Aboriginal 4 people. 5 Our history and our relationship with 6 Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro to date can be best 7 described in the words of Ms. Teillet as she said 8 "plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose." 9 I could start in 1962 with what is called 10 the letters of intent with regards to the Grand 11 Rapids forebay. Letters purporting to deal with the 12 Metis went to Chief and Council. The Metis were not 13 recognized as a distinct people then. But I'll start 14 with a document. Unfortunately it wasn't in our 15 exhibit but it would be available. I received it 16 from one of our staff just as we were walking in. 17 It's from 1969. And it's the minutes of a meeting, 18 the Winnipeg Community Welfare Planning Council and 19 it's in regards to South Indian Lake, People and 20 Progress, Must There Be A Conflict? 21 And I am only going to refer to one spot 22 because it shows the Manitoba Metis Federation has 23 been saying the same thing in different ways for 24 decades. In the minutes, it says Adam Cuthand, 25 President, Manitoba Metis Federation, also gave 5954 1 examples of unsuccessful relocations of Indian and 2 Metis communities. He urged that Manitoba Hydro and 3 the Manitoba Government use the Canadian Bill of 4 Rights as a guide in dealing with the people of South 5 Indian Lake. 6 My next document is from 1975. In their 7 report, the Interchurch Task Force makes many valid 8 statements that were applicable to the Metis 9 experience in the 1970s and remained valid for the 10 Metis experience with Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro 11 today. It sets the context for what we have been 12 saying in the course of these hearings. That is a 13 document that we have put in the exhibit. I'll take 14 a few pieces of it here. 15 At the time, and this is what they say, 16 "All the Indians and Metis who spoke 17 at the panel hearings were worried, 18 concerned and fearful of the impact of 19 the project upon their economic and 20 social life upon their way of life." 21 Now in recognizing these concerns, the 22 Interchurch Task Force stated that, and this is a 23 partial quote, 24 Costs or losses will not fall upon the 25 people of Manitoba as a whole, they 5955 1 will fall upon the people of the north 2 by which we mean essentially the 3 Indian and the Metis people. 4 They also go on to talk about the 5 consultation process and they say this. 6 "On the evidence available to the 7 panel, we must conclude that the 8 people of the northern communities, 9 though many discussions were held with 10 them, were not duly consulted." 11 And this is consistent with what our 12 elders tell us. What is also consistent with what 13 our elders tell us is that, and this again is a 14 partial quote, it's Indian speakers but I'll just say 15 speakers because I know the Metis felt the same. 16 This is what our elders tell us. 17 Speakers stated that meetings with 18 Hydro consisted largely of Hydro 19 telling what is going to happen and 20 that the effect on them will be either 21 nil or not much. 22 This is from 1975. 23 And about the impacts, and this is in 24 specific reference to the social dislocation issue 25 that was brought forward by the First Nations and the 5956 1 Metis. This is what the panel had to say. 2 "In our opinion, they," 3 and they being Hydro and the government, 4 "have not accorded the problem as much 5 priority as it deserves. If they had 6 done so, their approach to it would 7 have been at once less critical and 8 more sympathetic. In the end, some of 9 the project's ill-effects would 10 probably have been ironed out while 11 those yet unsolved could now be 12 tackled in an atmosphere of mutual 13 trust and goodwill." 14 I'll leave this task force report with a 15 quote from their report concerning comments by a 16 Manitoba Government Minister at the time. Mr. Green, 17 that would be Sydney Green, told us, again this is a 18 partial quote, 19 It was the Manitoba Government's 20 policy and intention in dealing with 21 problems affecting non-Treaty Indians 22 and Metis to treat them in the same 23 manner as it did Treaty Indians. 24 I just want to repeat that part. 25 It was the Manitoba Government's 5957 1 policy and intention in dealing with 2 problems affecting non-Treaty Indians 3 and Metis to treat them in the same 4 manner as it did Treaty Indians. 5 In our view, this is the wise and proper 6 course for the government to follow, for non-Treaty 7 Indians and Metis should not be disadvantaged 8 relatively to Treaty Indians on purely legalistic 9 reasoning. Morally, Manitoba should treat them as 10 well as the Federal Government treats Treaty Indians. 11 Us appearing in front of the panel, I 12 believe you've heard that Mr. Green's word was not 13 kept. Despite the government's assurances that the 14 Metis will be treated in the same manner as Treaty 15 Indians, the Metis were not going to be treated 16 fairly and equitably. Again, using Ms. Teillet's 17 phrase, "plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose." 18 In 1991, commenting on the Northern Flood 19 Agreement, the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, or AGI, 20 reported Manitoba Hydro obtained what it wanted as it 21 proceeded with this massive project. The reactions 22 from Aboriginal people has been far from positive. 23 Only reserve residents were represented in the 24 negotiations and were to receive any of the benefits. 25 Many Metis and off-reserve Indians in the region 5958 1 still complain bitterly that their homes and 2 traplines were destroyed and their hunting and 3 fishing rights violated without any consultation or 4 compensation. 5 In their 1991 final report, and using the 6 Northern Flood Agreement as a benchmark, the AGI 7 recommended that appropriate measures be taken to 8 ensure that equivalent rights are granted by 9 agreement to the other Aboriginal people affected by 10 the flooding. And that a moratorium be placed on 11 major natural resources development projects unless 12 and until agreements or treaties are reached with the 13 Aboriginal people in the region who might be 14 negatively affected by such projects in order to 15 respect their Aboriginal or Treaty rights in the 16 territory concerned. 17 In 1999, the MMF undertook its own brief 18 investigation of northern flood regions to determine 19 the extent of the past and continuing adverse effects 20 on the Metis. These findings were shared in an 21 October 2002 meeting with Manitoba Hydro 22 representatives. The MMF found that the Metis 23 remained troubled by great many things including the 24 inappropriate or lack of compensation for the 25 project's impacts on their traditional livelihood, 5959 1 the complete lack of compensation for the social 2 impacts on their families and communities, the 3 intergenerational inequities created by the projects, 4 the inequities created between Aboriginal peoples, 5 the signing of agreements or waivers while under 6 duress, the false expectations created under 7 agreements or waivers, Hydro artificially limiting 8 the acknowledged scope of the project's impacts. And 9 a theme that went throughout, that there was a lack 10 of prior consultation. 11 There is a letter that was referenced to 12 this morning and in your exhibit, and that was from 13 1999. I believe it would be important just to 14 reference that again. That it was to the Minister 15 Selinger, the minister charged with the 16 administration of the Manitoba Hydro Act. And again, 17 what I'd like to make clear is of particular concern 18 to the Metis is the lack of consultation and fair 19 compensation. 20 In 2001, in a document called "Let 21 Justice Flow" a report of the Interchurch inquiry 22 into northern hydro development. So this was a 23 second church inquiry, the panel recorded the ongoing 24 injustice to the Metis and others. And this is a 25 partial quote. Because it's Metis, non-status 5960 1 Indians and others. But here, I specifically say, 2 Metis who traditionally rely on the land, lack access 3 to the same NFA rights and benefits as on-reserve 4 status people. 5 The panel learned that the Metis suffer 6 adverse effects and lack even the limited avenues of 7 recourse available to residents of the NFA reserves. 8 And this is an important point that's coming up. 9 Organizationally and legally they are overlooked or 10 ignored. 11 Among its recommendations, the panel said 12 congruent with the Manitoba Aboriginal justice 13 inquiry recommendation that rights equivalent to 14 those in the NFA Treaty be granted to other 15 Aboriginal people affected by the project, Crown 16 parties should extend rights and benefits comparable 17 to the NFA to affected Metis and others. And they 18 repeated the AGI's refrain that no further 19 development ought to proceed without the consent of 20 affected Aboriginal peoples based on due 21 consultation. 22 In 2001, consistent with the AGI and 23 other panel recommendations, the Aboriginal Justice 24 Implementation Commission modified an earlier AGI 25 recommendation. And this recommendation for the AGIC 5961 1 became Recommendation 4.1. 2 "Any future major natural resource 3 developments not proceed unless and 4 until agreements or treaties are 5 reached with the Aboriginal people and 6 communities in the region including 7 the Manitoba Metis Federation, its 8 locals and regions who might be 9 negatively affected by such projects 10 in order to respect their Aboriginal, 11 Treaty or other rights in the 12 territory concerned." 13 Just so no one thinks that I actually put 14 in the phrase, "including the Manitoba Metis 15 Federation and its locals and regions," that was put 16 in by the AGIC, not by myself here at this hearing. 17 In November 13, 2001, the Manitoba throne 18 speech pledged a special commitment has been made to 19 carry out the recommendations of the Aboriginal 20 Justice Implementation Commission. A June 26th, 2002 21 letter to MMF President Chartrand from The Honourable 22 Eric Robinson, then Minister of Aboriginal Northern 23 Affairs, reaffirmed the commitment and he says in his 24 letter. 25 "As you know on June 21, 2002, I was 5962 1 pleased to announce that the 2 provincial government has accepted all 3 the recommendations of the Aboriginal 4 justice implementation Commission and 5 will be proceeding to implement them." 6 Despite the government's acceptance and 7 commitment to the AGIC recommendations including 4.1, 8 it has become clear to the Metis people that Manitoba 9 and Manitoba Hydro are not honouring the pledge and 10 are ignoring the Metis. Despite the AGIC being a 11 major government initiative and its recommendation 12 4.1 having very important sustainable development 13 policy implications, the AGIC and this recommendation 14 do not appear to be considered within the 15 Environmental Impact Assessment as a policy. 16 Despite the Manitoba Metis Federation 17 being the only Aboriginal representative explicitly 18 recognized in the accepted Recommendation 4.1, 19 Government and Manitoba Hydro have appeared to have 20 chosen to ignore the Federation in the Wuskwatim 21 process. 22 Earlier this morning, and I am glad it 23 was brought up because I wasn't initially going to 24 bring it up, but it was the Manitoba Metis Federation 25 and Manitoba Hydro task force was referred to this 5963 1 morning in some of the answers from Manitoba Hydro. 2 And we have some discussion papers that I could make 3 available. It's for discussion purposes only. But 4 in the meeting on October 7, 2002, Manitoba Hydro was 5 made aware that the AGIC Recommendation 4.1 actually 6 did exist and that it was important to the Metis. 7 Pointed out, because it's in bold letters here, we 8 bolded this, that 4.1 included the Manitoba Metis 9 Federation and its locals and regions. 10 Also in this Hydro relations task group 11 or task force, on November 4, 2002, we did bring up 12 for discussion future partnerships so Manitoba Hydro 13 was aware that we -- that consultation and 14 environmental review and having the participation of 15 the Metis was important. In it we say, in discussion 16 paper as part of future partnerships, that MMF to be 17 the Hydro acknowledged representative of the Metis in 18 determining future project adverse effects and 19 impacts on the Metis and Metis traditional lands, 20 consultation and environmental review processes to be 21 determined. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Benoit, I will 23 interrupt you for a moment. I'm looking at the time 24 and I don't know how much longer you have to go on. 25 I understand Mr. Chartrand wishes to speak after that 5964 1 as well. And if you expect that you're going to take 2 more than another five minutes, maybe we should 3 adjourn for lunch and continue after lunch. 4 MR. A. BENOIT: Well, I'm not sure of how 5 much time I've been up here but I'm approximately 6 halfway through. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Then we will adjourn for 8 lunch and we will carry on after lunch. We will 9 reconvene at quarter after one. 10 11 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 12:20 P.M. 12 AND RECONVENED AT 1:15 P.M.) 13 14 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, 16 if you would find your seats so we can get going 17 again. So we will complete the presentation that 18 we abrogated for lunch there. So, Mr. Benoit, if 19 you would complete your presentations? 20 MR. A. BENOIT: Thank you very much, 21 Mr. Chairman. 22 To pick up on the MMF/Hydro relations 23 task force meeting on November 4, 2002, again, I'm 24 just referring to draft meeting notes for 25 discussion purposes only. And the reason I'm 5965 1 bringing it up is that I wanted to make everyone 2 aware that Manitoba Hydro was aware at an earlier 3 date that consultation and environmental review 4 process was important to the Metis. 5 I believe I was in the beginning or 6 part way through the second point that I wanted to 7 make about the MMF to be the Hydro acknowledged 8 representative of the Metis in future Manitoba 9 Hydro consultation on compensation and other 10 agreements intended to benefit the Metis, and then 11 the scope and nature of Metis benefits to be 12 determined. 13 Then we have -- the history of our 14 relationship continues on. In a February 20th, 15 2003 letter, which I believe is an exhibit, a 16 letter from President Chartrand to the Honourable 17 Tim Sale, the now Minister responsible for 18 Manitoba Hydro, and there is a couple of points 19 that I would like to, or quotes that I would like 20 to put in. It is in response for a follow-up of a 21 November 15th, 2002 meeting between Manitoba and 22 the MMF. And President Chartrand says, 23 "I would like to thank you for the 24 opportunity to meet with you on 25 November 15, 2002, to talk about the 5966 1 past, the current, and future 2 relationships between the Manitoba 3 Hydroelectric Board and the Manitoba 4 Metis Federation. One of the items 5 that was discussed was the need for 6 future consultations and Metis 7 specific participation agreements for 8 the upcoming hydroelectric projects 9 that will impact Metis traditional 10 lands, our people, our rights, and our 11 interests." 12 There is quite a bit else to put in 13 there, but I will just graze here on, and on page 14 2, the second paragraph from the bottom, 15 "Past hydroelectric projects have been 16 and those proposed for the future will 17 be built on the Metis traditional 18 lands and will affect our customary 19 harvesting and cultural practices, 20 that is to say, infringe our 21 Aboriginal rights." 22 This letter to the Minister responsible for Hydro 23 was cc'd to Mr. Brennan, the chief executive 24 officer and president of Manitoba Hydro. So I 25 would presume that he was aware of the letter and 5967 1 the Metis position resulting from the meeting in 2 2002. 3 Recently this idea of consultation has 4 come to the forefront in the legislature. Last 5 month Premier Doer incorrectly stated that his 6 Ministers have had full consultations with the 7 Metis Federation. He then suggested that his 8 Government will undertake consultation in a fair 9 way for the Metis people. 10 In rebuttal, Liberal leader John 11 Gerrard correctly stated that the Manitoba Metis 12 Federation has not been fully consulted. And 13 whether it is confusion or whether it is plus ca 14 change, plus c'est la meme chose, I will leave it 15 up to everyone else to decide. But we are hearing 16 different things from different people in 17 Government at different times. 18 One of the other issues that seems to 19 be coming up here in the hearings is 20 representation. I would like to add to 21 Ms. Teillet's discussion regarding representation, 22 in addition to what she brought up about the 23 Supreme Court's affirmation. The Manitoba 24 Government has recognized the role of the MMF in 25 Manitoba's Louis Riel Institute Act, and also 5968 1 implicitly in the Child and Family Services 2 Authority's Act. In addition, there are numerous 3 examples of further recognition by Canada, 4 Manitoba, and Manitoba Hydro, of the 5 representative role of the Manitoba Metis 6 Federation. 7 Firstly, Manitoba's acceptance of the 8 AJIC recommendation 4.1 is in itself a recognition 9 of the representation role of the Metis Federation 10 in major Natural Resources developments, including 11 Hydro, such as Wuskwatim. 12 Secondly, the AJIC's March 2000 first 13 quarterly report states clearly that the Manitoba 14 Metis Federation is the Provincial political 15 representative organization of the Metis people. 16 And it also goes on to say, the MMF is the 17 Provincial advocate for Metis rights. 18 The preamble forming part of the 19 September 2002 memorandum of understanding 20 regarding negotiations to develop a Metis 21 co-management framework agreement, signed by 22 Minister Oscar Lathlin on behalf of Manitoba, and 23 President David Chartrand on behalf of the Metis 24 Federation and Metis Nation, states in the 25 recitals, and this is in part, 5969 1 "Manitoba Conservation acknowledges 2 that the Manitoba Metis Federation 3 represents the Metis Nation within 4 Manitoba." 5 And that co-management MOU is in the exhibit. 6 A fourth recognition of the Metis 7 Federation representing the Metis people is one 8 that was signed by the co-proponent, Manitoba 9 Hydro. In October 10, 2002, there was an 10 employment working group memorandum of 11 understanding for employment opportunities within 12 Manitoba Hydro's operations. But in that MOU and 13 the recitals, as the MOU was signed by President 14 Bob Brennan and President David Chartrand, it 15 states, 16 "The MMF is the Metis Nation's 17 representative for the Metis within 18 Manitoba, for the purposes of Hydro to 19 Metis Nation negotiations and 20 agreements, service delivery, 21 consultations, and decision making 22 that may affect or are intended to 23 benefit the Metis within Manitoba." 24 It seems pretty clear that Hydro recognized our 25 consultation representative role. 5970 1 A fifth recognition of the Metis 2 Federation representing the Metis within Manitoba 3 is a May 2003 tripartite self-government 4 negotiations MOU, where both Manitoba and Canada 5 recognized the MMF as the representative of the 6 Metis within Manitoba. Where it says, 7 "The Metis people in Manitoba 8 represented by the MMF are part of the 9 historic Metis people with a unique 10 culture." 11 And that is also made clear in an 12 earlier MOU regarding the same negotiation 13 processes. It states, 14 "The parties..." 15 that would be Canada and Manitoba, and Manitoba I 16 understand is the sole shareholder of Manitoba 17 Hydro, 18 "The parties acknowledge and affirm 19 the Metis people in Manitoba 20 represented by the MMF are part of the 21 historic Metis people with a unique 22 culture." 23 Finally, we are all well aware of the 24 Prime Minister's recent declaration that the Metis 25 are a nation. This has been well documented 5971 1 across the country, including the front page of 2 the Winnipeg Free Press. 3 Also during those round table talks 4 there was an acknowledgment that the Metis 5 National Council was representing the Metis Nation 6 and the Metis people, and that the MMF is one of 7 the governing members of the Metis National 8 Council. So it seems very clear who do you talk 9 to when you speak about Metis people and 10 consultation. 11 Now, you have our survey, our 12 workshops that we did over the course of the 13 winter, you have that on your record. But I would 14 like just to say that we undertook a series of ten 15 workshops throughout Northern Manitoba to obtain 16 the thoughts of Metis affected by past and current 17 hydroelectric developments, as well as determine, 18 based on their past experiences, their concerns 19 and hopes for the proposed Wuskwatim projects. 20 In general terms the workshops on the 21 survey determined that, one, the Manitoba Metis 22 community in Northern Manitoba has been and 23 continues to be affected by hydroelectric 24 projects. Two, the Metis and our community 25 self-governance system, that is the Manitoba Metis 5972 1 Federation locals, regions, and the Provincial 2 wide board, have been either ignored or improperly 3 engaged in the consultation process. Three, that 4 the Metis Nation within Manitoba believes, based 5 on past hydroelectric experience and on their 6 traditional knowledge, that the Wuskwatim projects 7 will lead to further impacts of our lands and 8 waters in our traditional harvesting territories, 9 further erode our culture, and that this will 10 infringe on our Metis Aboriginal title, rights, 11 interests, and that these infringements need to be 12 determined and dealt with before a license is 13 granted. 14 So my last part is, or second from 15 last, is this issue of complete omission of the 16 Metis Nation from within the EIS. Despite, or 17 possibly because of our history with Manitoba 18 Hydro development, both Manitoba and Manitoba 19 Hydro appear to have chosen, for whatever reasons, 20 to ignore the Metis in the Wuskwatim Environmental 21 Statements. Despite our recognition as the Metis 22 Nation, and the recognition of the Manitoba Metis 23 Federation as our representative, both Manitoba 24 and Manitoba Hydro have not included the Metis in 25 the Wuskwatim Environmental Statements. Despite 5973 1 past pledges to consult and reach agreement with 2 the Metis Federation, both Manitoba and Manitoba 3 Hydro have chosen to ignore the Metis in the 4 Environmental Statements. Despite the concerns 5 voiced by our people during our workshops, both 6 Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro continue to, in an 7 adversarial relationship, choose to ignore the 8 Metis. 9 As my colleague, Jean Teillet, has 10 already stated, Manitoba Hydro and NCN, their 11 Environmental Impact Statements for the proposed 12 Wuskwatim Generating Station and the Transmission 13 Projects have serious deficiencies with respect to 14 the Metis. These deficiencies exist, we believe, 15 basically from there being no acknowledgment of 16 the Metis as a people. Other than a brief mention 17 of the Metis as part of the employment working 18 group MOU, and as I recall a passing reference to 19 inclusion, or possible inclusion of the Metis in 20 the pre-project training, or northern training 21 initiative, a brief citation of a document written 22 by the Manitoba Metis Federation 30 years ago, 23 there is virtually a complete omission of all that 24 is Metis. 25 To name a few of the areas where there 5974 1 is a lack of evidence, there is a lack of evidence 2 concerning that there is a Metis Nation, there is 3 a Manitoba Metis community, that there is any 4 consideration of Metis culture, any consideration 5 of Metis traditional knowledge, any consideration 6 of the Metis economy, any consideration of the 7 Metis resource use, land and occupancy, employment 8 and business, demographics, consultation, 9 accommodation, consideration of our unique and 10 special rights. And of course, a very important 11 part of the self-expression and culture is the 12 Metis people's self-government representation, 13 which is the Manitoba Metis Federation. 14 One could also include that as being 15 Metis infrastructure and services. Indeed, there 16 is no discussion or evidence presented of the 17 potential environmental, cultural, socioeconomic 18 and other impacts of the projects on the Metis 19 Nation. And there is no discussion or evidence 20 presented as to how there will be any 21 accommodation of the Metis Nation. 22 As a result, the Metis have been 23 virtually overlooked as a unique and distinct 24 rights bearing people in the preparation of the 25 Environmental Impact Statements, the subsequent 5975 1 supplemental filings, and in response to the 2 interrogatories. 3 As a result of not acknowledging the 4 Metis Nation, the co-proponents have not 5 identified or sufficiently described the project's 6 potential impacts on the Metis Nation during the 7 planning, construction, operation and 8 decommissioning phases. In addition, the 9 co-proponents have not sufficiently described how 10 they will accommodate the Metis Nation for the 11 potential impacts, including infringements on our 12 collective Metis Aboriginal title rights and 13 interests. Third, the co-proponents have not met 14 their obligations with respect to consulting with 15 the Metis Nation. And fourth, the co-proponents 16 have not met their obligation of providing 17 sufficient information regarding the impacts on 18 the Metis Nation in order for the CEC to make 19 recommendations and for the Minister to make an 20 informed decision regarding the issuance of the 21 required permits and licenses. 22 I would like to add that the 23 February 2004 Clean Environment Commission notice 24 of public hearings for the Wuskwatim Generation 25 and Transmission Projects states, 5976 1 "The Clean Environment Commission's 2 recommendations shall incorporate, 3 consider, and directly reflect where 4 appropriate the principles of 5 sustainable development and guidelines 6 for sustainable development as 7 contained in the sustainable 8 development strategy for Manitoba." 9 Both the principles of sustainable 10 development and the guidelines of sustainable 11 development are referenced in the Sustainable 12 Development Act and the Sustainable Development 13 Strategy for Manitoba. Under shared 14 responsibility and understanding, or the rubric 15 shared responsibility and understanding, 16 principles 33 and 34 state, 17 "Manitobans should understand and 18 respect differing economic and social 19 views, values, traditions and 20 aspirations." 21 And 34, 22 "Manitobans should consider the 23 aspirations, needs, and views of the 24 people of the various geographic 25 regions and ethnic groups in Manitoba, 5977 1 including Aboriginal peoples, to 2 facilitate equitable management of 3 Manitoba's common resources." 4 We assert that meeting the sustainable 5 development principles requires an understanding 6 of and respect for the different economic and 7 social views, values, traditions, and aspirations, 8 as well as consideration of the aspirations, 9 needs, and views of the Metis Nation as one of the 10 distinct Aboriginal peoples within Manitoba. The 11 project's co-proponents have not done this. 12 We also assert that meeting the 13 sustainable development principles require 14 meaningful and proper consultation, accommodation, 15 and agreement with the Metis Nation as one of the 16 potentially affected Aboriginal peoples. Again, 17 the projects co-proponents have not done this. 18 These deficiencies mentioned 19 previously and those identified in our written 20 submission need to be addressed before the Federal 21 or Provincial Minister or Ministers grant licenses 22 or permits to the co-proponents. 23 The MMF therefore requests the Clean 24 Environment Commission recommend to the Minister 25 that, one, the co-proponents, Manitoba and Canada, 5978 1 as appropriate, be directed to work directly with 2 the MMF to design and immediately enter a 3 sufficiently funded, separate, meaningful, proper 4 and effective Metis consultation process to be 5 undertaken through the MMF. 6 Two, the co-proponents, Manitoba and 7 Canada, as appropriate, be directed to reach 8 agreement with the Metis Nation through the MMF as 9 a self-government representative within Manitoba 10 as per recommendation 4.1 of the Aboriginal 11 Justice Implementation Commission, to address and 12 accommodate the Metis Nation for the potential 13 impacts, including infringements of our Metis 14 title, rights, and interests. 15 And lastly, three, that the projects 16 not be approved and licenses and permits not be 17 granted until the previous two recommendations are 18 fulfilled in their entirety. 19 Again, in conclusion, the Manitoba 20 Metis Federation asserts that the Metis Nation and 21 its Manitoba Metis community, as an affected 22 Aboriginal people and as an Aboriginal community, 23 have not been considered in the environmental 24 impact statements. There are no details in the 25 environmental impact statements respecting Metis 5979 1 use or effects on the Metis, or these have not 2 been presented. The Manitoba Metis Federation 3 asserts that the Wuskwatim Generating Station and 4 Transmission guidelines and objectives, and the 5 requirements of the CEC, have not and cannot be 6 considered met. 7 Thank you very much for your time. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 9 Mr. Chartrand. 10 MR. CHARTRAND: Thank you, 11 Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I would like to, on 12 behalf of the Metis people of Manitoba, thank you 13 for the time that you have given us this morning 14 and part of this afternoon to speak on matters as 15 they pertain to the Metis people of Manitoba. 16 For the record, my name is David 17 Chartrand and I'm president of the Manitoba Metis 18 Federation. As you are already aware, this 19 Commission is, the Manitoba Metis Federation is 20 the self-government representative of the Metis 21 Nation within Manitoba. The MMF is the political 22 voice of the Metis people. 23 Today you have heard the voice of the 24 Metis, and this is not the first time. We have 25 voiced our concerns over the exclusion of the 5980 1 Metis in the development of our tradition lands. 2 Just several days ago we were able to celebrate 3 the 134th birthday of Manitoba, in fact, the 4 Province that the Metis brought into Confederation 5 back in 1870. It was a honour for us to celebrate 6 this particular time in the history of our people, 7 because our history goes not that far back. Our 8 nation is young. We are about 300 years old. And 9 since the first battle with Canada in 1816, our 10 ancestors have struggled to be protected, to be 11 recognized as the very existence of ourselves as a 12 people, and the rights to our lands, and the 13 rights to practice our cultural way of life must 14 exist. We have struggled and struggled and 15 struggled. 16 But we are at a point I think in time, 17 our challenge is this, it is very simple, we are 18 landless people. We are not landless because we 19 want to be, we are landless because we were robbed 20 of our lands. It does not mean, I will make that 21 very clear, it does not mean that we do not exist, 22 nor does it mean that we have no rights. 23 It would be I guess wise to understand 24 that history has not been kind to the Metis 25 people. My people have suffered greatly because 5981 1 of our stand in trying to protect the very essence 2 of who we are. But we should not be punished 3 because we are poor, or we happen to be a 4 minority. I think it is very clear, our struggle 5 to find recognition in this country has been long 6 sought, and people have shed their blood, sweat, 7 and tears for the actual existence of the Metis 8 Nation. 9 We went through many struggles after 10 1870. We went through the time where this 11 country, followed by the Prime Minister, made it 12 very clear the nation would no longer exist, the 13 Metis would no longer exist as a people. It was 14 very clear the agenda was set in place. And since 15 that time, we have struggled to try and find a 16 time -- not that long ago, in the 1930s, a 17 community not far from here called St. Madeline, 18 it is called the community without a town. We 19 still go there every year and in fact bury our 20 relatives there. John Fluery was here, vice 21 president, board of director of that region. In 22 fact, they bury their family as they move on, and 23 that is their burial ground. 24 What happened in 1930, to give you a 25 taste of the Metis struggle -- this is not 1800s, 5982 1 this is 1900s -- our Federal Government gave the 2 Prairie Farm Association in Saskatchewan the 3 rights to make that into a pasture. We had a 4 school, we had a church and we had a community. 5 What they done is they let it go. They were free 6 to do what they wanted to the Metis. They came in 7 and first warned us to move, and we asked where do 8 we go? Our homes were there, our families, our 9 schools and our church. It was a very big 10 community. Our people were buried there. They 11 were told, you have no choice, this will become a 12 pasture for our cattle. You will move. The 13 police closed their eyes and allowed the process 14 to happen. In fact, the police supported the 15 process, because of the direction of the 16 Government. They started shooting the dogs and 17 warning the people they would be next. And not 18 long after that they burned down the houses in the 19 rest of the community. It became a pasture all 20 right, and still is a pasture to this day, but we 21 are not talking the 1800s, we are talking 1900s. 22 We continued to struggle to find where do we exist 23 in this beautiful province that we created. In 24 fact, we believe we created Western Canada. If it 25 wasn't for the Metis, we may still be part of a 5983 1 territory. 2 I think it is very clear, however, as 3 we move forward, we believe we found recognition, 4 and that we finally found peace in 1982, when the 5 Metis were finally put more in clarity in the 6 Constitution of this country. We thought there 7 finally justice will come into play, we will be 8 treated now as a people, as a nation, as people 9 with rights. But lo and behold, we didn't find 10 that. Again, the confusion lay, who are the Metis 11 and what should we do? Both governments put their 12 heads in the sand, and they played the ostrich 13 syndrome of not trying to see who is responsible 14 and who should deal with this issue. We were 15 forced to go to the courts. We didn't want to go 16 to the courts. And even the judiciary of this 17 country echoed with strong sentiment that the 18 Government is failing the citizens of this 19 country. 20 Manitoba played a role in the 21 decision. They stepped in as intervenor, and they 22 went into court standing firm that we did not have 23 rights. The decision was swift and the decision 24 was strong. It wasn't any dissension, it was nine 25 to zero, that Metis people have rights and they 5984 1 should be recognized. Our rights are not derived 2 on the quantity of blood in my veins, the rights 3 are derived because I am a nation of people that 4 exist, with our own culture, the very essence and 5 the very fabric of our own people. 6 I make it very clear that as I sit 7 here and I watch -- and I thank the chair for 8 breaking -- sometimes as leader I get very, very 9 passionate, and yourself, as past leader yourself 10 you may have gone through this. And I see today, 11 when I heard the Hydro officials speak the way 12 they did, and make their presentations to us as a 13 people, talking about how they consulted or dealt 14 with us by putting up a poster here and there, or 15 allowing a mayor or a council maybe to invite me 16 to a meeting so I can hear what happened to my 17 people. It sounded so much like the documents 18 that we read sometimes, one in particular from the 19 agents of the Government some time ago, when it 20 said the natives look well fed and healthy, they 21 have wintered well. It is very clear by the sound 22 of the paternalism attitude of the Government and 23 the Crown corporation, that we are still at that 24 era of thinking, that the natives do look well fed 25 and healthy and they have wintered well. 5985 1 I think many times we have asked to be 2 participants and partners in this process and we 3 have only met excuses and continued dialogue, that 4 would make it clear that we are not going to be 5 consulted in a fair fashion. It is not only us 6 that is echoing this, we hear that now coming from 7 people outside of NCN. 8 This matter has far reaching 9 implications. I also indicated that to my 10 politicians back in my rooms, that this issue of 11 Hydro is not just about NCN, it is just not about 12 the small maybe kilometre radius of NCN. It goes 13 beyond. It goes beyond the transmission lines 14 that will be spread across, we talked about one 15 particular area, The Pas. It goes beyond that, it 16 goes into Thompson, ripples down to The Pas, 17 north, west, south, east of our Province, as it 18 makes its way down to the Ontario borders. 19 As we move forward in this process, 20 Hydro will continue to play an advocating role 21 that they tried their best to do what they can for 22 the Metis. History has proven, through the 23 Northern Flood Agreement, through positions taken 24 by our past president, Mr. Morrisseau, past 25 president, Senator Head, who cannot be here -- and 5986 1 if he was here, you would have seen him cry, as I 2 seen my colleague cry, because he actually lived 3 it. That is when my heart boils with passion and 4 anger, and sometimes I have to be calmed down as a 5 leader because I will take strong force if I have 6 to. I am not here to fight with the Commission. 7 I'm here to echo some sentiments of concern that 8 we believe is the missing entity of what is 9 happening. 10 I have heard this Commission talking 11 about the process of not having the mandate to 12 deal with section 35, or confusion of where does 13 section 35 fit into the process of what the 14 Commission has before them? We know that the 15 mandate of the Commission is to review the 16 socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural effects 17 of this project. But you ask yourself, and I ask 18 the Commission to ask themself this, maybe in 19 their own private meeting, if they are not to look 20 at the rights of the people, whether it is First 21 Nation or Metis, how can they properly, truly, 22 give a full recommendation on the impact of how it 23 will affect those three categories? 24 In their own consciousness, I believe 25 that they will begin to establish that their own 5987 1 hand has been tied behind their back. They are 2 now dealing with only one arm, and they do not 3 have two. In some ways maybe they will find the 4 struggle, they will feel the passion that we feel 5 as Metis people being left out, and only given a 6 piece of the pie, or a piece of the puzzle, that 7 we can't figure out the rest. They will hear that 8 the Government is working on section 35 in a 9 separate process, but then how can they even 10 adjudicate, or decide, or come to any kind of 11 decision that what they are recommending to the 12 Minister is fair and has truly dealt with the 13 issues as they affect the socioeconomic, 14 environment and cultural aspects of the Metis 15 people. 16 Behind me there is documents galore, 17 25,000 pages probably, and the Commissioners can 18 use both hands, both hands, that is all they need 19 to know how much times the Metis has been 20 discussed in those 25,000 pages. In fact, they 21 don't need one finger to find out how many 22 substantive points have been raised when it comes 23 to the Metis in those 25,000 pages. That is the 24 degree of consultations, that is the degree of any 25 type of relationship that we have had with the 5988 1 Crown corporation and the Government of Manitoba. 2 So we are in a very, very difficult 3 position as a people and as a nation. I have 4 heard many recommendations, Commissioners, many 5 from my own communities -- the passion, the anger, 6 the resentment, this does not boil down to just a 7 task before you on Wuskwatim. You have heard the 8 history of what has happened in the past and how 9 Hydro has dealt with these issues. You can hear 10 full well that the people that have been 11 destroyed, you heard the tears shed by a young man 12 here, proud leader, and he started to cry in front 13 of a bunch of people -- you think that is with no 14 feeling, no compassion, no heart? A young man. 15 Think of elders that have cried and the people 16 that have suffered because of what Hydro has done. 17 As I sat here this morning, I got up, 18 I was going to speak there, and I thank my lawyer 19 for stopping me when Hydro was speaking, because 20 it drew me into such anger on the paternalistic 21 position that they seemed to take on this. When 22 they sit here and tell me that I have to go to a 23 mayor and council to get permission to get any 24 type of consultation or information, and to be 25 drawn into a discussion phase because a mayor or 5989 1 council might invite me -- yet these mayor and 2 councils may be non-aboriginal, they may be First 3 Nation, and they may be just Metis, we don't know 4 who they are. 5 But what is more important, I think, 6 even if somehow this Province has convinced you 7 that section 35 should not be in your direct 8 authority to utilize your proper, and hopefully to 9 give you the opportunity to make the right 10 decision, I will ask you to do one thing, just 11 quickly, to be able to adjust this -- and Mr. 12 Mayer is a lawyer, I will ask you to look at this. 13 You heard Hydro tell us that we are invited by 14 mayors and councils -- well, we have had lawyers 15 already analyzing the Northern Affairs Act, we 16 have had constitutional lawyers, and we have had 17 legal lawyers from different aspects outside of 18 the constitutional expertise. Every one of them 19 have come up with the same conclusion; the 20 Northern Affairs Act is very specific, it is an 21 administration tool to operate a community, that 22 is all it is. In fact, the mayor of all mayors is 23 the Minister of Northern Affairs. And you know 24 that if you read the document you will see it loud 25 and clear. In fact, it is a conflict in many 5990 1 instances where the mayor of all mayors, the 2 Northern Affairs Minister, has full authority and 3 control over that administration. Yet that is the 4 body that is being given to me that I can 5 hopefully get the flexibility and authority to sit 6 down and raise my issues, and bring them forward 7 on behalf of my people. 8 The best example that I will lead for 9 that to get so simple, in mathematic form, or if 10 you want to look at it in grassroots form where 11 people can understand it. Let's let the Federal 12 Government of Canada, Prime Minister Paul Martin, 13 come into this province tomorrow morning and say 14 that he is now changing his relationship, he is 15 now going to authorize the mayor, who gets more 16 votes than all Premiers and Ministers sitting in 17 the Provincial legislature, that he will authorize 18 the mayor to have jurisdiction over health and 19 education, and you will see how quickly this 20 province will stand up and fight for its rights on 21 the jurisdiction and Constitutional protections 22 that they believe they have. They will go 23 ballistic if that was to happen to them, yet they 24 believe it can happen to my people, and that will 25 never happen as long as I'm President. During 5991 1 these hearings -- 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Chartrand, just go 3 a little slower for the court reporter. 4 MR. CHARTRAND: I apologize, you have 5 to slow me down, because I won't stop. Plus I 6 have an accent, you have to watch that. 7 During these hearings we have been 8 told by Manitoba's counsel, as well as suggested 9 by the chair of the Commission, that if the Metis 10 do not feel they are being consulted, they can go 11 to court. We do not want to go to court. We are 12 being told we must go to court. We are open to 13 good faith negotiation, we have always been, to 14 develop a mutually beneficial consultation and 15 accommodation process, and will meet all 16 constitutional obligations, environmental 17 responsibilities and economic potential. But if 18 we must, let me say this, but if we must, we will 19 follow the suggestion of the CEC chair, the 20 litigator on behalf of the Province, Heather 21 Leonoff, that we will go to the court. And this 22 time we will only ask that the CEC not close its 23 eyes to the plight of the Metis people. The CEC 24 must not turn away from recognizing the potential 25 impacts this project will have on our nation. 5992 1 I will share with you some of the 2 comments I am hearing in my community. Our people 3 are willing to start blocking the roads. Our 4 people are willing to block, in fact, the 5 development that will occur, whether it is NCN 6 territory or not. Our people are willing to maybe 7 move towards civil disobedience. And I don't want 8 that to happen. But my job as a president, I will 9 protect my people at all costs. 10 We have presented here today a variety 11 of different options. We have made it very clear 12 that the impacts will be devastating. We know 13 they will be devastating, history has proven that, 14 and there is no better example than history. The 15 Metis have either accidentally been forgotten -- I 16 will give a break to the Government, or to 17 Hydro -- or potentially ignored. Either way, it 18 is a very serious mistake, and there will be 19 consequences for everyone. At the end, I believe 20 there will be no winning parties here. I think 21 both of us will suffer greatly, but I assure you, 22 the Federation will not back away. The 23 deficiencies must be corrected before the Federal 24 or Provincial Minister or Ministers grant these 25 licenses or permits to co-proponents. 5993 1 You have heard the recommendations, 2 Mr. Chairman, colleagues of the Commission, you 3 have heard recommendations of my people. We 4 encourage this Commission to support our 5 recommendations. You have the power to do the 6 right thing. You have the power to establish that 7 justice will be done for the Metis people. 8 I have one challenge in my mind, I 9 keep on trying to figure out, as I heard Mr. Mayer 10 ask our lawyer the question of how does section 35 11 apply to this? And that is a matter I believe our 12 lawyers will debate if we have to on the matter of 13 going forward. But I ask the Commission to really 14 take a second look at that whole issue. If you 15 are properly to do and recommend, as you should, 16 because you are not here sitting representing Gary 17 Doer, nor the NDP Government, you are here to be 18 unbiased, you are here representing us as Manitoba 19 citizens. Your decisions will have impacts for 20 years to come. Your decisions will have impacts 21 on many families in many communities. The future 22 rests in your hands. Your decision you make now 23 you can not back away from, but you ask yourself 24 in good conscience when you go to sleep at night 25 in years to come, did you do the right thing? Did 5994 1 you do the right thing by allowing the Province to 2 make you believe that you do not have the mandate 3 to look at section 35, as an aspect of looking -- 4 how do you look at the socioeconomic, 5 environmental and cultural aspects of Aboriginal 6 people in general if you do not properly look at 7 the issue of the rights of people, which are then 8 protected under section 35 of the Constitution? 9 How can you then make a recommendation that 10 everything was proper and good if you don't weigh 11 the two factors together? It is only common sense 12 that the two go hand in hand. I don't care what 13 the Province says here, in their aspects they are 14 doing it in a separate room somewhere else or a 15 separate process. You then have the right to 16 demand to see that document so you can then look 17 at how those rights didn't have an effect on the 18 decision and recommendation that you will make to 19 the Minister. 20 As I said, I will repeat again, you 21 are here on behalf of all Manitoba citizens and I 22 look on you in that capacity. I don't look at the 23 history of anybody sitting here, I look at you as 24 individuals representing my province, and that you 25 will come forward with recommendations that will 5995 1 bring justice to the Metis people in this 2 Province. 3 Hydro is rich. You have heard Hydro 4 speak, "we have many lawyers" I believe George's 5 comment was, I believe that is his name. Well, we 6 don't have many lawyers, but we have many Metis 7 people that are willing to go to war with this 8 issue. That is the part I hope never happens. Is 9 Hydro willing to risk, because of whatever issue 10 forced them to take the position they did, to 11 ignore the Metis people after 1982's Constitution, 12 after the Powley decision, that they can shut 13 their eyes and say it does not exist, and 14 hopefully tie the arms of this Commission? Take 15 one arm of our chair and tie it up so he can not 16 speak on section 35, and he knows he needs to 17 reference that to make the proper recommendation? 18 I think that justice will not be done if that is 19 the case. 20 So on behalf of Metis people across 21 this Province, and we make it very clear, we do 22 not want to go to war with the Province, we do not 23 want to go to war with Hydro. All we are asking 24 is the right thing, and you have the power to make 25 the decision. Thank you very much. 5996 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, 2 Mr. Chartrand. 3 Ms. Teillet and Mr. Benoit, sometime 4 during your presentation you made reference to 5 documents that you were willing to table. I 6 assume that we will get these documents and make 7 copies and return them to you? 8 MR. A. BENOIT: Yes, as long as your 9 transcripts can tell me which those documents 10 were, because as I was passing by, I did not make 11 my own record. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: That might be 13 difficult. 14 MS. TEILLET: We will work on it and 15 make sure you have copies of everything that we 16 referred to. 17 MR. GREWAR: At the same time, 18 Mr. Chairman, we have a number of documents that 19 were presented that you referred to and had access 20 to during the presentation. Perhaps the easiest 21 thing to do would be just to have these as a 22 single group and assign an exhibit number to them 23 as a group. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I just have a 24 glitch here to bring up the correct number. It 25 will be an MMF exhibit. There are a number of 5997 1 letters and agreements and understandings, et 2 cetera. With your permission, we will simply 3 assign one exhibit number, MMF 1002, and indicate 4 it as presentation documents various from the 5 Manitoba Metis Federation. 6 7 (EXHIBIT MMF 1002: Presentation 8 documents, various from Manitoba Metis 9 Federation) 10 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I just want 12 to ask you a question, Mr. Chartrand, because 13 you've used both terms as you were talking. 14 You've referred to the Commission as when you make 15 your decisions, et cetera, and at other times you 16 used the word "recommendations." I assume that 17 you are fully aware that we don't decide, we make 18 recommendations or observations, and I presume 19 that you understood it that way? 20 MR. CHARTRAND: In fact, Mr. Chairman, 21 I will clarify very quickly. The matter I raised 22 when I used the word decisions -- decisions 23 amongst yourself to move forward the 24 recommendations to the Government. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: The other thing that I 5998 1 wanted to ask is, I know that part of the 2 presentations were made, in particular when 3 Mr. Morrisseau was talking, and I believe it was 4 Mr. Montgomery maybe, Mr. Benoit maybe, referring 5 to Grand Rapids and so forth, which are not 6 specifically in the area of the project. But I 7 believe the comments were made in regards to 8 consultation; am I correct, Mr. Morrisseau? 9 MR. MORRISSEAU: Yes. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: There will be other 11 questions I am sure, but I want to give a chance 12 to some of my colleagues as well to ask questions. 13 MR. SARGEANT: Is Mr. Morrisseau going 14 to comment on that? 15 THE CHAIRMAN: He said yes. Go ahead, 16 Mr. Sargeant. 17 MR. SARGEANT: Thank you. We heard 18 this morning, and we have heard before from Hydro 19 that people in some communities, and particularly 20 South Indian Lake, have been consulted under four 21 or five different rubrics -- I'm not sure if that 22 is the right word -- but they have been consulted, 23 or the Northern Affairs Council was consulted, 24 they have been consulted as CASIL and DRSIL and 25 the Fisher Association, et cetera. How would 5999 1 consultation -- and I'm thinking about that whole 2 list of effects that you listed off, Ms. Teillet, 3 the socioeconomic effects -- how would 4 consultation on those matters differ if the 5 consultations were with Metis, qua Metis, as 6 opposed to all of the other -- 7 MR. CHARTRAND: If I can, David 8 Chartrand for the record. 9 Clearly, you are looking at a variety 10 of different components. I will give you a best 11 example, I guess, I will use the name so you can 12 track him down, his name is Trapper Dan, he is a 13 non-aboriginal. He has all of the licenses 14 pertaining to big bear, hunting and trapping. 15 That is the best example that I can give you. 16 Now, he has full financial, 17 economically, he has the right monies to buy all 18 of the campsites and everything and bring all of 19 the Americans in, et cetera. So when you meet 20 with trappers, and he may be the head of the 21 Trappers Association, he is not going to be 22 addressing the issues that pertain to Metis -- he 23 is a non-Aboriginal firstly -- but he is not going 24 to be talking about the actual effects it may have 25 to the trappers -- he would then may be having 6000 1 different points of views, for instance, changing 2 the structure of the trap designs that have to be 3 used and those types of issues that are taken on 4 during the fur trapping environment that has 5 changed because of Europe's demands. 6 But when you separate the process of 7 not allowing the Metis to talk about how it 8 affects them economically, how it changes the very 9 essence of their livelihood, how it will affect if 10 they don't have enough external dollars that are 11 made from that particular industry, or fishing, 12 one of those particular areas, if you don't 13 consult how it affects them economically and the 14 social impact it will have on their children -- 15 they may be transported out of school, that is 16 what happens to a lot of us, after grade eight we 17 are transported to Cranberry Portage. So things 18 change for us. So when you look at the dynamics 19 of how it is affecting the socioeconomic side of 20 it, particularly to the Metis, then you are not 21 going to hear the story of the Metis. You are 22 going to see maybe somebody like Trapper Dan, who 23 is looking at it from a financial point of view, 24 how it affects him, and his recommendation would 25 be, maybe he needs more licenses because he has 6001 1 got the ability to produce more tourism from the 2 United States. That would be I guess the easiest 3 way to describe why there would be not a fair 4 process in place. 5 MR. SARGEANT: They have been 6 consulted on those issues, on how it would affect 7 them economically, how it will affect their 8 health, how it will affect them culturally -- by 9 them I'm talking about people in a community, and 10 I picked the community of South Indian Lake where 11 we heard, I think there were five different sort 12 of hats that they consulted under. How would 13 consulting them as Metis, how would the results 14 differ? We still hear that, you know, we have 15 heard from these other consultations how it will 16 affect them, how it will affect their livelihoods, 17 their health, their culture, et cetera, how will 18 it differ if they are consulted as Metis? 19 MR. CHARTRAND: If I can put it to you 20 this way, Terry -- you don't mind me calling you 21 Terry? 22 MR. SARGEANT: Of course not. 23 MR. CHARTRAND: The first question 24 should be asked, did they consult with Metis? 25 Well, there are Metis trappers they consulted 6002 1 with. They said people, special interest groups. 2 It could have been all First Nations trappers 3 sitting in the room. Already you are in a 4 quandary, were Metis people consulted? That would 5 be the first challenge for all of us to look at. 6 I think, given the fact that you heard the answer, 7 they had no intention of looking at us as a 8 people, or as a nation. So we don't even know if 9 they consulted the Metis people. We don't know 10 because we weren't told. A good example, in fact 11 I raised it with the Minister of Fisheries, I was 12 in Ottawa several weeks ago. They went into 13 Pikwitonei, Manitoba, and DFO, Department of 14 Fisheries and Oceans, and they meet with the mayor 15 and council, they didn't meet with the fishing 16 association. I have Metis people calling me, 17 screaming at me, mad that they weren't even told 18 the meeting was taking place. So it is this type 19 of aspect. So the better question would be, how 20 can we determine that Metis were consulted at any 21 capacity? 22 MR. SARGEANT: Okay, thank you. 23 What is the status of MMF locals? 24 What are they, how are they set up, are their 25 leaders elected or -- 6003 1 MR. CHARTRAND: We have 130 locals in 2 the Province. We have about 80 communities in the 3 Province, throughout the Province. In each of the 4 communities we have an elected local executive, 5 they are sort of a conduit for getting information 6 to our peoples. And we have seven regions in the 7 province, we have 14 board of directors elected, 8 we have seven vice presidents elected, and I'm 9 elected Province wide. The locals are in charge 10 of our membership. They are in charge of 11 directing us at the annual assembly. We have 12 about 2,000 people show up at our annual assembly 13 to give us direction where we are going. The 14 locals are all duly elected. 15 The only weakness we have -- the 16 challenge we face is we don't have infrastructure. 17 We don't have these Northern Affairs community 18 offices that are Government funded. We are 19 starting to move slowly there, we have a trickle 20 of dollars, we are starting to build some 21 facilities, or renting facilities. That is where 22 our weakness lies. We don't have an actual 23 building that they can turn to. So it is so cheap 24 and easy to go to the mayor and council because 25 they already have a building, and you can go and 6004 1 talk to the mayor and council at his office. For 2 our local you have to go to his house. I don't 3 know if Hydro wants to go knocking on our peoples 4 houses. So that is where our only weakness lies. 5 In fact, some of our elections are bigger than the 6 mayors and councils. 7 MR. SARGEANT: Now, to your knowledge, 8 were any of the locals in the project area, did 9 any of them participate as a local in any of the 10 consultation processes? 11 MR. CHARTRAND: To be sincere, I don't 12 know of any. That was our, that was a challenge 13 we faced. We have gotten many requests from our 14 people indicating what is happening. We don't 15 know how to address the people, we are so busy 16 arguing with Hydro and trying to move the issue 17 forward that we have to be consulted. With 18 regards to the Federation itself and its 19 institutional structure, there has never been any 20 clear knowledge on my grounds. 21 I am getting a notice here. All of 22 these locals used to be, as I pointed out to you, 23 Terry, we have no resources, they are all 24 volunteers. Some of these communities may not 25 have active locals, because they are volunteers. 6005 1 We have a constitution that says they have to meet 2 four times a year as a local, but sometimes they 3 don't because they have no money, some of them 4 have no money to rent halls and stuff like that 5 throughout the Province. So, some of them are 6 non-active locals. But there is a key, in our 7 list of -- as a conduit, we know exactly who to 8 contact and then we instigate our system in there. 9 One of the things that is being passed 10 on to me here is the issue that I think is key is 11 that the process that has to be established has to 12 be fair and has to be seen to be fair. And that 13 is where sometimes it gets things all muddied up 14 and you can't see. 15 But it is quite easy, and I will show 16 you, when the Government sits down with us on 17 other matters, they quickly know where our locals 18 exist, come election time they find them very 19 quickly, their houses, as chairs, but they don't 20 want to find them here when it comes to different 21 matters. 22 MR. SARGEANT: Was there any move on 23 the part of some of the locals to boycott this 24 process? 25 MR. CHARTRAND: It is hard to boycott 6006 1 something that you really don't know much about. 2 I'm sure a lot of our people would feel quite 3 frustrated, as you heard Hydro speak in their own 4 words, and that is the style that really sometimes 5 upsets me as leader, when they say we have a lot 6 of lawyers. A lot of our people feel uneasy 7 speaking even to a Commission of your structure. 8 They don't feel qualified that they can 9 understand, or use the proper language, or proper 10 terminology necessary to advocate what they really 11 want to say, and they are shy and they feel 12 intimidated sometimes. That is why you need a 13 proper structure and fair process, so we can put 14 the right people in place to actually advocate the 15 real issues that people want to say, or be brought 16 forward, so everybody can understand where they 17 are coming from. 18 When we did our consultation, it was 19 quite easy, people were showing up in large 20 numbers. When I go across the Province for 21 hunting and fishing, I have people, sometimes 200 22 to 300 in a room. They feel comfortable in our 23 environment that they can share and speak openly, 24 and even if they have an accent or speak a 25 different language, we will speak in other 6007 1 languages that we speak. 2 MR. SARGEANT: I can assure you that 3 you have all spoken very eloquently today. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Just before I pass it 5 on to my other colleagues, Ms. Teillet was here 6 before when Mrs. Leonoff came to speak and 7 indicated that the responsibility to consult under 8 section 35 was one which legally belonged to the 9 levels of Government, which were the Federal and 10 Provincial Government, and that they were going to 11 proceed with that consultation. 12 We heard following that that they 13 were, I believe at the second phase of getting 14 that on the way. You, I gather, don't see that 15 consultation as satisfactory, or you don't see 16 that satisfaction -- that consultation as 17 answering your request to be consulted? 18 MR. CHARTRAND: If I can, 19 Mr. Chairman, I gave an example of Pikwitonei, and 20 the example used by Ms. Leonoff, that there is a 21 different process in place right now. That 22 same -- the different process they are speaking of 23 is the identical process that is in place here -- 24 sorry about that, Mr. Chairman. In Pikwitonei 25 they went through the mayor and council, they 6008 1 didn't go to the Metis. That is where I'm getting 2 a lot of people upset, because they were there 3 with DFO talking about fishing and how they are 4 affecting their fishing and trapping. And I in 5 fact echoed that to the Minister, as I said, two 6 weeks ago in Ottawa. They are going to be 7 reviewing their position now, given the fact that 8 that is not what they anticipated was happening. 9 But the separate process that they are speaking of 10 to you is identical to the process that you have 11 before you today, mayors and council, and if we 12 are invited, we are invited. 13 The point I raised earlier in my 14 comments is that in order to properly, 15 effectively, look at the actual recommendation 16 after a decision is made by your body to send 17 forward to a Minister, and especially under the 18 mandate of culture and socioeconomic and 19 environmental, in order to address and make a 20 recommendation, then you have a missing piece of 21 your puzzle also, your recommendation will be 22 missing a very, I think, dynamic component if it 23 misses out the rights based matters, in order to 24 state that actually proper consultations did occur 25 and this matter has been dealt with, and addressed 6009 1 all three areas. 2 I think that is where I think the 3 Government tied up your hand, on one hand, by 4 telling you you have no jurisdiction, and legally 5 our lawyers advising us that the matter pertaining 6 to such matters as rights under a body such as 7 yourself, the only time your body has no mandate 8 to seek that is if there is legislation 9 prohibiting you to do that. And if that is the 10 case, then you should be demanding that part of 11 the missing puzzle that is not there to give you 12 the full picture, should definitely be given to 13 you so you can have the right to see truly what is 14 there, and your recommendation will address the 15 full concept, and that you will do the right thing 16 for all Manitobans because you will see the full 17 package. But if you are only seeing one side and 18 closing your eye to the other, then how do you 19 match the two? 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I believe, 21 Mr. Chartrand, you were not there when the 22 Commission heard the motion in September, which 23 was brought forth by PCN, at which time your 24 organization made presentations. And the whole 25 issue was based on the mandate of the Commission. 6010 1 And many legal opinions were presented at that 2 time that our mandate stemmed from a section in 3 the Environment Act and guidelines which were 4 provided by the Minister, and that was the scope 5 within which we could function and not beyond. 6 When we say that our mandate is 7 limited to the section which pertains to the 8 Commission, which is prescribed by law in the 9 Environment Act, and that is basically the points 10 that were made at the time of that motion, and 11 which guided the Commission in making its ruling 12 on the presentations, or the motion which was 13 presented to the Commission in September; which is 14 the same we reiterated here when Mrs. Leonoff was 15 here, or the point that she was making. But what 16 I was trying to get at when I was asked, this was 17 by way of comment, but the point I was trying to 18 get at when I asked you in regards to the 19 consultation which the Federal Government -- and I 20 believe which involves the Province because the 21 Province co-chairs or chairs that committee -- I'm 22 given to understand that you did not proceed to 23 make any -- or maybe you did, but you did not 24 succeed in getting the organizers of that 25 consultation to change the approach which they 6011 1 mention here, which was, as you said, is the same 2 as was proposed or was carried out by Hydro. So I 3 gather you did not convince them to consult 4 specifically with MMF? 5 MS. TEILLET: There is a short answer 6 to that, which is nothing has changed, at any 7 point in time, nothing has changed with respect to 8 consultation from any parties involved in this. 9 But I would like to address the legal split, and 10 it is further to Mr. Mayer's earlier question too 11 about the mandate. 12 I'm deeply troubled by this idea that 13 somehow section 35 lives on the planet Pluto 14 somewhere and has no earthly connection to what is 15 going on here. What I want to say to you is that 16 section 35 is simply legal protection for the 17 practices, customs, and traditions of the people 18 for, in fact, the important cultural values which 19 are integral to their culture. That is the exact 20 test, what is integral to their culture, 21 practices, customs and traditions? That is what 22 it is. 23 So when we are looking at that, your 24 mandate is to look at the effects on the culture 25 of the people. It is also in the EIS that the 6012 1 proponents are to look at the effects on the 2 culture of the people. And that is identical to 3 what is needed for what you call a section 35 4 consultation. It is a distinction without a 5 difference here. 6 So the reality is that this fine line 7 of separating off and saying they are doing that 8 and we have no responsibility, I think is utterly 9 wrong. In law we all, everybody in this room, 10 all of the parties here have the responsibility to 11 find out the effects of this project on the 12 customs, practices, traditions, culture, way of 13 life, socioeconomic parts of the Metis and the 14 First Nations in the project area. And that is 15 what has to happen. Giving it labels and 16 separating it off is not helpful. And I don't 17 think that you can -- I do not think that we 18 should be proceeding in this. 19 So the idea that you don't have a 20 mandate to look at it, whether you call it -- you 21 can say, okay, they have section 35 consultation 22 obligations, but you still have the same 23 obligations, which is not to go out and consult, 24 but to figure out whether it has been done, and 25 whether then you can make decisions that you can 6013 1 then make recommendations to the Minister. So 2 that is the position that we are taking. 3 I think that Mr. Chartrand, President 4 Chartrand, when he says that you have your hands 5 tied behind your back, I would rather use a more 6 Metis image and say, you are being asked to paddle 7 your canoe without a paddle. If you think that 8 you don't have any ability to look at these 9 issues, you are floundering around in the river 10 with this canoe without a paddle. You have to be 11 able to make these analysis. And labeling 12 something section 35 or not is an awfully 13 convenient way of escaping the analysis that has 14 to happen here. 15 MR. CHARTRAND: To add to your 16 question, Mr. Chairman, as I stated, we are in 17 dialogue with Canada on this matter, and we did 18 have a very fruitful meeting with the Minister. 19 And we are in fact looking at now the process that 20 Canada will allow itself to be involved in, 21 because Manitoba really is -- although Federal 22 Government is a co-chair, Manitoba is leading this 23 consultation. So the Minister has instructed its 24 staff to review the present state of discussions 25 and negotiations, and we are in dialogue with his 6014 1 officials as we speak. 2 But it is clearly -- and I will give 3 you another example. The new National Parks that 4 are being brought forward in Manitoba, we have 5 been invited to be a full partner in consultations 6 and decision making in how our rights will be 7 protected as these National Parks are being 8 created, so we are playing a major role in that. 9 So it has definitely changed at the national 10 level, Federally, but it has not changed at the 11 Provincial level. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mayer. 13 MR. MAYER: Mr. Morrisseau, I was most 14 interested in your discussion with former Premier 15 Schreyer in 1976. And help me, it has been a 16 while since I read the Northern Flood Agreement, 17 and I think you are probably fairly familiar with 18 it. If I recall correctly, there was a provision 19 placed in the Northern Flood Agreement that said 20 that the communities -- and I believe it said 21 non-aboriginal communities, it may have said 22 Metis, I don't remember the exact wording -- next 23 or adjacent to the First Nations who were parties 24 to the Northern Flood Agreement, that a 25 significant difference in their economic 6015 1 well-being would not be permitted. 2 Do you -- can you help me with that, 3 or can one of you help me with that section of the 4 Northern Flood Agreement? 5 MR. MORRISSEAU: Yes, Mr. Mayer. Yes, 6 I believe those sections that you talk about in 7 relation to the Northern Flood Agreement came 8 under section 18.1 and 18.2 of the Northern Flood 9 Agreement. Those are the sections that relate -- 10 let me change glasses, I can't see -- 18.2 and 11 18.3. And 18.2 basically says, the resource users 12 have been and they continue to be adversely 13 affected, on the other hand, and that is in the 14 public interest to ensure that any damage to the 15 interests, opportunities, lifestyles, and assets 16 of those adversely affected be compensated 17 appropriately and justly. 18 And 18.3 says, Canada and Manitoba to 19 the extent that it is practical to do so will seek 20 to avoid creating inequities within any settlement 21 that would adversely affect a relationship between 22 a community and other residents of a settlement. 23 MR. MAYER: That is the one I was most 24 interested in. Thank you very much. The only 25 thing you forgot to mention, after your 6016 1 conversation with Mr. Schreyer, he had a bit of a 2 set back with the public in October of 1977. 3 MR. MORRISSEAU: We realize that, Mr. 4 Mayer, but we always hope for continuity. 5 MR. MAYER: I understand that. 6 Ms. Teillet, you have to help me, I 7 missed your definition of Metis as it was defined 8 by the MMF? 9 MS. TEILLET: The definition is that a 10 Metis -- I'm going to find the exact words for you 11 because I'm quoting from the resolution that has 12 been adopted by the Metis National Council and by 13 each Provincial body now across the Metis Nation, 14 that is five Provincial bodies. I'm trying to 15 find the exact one here so I don't misspeak it, 16 although I drafted it. 17 "A Metis means a person who 18 self-identifies as Metis, is of 19 historic Metis Nation ancestry, is 20 distinct from other Aboriginal 21 peoples, and is accepted by the Metis 22 Nation." 23 MR. MAYER: So you are 24 self-identifying, historic Aboriginal ancestry, 25 acceptance by the balance of the Metis community, 6017 1 and the fourth one? 2 MS. TEILLET: Metis Nation ancestry. 3 MR. MAYER: Distinct from other 4 Aboriginal persons or groups? 5 MS. TEILLET: Yes. 6 MR. MAYER: Now, do you perceive Metis 7 in Manitoba to be a single Metis Nation, or single 8 Metis people, or might we have distinct Metis 9 peoples, in the plural, or distinct Metis 10 cultures, in the plural, in Manitoba? 11 MS. TEILLET: The way the Metis Nation 12 looks at it is that the Metis Nation itself is a 13 large entity, as I described the physicality of it 14 this morning, that is the Metis Nation or the 15 Metis people. Within that we deal with those 16 people on a variety of levels. We deal with them 17 on the National level -- meaning the Metis 18 Nation -- we deal with them on Provincial levels, 19 as indeed we have an elected Provincial president 20 here. We deal with them on regional levels, and 21 we deal with them on local community levels, but 22 they are all part and parcel of one people. 23 MR. MAYER: I'm trying to put this 24 together with -- you were kind enough to provide 25 us with the copy of the Powley decision. I took 6018 1 some time to read it. And I referred -- I will 2 start off with paragraph 11. 3 "We should not be surprised to find 4 that different groups of Metis exhibit 5 their own distinct traits and 6 traditions. Diversity amongst groups 7 of Metis may enable us to speak of 8 Metis 'peoples"." 9 And then we go a little further into paragraph 12 10 where the court says, 11 "We would not purport to enumerate the 12 various Metis peoples that may 13 exist.." 14 again talking about a plurality, 15 "...because the Metis are explicitly 16 included in section 35. It is only 17 necessary..." 18 this is the line where I need some help, 19 "It is only necessary for our purposes 20 to verify that the claimants belong to 21 an identifiable Metis community with a 22 sufficient degree of continuity and 23 stability to support a site specific 24 Aboriginal right." 25 What does that mean? 6019 1 MS. TEILLET: I think that what we 2 have to understand -- and I was legal counsel for 3 Powley at all levels of court, so it is my 4 thinking that developed this thing. So bear with 5 me for a minute. Powley was not about the broader 6 self-government rights, or anything like that, it 7 was about hunting rights. 8 MR. MAYER: It is about shooting 9 moose. 10 MS. TEILLET: Exactly -- about five 11 minutes outside or Sault Ste. Marie, on Goulee Bay 12 Road, it is right on the edge of town. A lot of 13 issues that we had to grapple with -- or that we 14 have to grapple with in this hearing, which is a 15 larger analysis of the Metis community, we didn't 16 have to grapple with there. Because, number one, 17 we were only talking about Sault Ste. Marie. 18 Steve Powley never moved out of Sault Ste. Marie, 19 they have never budged. 20 MR. MAYER: I read the case. Now tell 21 me what that paragraph means. 22 MS. TEILLET: I'm trying to get to it. 23 So what we asked was -- the Supreme Court had 24 intervenors in front of it from people as 25 widespread as New Brunswick and Newfoundland. 6020 1 Okay. We had people from Newfoundland standing up 2 and saying that they were Metis, and they stood up 3 and said, we are not a Metis people, we are an 4 Innuit people, we just want the constitutional 5 descriptor of Metis to protect our rights. 6 Well, what is happening here -- and 7 that is when the court is talking about different 8 Aboriginal peoples, is they are trying to say, 9 okay -- in the way that courts always do, and I 10 know you are a lawyer, Mr. Mayer, you understand 11 this -- they are just trying to grapple with the 12 facts in front of them and say, we are not making 13 any determinations about whether or not those 14 Newfoundland people are a Metis people or not, we 15 are going to stay right away from that. And we 16 are also going to stay away from the big political 17 argument as to whether the Metis in Sault Ste. 18 Marie are part of a larger body, because we don't 19 have to go there, and so we are not going to go 20 there. We are only going to look at this 21 community, and this right, in this specific place, 22 for this case. That is all it does. It doesn't 23 say we can't look at the larger area. 24 MR. MAYER: Excuse me. The sentence 25 is very clear, this is the decision, it is a 6021 1 unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, nine 2 judge panel, you told us that a number of times. 3 But they do find that it is necessary, or at least 4 sufficient that the claimant belong to an 5 identifiable Metis community, with a sufficient 6 degree of continuity and stability to support a 7 site specific Aboriginal right. 8 What does site specific Aboriginal 9 right mean, in your opinion? 10 MS. TEILLET: Well, we could have -- 11 this is a long debate. 12 MR. MAYER: Let's see if we can call 13 Wuskwatim a site. It is fairly small. 14 MS. TEILLET: The Wuskwatim project 15 may be small, but the transmission lines travel 16 over quite a territory. 17 MR. MAYER: There are two projects. 18 Let's limit ourselves at the moment to the only 19 one that NCN is involved in, and that is the 20 generation project. They are not involved in the 21 transmission project. Let's talk about the 22 generation project. What is -- would that be site 23 specific? 24 MS. TEILLET: The issue of -- I really 25 want to, I understand it is a difficult issue 6022 1 here -- site specific doesn't mean that there are 2 no rights elsewhere, it only means that that is 3 where they happen to be hunting that minute, 4 right. So we know he can hunt on Goulee Bay Road, 5 we know that, that is site specific. But what we 6 presume usually in law, that is what Sparrow and 7 all of the other cases tell us is that because we 8 understand that, usually what that means is that 9 they have a right to hunt within their traditional 10 territory. Right so -- 11 MR. MAYER: That is why I wanted to 12 discuss Wuskwatim. 13 MS. TEILLET: What we are saying is 14 the Metis have a traditional territory. The Metis 15 community in Manitoba has a tradition territory, 16 and Wuskwatim falls smack dab in the middle of 17 that. They use it for exercising their rights. 18 MR. MAYER: Inclusive of the NCN 19 resource area? 20 MS. TEILLET: You know what, we are 21 back into the problem that nobody consulted with 22 the Metis, so we don't know. 23 MR. MAYER: I suppose -- certainly 24 somebody did, because we have looked at our 25 granting stuff, and we in fact put up a few 6023 1 thousand dollars in order to have the MMF make 2 these particular consultations. And I happen to 3 have read in the newspapers that you, in fact, did 4 that. So are you suggesting -- the reason that 5 I'm talking about the Wuskwatim Generation 6 Project, Ms. Telliet, is the Wuskwatim project is 7 wholly located within the NCN resource management 8 area, exclusively. 9 Now, is it the position of MMF that 10 they have traditional rights in that relatively 11 limited area of this project? 12 MS. TEILLET: The facts of history are 13 showing us very clearly, Mr. Mayer, that the 14 traditional territories of Indians and Metis 15 largely overlap, and that historically they shared 16 traditional territories. And as I said earlier 17 this morning, usually peacefully, but they shared 18 territories. And we would take the position, and 19 we have, that the Metis community up there, when 20 we are looking at the local up there, but the 21 Metis in Manitoba, have Aboriginal rights and that 22 that project area is within their traditional 23 territory. And the fact that it is also the 24 territory of NCN -- see, now you want, not you 25 particularly, but a lot of people want to talk 6024 1 about this as if it is sort of English property 2 law, exclusive rights here. The fact that two 3 different peoples can share a territory, it is not 4 always Metis and Indians, sometimes it is 5 different kinds of Indians -- the Cree and Ojibway 6 territory overlap, things like that happen all of 7 the time. It means one thing. It means that the 8 land is rich, and it means it could support 9 everybody really well. It doesn't mean that they 10 were at war with each other or that there is a 11 problem because they have the same territories. 12 MR. MAYER: I have your position 13 clear. I only need to have it explained once. 14 The answer was yes, and the answer was yes, and I 15 saw that nodding from the end. I understand that. 16 MR. CHARTRAND: I want to address your 17 point. I think, I'm going to put Mr. Mayer in 18 some context to -- maybe I will get you some 19 context here. 20 South Indian Lake, we have people that 21 belong to NCN that live there, are their rights 22 less than the people in NCN band because they are 23 not living in the site specific area? It is the 24 best way to put the puzzle together for you. 25 MR. MAYER: That answer is fairly 6025 1 clear, at least we have had much evidence from NCN 2 on that. 3 MR. CHARTRAND: I will pose another 4 question to you as a litigator. I am sure you are 5 involved in Aboriginal litigation. When it comes 6 to NCN, when you talk about the band of NCN, they 7 are not talking about the little reserve that 8 Indian Affairs gave them, they are talking about 9 the traditional use of the land area, which is 10 massive. When you look at the Supreme Court 11 ruling on site specific, you talk about, for 12 instance, the Ojibway, their territory, and it is 13 not a little reserve, their traditional land use 14 is massive and is wide. That is in fact why we 15 have TLEs happening today where the expansion of 16 these reserves are taking place. So I think this 17 whole issue of site specific is not in any way 18 meant by the Supreme Court of Canada to be exactly 19 limited to a tiny little community of some sort. 20 MR. MAYER: I wasn't trying to limit 21 the term site specific to a tiny little community, 22 but I would suggest that the Wuskwatim generating 23 project is very site specific, and its footprint 24 is relatively small. 25 MR. CHARTRAND: Let me suggest to you, 6026 1 Mr. Mayer, if you are going to tell the people in 2 this room today, and tell the Manitoba Metis 3 Federation, that the site specific aspect of Hydro 4 is only going to affect NCN people, it will not 5 affect all of Manitoba citizens, we wouldn't even 6 have a CEC taking place today, because it has far 7 reaching matters. In fact, if you look at the 8 transmission line which will also change the 9 effects of all of the other communities, because 10 now there will be passages and roads and 11 mechanisms of getting into territory that nobody 12 was allowed to get into before. So the massive 13 involvement and the octopus type of mentality that 14 will occur from the NCN dam itself has far 15 reaching claws, if you want to use that phrase, 16 and it will have environmental effects, water flow 17 effects, it will affect the fish, it will affect a 18 variety of many -- 19 MR. MAYER: That was going to be my 20 next question, Mr. Chartrand, thank you. 21 You talked about devastating effects 22 that the project will have upon your people. And 23 in light of the fact that you did all of those 24 surveys, what devastating effect do you expect to 25 your people's culture, or their traditional way of 6027 1 life, from the damming of the two sets of falls 2 that will constitute the Wuskwatim Generating 3 Station? 4 MR. CHARTRAND: The best way to 5 describe that, the answer would have been there if 6 the consultations would have taken place, as Hydro 7 was supposed to have done? 8 MR. MAYER: You did consultations. 9 MR. CHARTRAND: Let me finish, Mr. 10 Mayer. We have been consulted with? 11 MR. MAYER: You did consultations. 12 MR. CHARTRAND: Are you talking about 13 the minute, small component where we were allotted 14 $80,000 to consult the Metis people? Is that to 15 you satisfactory consultations? A lot of people 16 were talking about, is there cancer that comes 17 from these transmission lines, are we going to get 18 diseases from Hydro being so close to us? We 19 don't have answers to those, so we don't know, we 20 don't have people with those type of expertise 21 around the table to guide them on issues. They 22 talked about, will people be allowed to go hunting 23 in this area, will they just come in here? We 24 don't have answers to how far reaching tourism 25 will take place in this Province, we don't know 6028 1 the agenda of the Province. There are a variety 2 of different aspects, If consultations would have 3 been properly done, as they were done with NCN, I 4 think then -- 5 MR. ABRA: The court reporter can't 6 keep up with you. 7 MR. CHARTRAND: Good. I will slow 8 down -- but anyways, if I could state again for 9 the record, I will repeat myself word for word -- 10 I think it is very clear, Mr. Mayer, that the 11 balance of effects here will be far reaching. 12 Consultations did not happen. If somehow there is 13 going to be some kind of echo of sentiments that 14 the $80,000 that was given to us to try to capture 15 some of the concerns -- I don't have them in front 16 of me but I can grab them if you want. Our people 17 did echo some sentiments of issues that we feel we 18 don't have answers to ourselves -- we don't know 19 where to get the answers, we would have to get 20 more research on it. Clearly, I will give you an 21 example, people said, are we going to get cancer 22 from this? They probably seen something on TV or 23 something. So we have echoed -- we will try to 24 get back to them on these issues, on the health 25 effects that may take place because of the 6029 1 transmission lines as they are getting closer to 2 communities. In retrospect I think the best way 3 to describe it is, if consultations had taken 4 place, we wouldn't be here today. 5 MS. TEILLET: Mr. Mayer, can I add to 6 that? There is a concept that I know you are 7 familiar with called the thin skinned victim. 8 MR. MAYER: Thin skull rule we used to 9 call it. 10 MS. TEILLET: Maybe it changes, but 11 you understand the concept. The Metis people, as 12 you heard from Mr. Morrisseau, are much damaged, 13 and you heard from President Chartrand, much 14 damaged by the history of this Province. So what 15 you have here is people who are very vulnerable to 16 the slightest change and the slightest effect on 17 their culture, because they have such a tentative 18 grasp and a tentative hold on where they are. So 19 the idea that because it has a small footprint, 20 that does not necessarily equate to effects, is I 21 would say an erroneous equation. 22 And there is one other thing I would 23 like to raise? There should be a clear 24 understanding, and you are the one that pointed us 25 to 18.3, about avoid creating inequities. The 6030 1 financial influx from the Northern Flood 2 Agreements, from the cash that has gone into NCN, 3 from what is going to happen to this that will go 4 to part of this community, but not to the other, 5 is going to have a substantial, and I would 6 suggest to you a negative effect on the Metis 7 people. And that cannot be underestimated. 8 MR. MAYER: On the Metis community 9 located at Nelson House, right? 10 MS. TEILLET: We are talking about the 11 Metis in the project area. Because I don't think 12 that there is any suggestion that there will be no 13 effects on the NCN members that live in South 14 Indian Lake. And so what we are saying to you is, 15 in the project area there are approximately -- and 16 we said again it is a low ball number -- 3,000 17 people represented by the MMF who stand to be 18 affected. 19 MR. MAYER: I want to get to that as 20 quickly as I can. I want to get to your numbers 21 in a moment. I have your position with respect 22 to, and you are correct, it is thin skinned, not 23 thin skull, it is a difference concept. 24 President Chartrand, firstly, 25 obviously your people weren't the only ones 6031 1 concerned about cancer from the hydro lines, 2 because in fact there are several pages of 3 evidence that deal specifically with that whole 4 issue of whatever may radiate from transmission 5 power lines. So obviously Hydro picked that up 6 somewhere, and the answers are in the 7 documentation. And if you read the EIS, you would 8 find that information in there. 9 My concern at this point -- and 10 another thing, another example, I have no doubt 11 that Metis people have significant interest in 12 where those power lines are going. I certainly 13 have absolutely no doubt about that, and that I 14 can say that I believe that the MMF, or the 15 locals, or the regions, and I'm not sure which, 16 ought to have been consulted in that capacity. 17 Now, I suppose part of what we have to 18 determine, because you did mention regions and 19 communities, and I just want to get something I 20 wrote down -- you say you have 130 locals in 80 21 communities, is that what you told us? 22 MR. CHARTRAND: There is more, we have 23 quite a substantial amount of locals in the City 24 of Winnipeg. 25 MR. MAYER: Okay. When you suggest 6032 1 consultation, you suggest consultation with the 2 MMF centrally, the region, the local, or all 3 three? 4 MR. CHARTRAND: I think it is quite 5 easy to substantiate. The MMF represents the 6 Metis people throughout the Province of Manitoba. 7 Our political infrastructure is from the local 8 level, to the regional, of course, to the 9 Provincial. But more importantly, if there is 10 going to be consultations, of course the affected 11 areas, it is quite important that we consult with 12 them in some form or fashion. That is usually 13 when locals will turn to us, as the politicians 14 and to have the infrastructure to help them, 15 because these are volunteer positions located in 16 the communities. And of course consultations, if 17 you are consulting with the local, you will be 18 consulting with us in some form or fashion, 19 because they will bring us in immediately to help 20 out, because there is no other means for them to 21 properly sit at the table, or properly get the 22 information that they should properly share with 23 their people. 24 MR. MAYER: Geographically speaking, 25 and your counsel has referred to the project area, 6033 1 am I correct in assuming that geographically 2 speaking, the Thompson region and The Pas region 3 would cover virtually the whole of the ground upon 4 which Hydro will footprint in both of these 5 projects? 6 MR. CHARTRAND: It definitely will. 7 And of course, the transmission line will have far 8 reaching more effect probably. But what I'm sure 9 you are aware of yourself, Mr. Mayer, is our 10 concern is -- I have people in my own community, 11 I'm originally from Duck Bay, a big fishing 12 community. And they are concerned about the past 13 history and the stock of fish, and they are very 14 concerned that the dams and the water flow have a 15 big effect, and it has channels and guides how the 16 wildlife do move. And that effect -- it will not 17 just effect the people that fish in The Pas or 18 Nelson, it will have a greater effect of how the 19 waters are interrelating with each other and how 20 the fish can properly travel. Good example, 21 Fairford dam, I will give you the best example, 22 the Fairford dam affects Lake Winnipegosis, Lake 23 Manitoba, and Lake Winnipeg, one little dam. That 24 is why the effects of how the rights of our people 25 are being touched upon are not just going to be an 6034 1 isolated little kilometre radius of NCN. 2 MR. MAYER: But the evidence is very 3 clear, Mr. Chartrand, on the upstream range and 4 the downstream range, or at least it appears to be 5 fairly clear to me of the effects of generation 6 project. You run from Early Morning Rapids, and I 7 will go as far downstream as Birchtree Lake, and 8 very significant amounts of information on what 9 type of fish and what kind of effects it will have 10 here. 11 MR. CHARTRAND: Where did you hear 12 that from? 13 MR. MAYER: That is all in the EIS. 14 MR. CHARTRAND: The reason I asked 15 that is related to this. If consultation would 16 have occurred, we would have been here and heard 17 what you heard. We didn't know what was 18 happening. I have 25,000 pages behind me here, 19 and if you look at it, you can show two hands, and 20 that is how many times we are mentioned in there, 21 only by form of correspondence, or we wrote to 22 them, or we sent a letter, but any substantive 23 discussion or consultation, you will find not one. 24 MR. MAYER: Mr. Chartrand, I heard 25 Hydro's position today, and I won't comment on 6035 1 that at this point, we may at some time in the 2 future. However, I heard it. And I did read the, 3 I won't say I read them all, but I read a good 4 portion of what was there. 5 I just want to clear up a couple of 6 other things, and I know I'm taking up more time 7 than I want to. Your numbers, you say in the 8 project region there are approximately 30,000 9 people, I think that may be a little low, but 10 let's call that the right number. You say there 11 are approximately 10,000 First Nations people, you 12 call them Indians -- these were your numbers. 13 MS. TEILLET: If I may, we took these 14 numbers directly out of the EIS. 15 MR. MAYER: Okay. 16 MS. TEILLET: I guess I should 17 clarify, out of the generation project area. 18 MR. MAYER: Generation? 19 MS. TEILLET: Generation project area, 20 30,000. 21 MR. MAYER: That significantly changes 22 things, because the whole project area of course 23 includes The Pas, Snow Lake, those are two 24 projects. So you are talking about the generation 25 project, you are talking 30,000 total population 6036 1 in the generation project area? 2 MS. TEILLET: In the generation 3 project area. 4 MR. MAYER: Okay. That is about 5 16,000 in Thompson -- I'm going to have trouble 6 finding 30, but that sounds pretty reasonable. 7 MS. TEILLET: I'm telling you these 8 were taken directly from the EIS. 9 MR. MAYER: Was the 3,000 Metis 10 population taken from the EIS? 11 MS. TEILLET: That was not taken from 12 the EIS, because nobody gave you population 13 demographics in the EIS. 14 MR. MAYER: I would like to know how 15 you determine that number of 3,000? Are these 16 members in the Thompson region, members in The Pas 17 region, members in both regions, or are they even 18 members at all? How did you arrive at the 3,000 19 number? 20 MR. CHARTRAND: These individuals 21 clearly are members of our federation, and these 22 are -- in fact, I will echo here, they are low. 23 Even The Pas, you check how much Metis people we 24 have -- I'm giving an example, you go that way up, 25 and come further down, our numbers sky rocket. So 6037 1 those numbers are clearly in the catchment area 2 that we are speaking for generation. We do have 3 the membership listed. Nobody will ever know 4 because they never checked with us. 5 MS. TEILLET: They come from the 6 membership lists of Manitoba Metis Federation, to 7 give you a short answer. 8 MR. MAYER: That is what I wanted to 9 know. Because persons that I would ordinarily 10 think of as Metis, non-status Aboriginal -- and I 11 readily admit to some of the problems that you 12 outlined this morning -- would appear to have been 13 a larger proportion than that. So these are your 14 members. There clearly would be, I suggest, other 15 people eligible for membership by your definition, 16 other than the 3,000? 17 MS. TEILLET: Absolutely. We are only 18 trying to talk about -- because what we don't want 19 to do, and I just want to be clear about this -- 20 as President Chartrand said, we think the numbers 21 are much larger, but we don't want everybody to 22 come back at us and say, you don't represent them 23 all so you can't speak for them. We are only 24 talking about people that the Manitoba Metis 25 Federation represents, and there are likely more 6038 1 who would be more than eligible to meet the 2 definition and be registered under the MMF. 3 MR. MAYER: One last question for 4 clarification. Again, we are talking about 5 culture. You, Ms. Telliet, referred to yourself 6 as very clearly from Red River, which I recognize 7 as a sort of what has been very clearly identified 8 as a Metis culture. Am I correct in assuming, 9 however, that that culture may be slightly 10 different from Norway House, where there was 11 different interaction with different people, or 12 does that make a difference? 13 MS. TEILLET: I am glad you actually 14 said that, because it is something that people say 15 all of the time, that it is different up there 16 because maybe they are more Scottish people up 17 there as opposed to where I'm from where the 18 European part is very Francophone. 19 MR. MAYER: I was going to say, you 20 are very familiar with the French language. 21 MS. TEILLET: But that kind of 22 analysis to me is a little bit of a false 23 dichotomy, it is a little bit like expecting all 24 of the people in England to be the same, the 25 people in Northern England to be the same as 6039 1 people in Southern England. And if we want to say 2 that all Metis have to come from Red River itself, 3 which is where I happen to come from, as opposed 4 to where some of the people on this panel come 5 from, that is like saying all English people have 6 to come from London. And what we are saying to 7 you is that is not right. And particularly I 8 would like to point out the Anglo/French thing 9 because I think is really important. We are a 10 bilingual country, and we recognize that people 11 can come from different sources and still be 12 Canadian. And what we tell you is that the Metis 13 Nation has always been comprised of Anglo, Metis, 14 and Francophone. If you read the history of the 15 1870 activities, 1869, 1870, you will see that the 16 Metis in this town got together, the English Metis 17 and the French Metis, and asserted themselves as a 18 people to represent and to protect their rights. 19 And what we are saying is, that history is well 20 established and it continues to this day. 21 MR. MAYER: My question was going back 22 to the same issue of Metis Nation or Nations, 23 Metis people or Metis peoples. I was just trying 24 to clarify that. 25 MR. CHARTRAND: I will try to address 6040 1 that, Robert. I was very intrigued that you have 2 such an interest on us as a people, to find out 3 exactly who we are. And the reason I am intrigued 4 on that is because, in our earlier dialogue, we 5 talked about that you don't have the mandate under 6 section 35 to even consider the rights of people. 7 But I personally want you to know who we are, so 8 you will have a better understanding of who we are 9 as a people with rights in this country. But I 10 want to refer to several comments. 11 I speak Saulteaux. Does it make me 12 less Metis? 13 MR. MAYER: I don't know -- 14 MR. CHARTRAND: I am just giving you 15 an example, in order for you to understand me, 16 that is the best way I can do it. I speak 17 Saulteaux, I don't speak French, Jean speaks 18 French, she is no more Metis than I. 19 The Supreme Court of Canada made it 20 very clear that we are a nation of our own and we 21 are one nation. I want to read something from the 22 Supreme Court of Canada, in the Blais case, I 23 encourage you to read that too, read the Blais. 24 In the Blais case, because he didn't go forward on 25 section 35, he argued under the NRTA that the word 6041 1 Indian should be enough to cover his rights as 2 Metis. But the Supreme Court made it very clear 3 that Mr. Blais is a Metis member of a distinctive 4 community, he is not a member of the Indian band 5 but a member of the Manitoba Metis community. 6 Members of the Metis in the Prairie Provinces 7 collectively refer to themselves as the Metis 8 Nation and trace their routes to the western fur 9 trade. So the Supreme Court, even though they 10 weren't given the request to decide who are Metis, 11 they understood clearly who we were, given the 12 vast history of our people. 13 So we are a multi-lingual nation, and 14 we have a different variety of -- some of our 15 Metis will practice our First Nations 16 spirituality, some are strong Roman Catholic, some 17 are Anglican. So it is a variety of different 18 aspects, just like Canadians, we have a different 19 variety of minorities that make up Canada. 20 So I think in the context, we 21 shouldn't lose any type of understanding. In 22 fact, the Supreme Court and the courts earlier 23 made it very clear for governments to not use that 24 as an excuse, not know who we are, to set down 25 that we have rights. And that was echoed by the 6042 1 Supreme Court of Canada. I think it is very clear 2 that Hydro or the Province should not make an 3 excuse that we don't know who the Metis are, so we 4 couldn't sit down with them, we don't know who to 5 speak to. We have been around as a political body 6 since 1967. Sure as hell, we sign in, we use -- 7 we sit down at the Constitutional table to discuss 8 the future Constitution of this country. It is 9 not that they don't know who we are, or where our 10 offices are, or where we exist, our structure. 11 So I think this whole matter of 12 discussing who we are is -- not to lose sight, the 13 main purpose is were Metis people consulted? And 14 the answer is no. 15 MR. MAYER: I wish I could carry on 16 this conversation somewhat longer, but I ought not 17 to. 18 MR. CHARTRAND: You are invited to my 19 office anytime, Robert. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: We have other members 21 that want to ask questions around this table, but 22 I hear that Mr. Dysart has to go and would like to 23 ask a question. 24 MR. DYSART: Leslie Dysart for the 25 record. First of all, I would like to thank the 6043 1 Commission for allowing me to speak due to travel 2 arrangements. I would like -- 3 THE CHAIRMAN: To ask questions. 4 MR. DYSART: Sorry, to ask questions. 5 Just a little preamble here, why I'm here, I'm 6 here to ask questions. Originally, I thought we 7 wouldn't be asking questions on behalf of the 8 community association, but a few of the comments 9 that have been made have caused me a bit of 10 concern, and I would like an opportunity to ask 11 the members, just so there is clarification. 12 First of all, I would like to also 13 acknowledge Mr. John Morrisseau as an elder, and 14 his history, and thanks for sharing that with us. 15 I'm just going to jump right in, I 16 have about two or three topics. I'm going to 17 direct my questions to Darryl Montgomery, and any 18 member of the panel can jump in if they feel they 19 should. 20 First of all, in regards to 21 consultation, the definition of consultation, 22 prior to it taking place, would you agree that the 23 definition should be determined between the two 24 parties, where this consultation should take 25 place, or when and how it should take place? 6044 1 MR. MONTGOMERY: Absolutely, I think 2 that is the big issue that we are facing here, and 3 back and forth, is consultation. And that goes 4 with NCN also, and how we just want to be heard. 5 To put it into perspective, this is the first time 6 there has ever been a public hearing on anything 7 that has ever happened with Manitoba Hydro. And 8 no disrespect to NCN, but that is why we are 9 making it very clear and making a case for the 10 Metis people, that we have to be consulted and we 11 have to be -- and we are getting, you are hearing 12 a lot of other organizations and groups, and I 13 know it has been stated in the paper by NCN, by 14 Hydro, that, you know, all of these people that 15 are speaking against this project are economic 16 terrorists. And there has been no choice given to 17 us, and that is anybody that has spoken against 18 either Wuskwatim or past projects. You know, John 19 has been the president in the past, and this is 20 the first time I'm sure, John -- you can correct 21 me if I'm wrong -- that you have had a chance to 22 publicly talk about the damages and concerns that 23 have happened in Hydro projects. 24 South Indian Lake, there was an 25 interim license granted to the community, or to 6045 1 the project in South Indian Lake. And one of the 2 reasons why they have never gotten the full 3 license was because they had to have community 4 consultations such as this. And I know why they 5 wouldn't do that. 6 MR. DYSART: Second question, similar 7 question in regards to traditional knowledge. 8 Just so the Commission is aware where I'm leading, 9 some of the similarities that I have already known 10 and I'm learning more between how Manitoba Hydro, 11 in some aspects this Province, and in some aspects 12 how Canada has treated both the Metis Nation and 13 the community of South Indian Lake -- I'm just 14 trying to draw out some of the similarities. 15 My next question is, in respect to 16 traditional knowledge, the same question; do you 17 think the definition of traditional knowledge 18 should be defined between the two parties prior to 19 it being used or, in effect, consulted on? 20 MR. MONTGOMERY: For sure -- I mean, 21 our cultures are similar, yet there is 22 differences. For example, our family, the 23 Dysarts, 17 children my grandfather had, and of 24 those probably 80 percent now are -- or 12 of them 25 have gone, 15 of them, I'm just counting in my 6046 1 head, have gone and gotten their Bill C31. Yet 2 still there is a couple, Uncle Murdo, who hasn't 3 gotten, they haven't gotten their status under 4 Bill C31. And he has specific traditional ways 5 that he has carried on, and still to this day, and 6 he has fished and hunted for over 30 years, not on 7 South Indian Lake because -- we won't discuss 8 that -- but he has fished a few inland lakes. And 9 to this day, you go to those lakes and they are 10 still the same lakes that they were when he first 11 started, and they are very abundant, huge amounts 12 of fish, moose, and opportunity, and we need to 13 learn from those. 14 MR. DYSART: Thanks for the way you 15 answered the question. Actually that leads me to 16 my next line of question. Originally, like I said 17 earlier, I wasn't going to come up and question, I 18 was going to listen for a while and then I would 19 have had to leave, but some comments made by 20 Councillor Thomas, to me, well, that was just 21 Councillor Thomas. But one of the areas that drew 22 concern was comments made by Mr. Sargeant, and I 23 would like to clarify those. That was in respect 24 to consultation with, you mentioned five of our 25 community groups in South Indian Lake. Again, 6047 1 directing the questions to Darryl, are you aware 2 say for CASIL, the Community Association of South 3 Indian Lake, that they were not directly either 4 approached or corresponded to in the development 5 of the consultation process, the use of -- the 6 definition and use of traditional knowledge, and 7 the development of the Environmental Impact 8 Statement? Are you aware that we were not? 9 MR. MONTGOMERY: As the vice president 10 of the region, I know, I think Hydro and NCN have 11 stated that they have consulted with me. And if 12 you want to know what that consultation was, I 13 will explain it very clearly. There was a public 14 hearing in South Indian Lake -- sorry, it was in 15 Thompson, and they had the displays up, I walked 16 in there, took a look at the display, I wasn't 17 approached. I knew some of the people that were 18 there, Mike Dumas, I think yourself was there. I 19 saw -- I didn't feel very comfortable, being 20 Metis. I signed up, I put my name on the sheets 21 stating that I would like further information -- 22 haven't received it to date. Numerous times there 23 is a list at the back here that says, anybody that 24 wants -- or wants further information on the 25 project, we will send it to you. I haven't 6048 1 received any of that information. 2 MR. DYSART: In respect to resource 3 groups, I guess I will use the term, for instance, 4 the South Indian Lake Fisherman's Association, are 5 you aware that they have not been directly 6 approached, or even letters, the simple -- I 7 noticed throughout your presentations with all of 8 you, I keep mentioning these letters. Are you 9 aware that they themselves, as specific resource 10 user groups, have not even had the benefit of a 11 letter inviting to, one, define consultation, two, 12 define use of traditional knowledge, and the 13 development of their environmental impact 14 statement? 15 MR. MONTGOMERY: And that goes back to 16 your initial statement of the definition that we 17 should come up with what consultation is. And I 18 have had a chance to talk with our community 19 members in South Indian Lake on that exact issue, 20 and there hasn't been an opportunity for them to 21 speak, as we are able to speak, on the issues that 22 they have as trappers and fishermen. The 23 opportunity hasn't been there for some of those. 24 MR. DYSART: Now, I think the panel is 25 aware that we have a number of various groups and 6049 1 we respect them as entities within our community, 2 even the MMF local. Same question in relation to 3 the MMF local and the South Indian Lake, the South 4 Indian Lake Trappers Association, the South Indian 5 Lake Housing Association, OPCN, are you aware that 6 they were not contacted or even corresponded to in 7 the definition of consultation, the definition on 8 use of traditional knowledge, and the development 9 of the environmental impact statement? 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Just say yes or no on 11 that one, please, he is asking are you aware or 12 are you not aware. 13 MR. DYSART: Sorry for going through 14 this exercise, it is just that Mr. Sargeant, with 15 all due respect -- 16 MR. MONTGOMERY: I'm not aware of it. 17 MR. DYSART: One other line of 18 question again, I didn't plan on coming up here, I 19 am sort of winging it, but just some of the 20 comments -- and again I'm going to have to 21 leave -- I don't know how and what NCN and 22 Manitoba Hydro are going to question on, but one 23 comment or question that Elvis brought to my 24 attention, after your eloquent presentation, I 25 don't want to leave here and then find out later 6050 1 some of what you have said in respect to South 2 Indian Lake be twisted, or pardon the pun, the 3 waters muddied on what you said. 4 The area that I'm getting to is South 5 Indian Lake is a Metis community, you said, in 6 some form or another. Just to make the panel 7 aware -- well, I'm sure Manitoba is well aware, 8 but also to make this Province and the people of 9 this Province aware -- I am hesitant to use the 10 word unique, because I don't think it is a unique 11 situation, but in relation, it is more the 12 question of the Metis and First Nations people as 13 two distinct peoples, but how they have always, at 14 least in my opinion, inter-related, lived side by 15 side. A prime example is South Indian Lake. Me 16 and you both know our history -- to make the panel 17 aware, this is my cousin. His grandfather is my 18 grandfather. He is my brother in the sense of the 19 extended family definition. That is a prime 20 example of co-existence between the Metis and 21 First Nations people. 22 But for the record, in relationship to 23 South Indian Lake, there has never been a line 24 drawn down any street or section of our land, our 25 territory where you are Metis, you live there, you 6051 1 are First Nations, you live there. I mean, just 2 confirm for the Commission's benefit that this 3 does not take place in South Indian Lake, we have 4 always co-existed. 5 MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes, and that is one 6 of the wonderful things about growing up in South 7 Indian Lake is the uniqueness of that exact -- 8 that we as Aboriginal people, and I have tried to 9 emphasize and I continue to emphasize with NCN, 10 that that is something that we need to -- I mean, 11 South Indian Lake is very unique because we 12 co-existed both -- I mean, we didn't say, well, 13 you are Treaty, you are Metis. Unfortunately, it 14 is starting to change, but, yes, that uniqueness 15 was always there. 16 MR. DYSART: With respect to the 17 history, I don't know how it is going to be 18 approached in cross-examination, but I want it to 19 be clear for the Commission, there has been no two 20 separate communities, we have always been one 21 community. Our issues are generally the same, our 22 environmental interests are the same, and our 23 consultations are the same, in this context. 24 MR. MONTGOMERY: I think Al wanted to 25 add something. 6052 1 MR. A. BENOIT: Actually, if I may, 2 Mr. Chairman. We have spent a lot of time talking 3 about law and talking about rights, but we should 4 also be talking about best practices. I mean, 5 what is the context of sustainable development 6 that Canada is within? And I found two documents 7 that may be valuable in figuring out about 8 consultation and best practices. There is 9 International Labour Organization Convention C169, 10 and that is in regards to indigenous and tribal 11 peoples. There is a number of articles, but I 12 will just pluck a couple out here because I think 13 they are applicable to the discussion and the 14 questions that you had about consultation. 15 It says that in applying the 16 provisions of this convention, governments shall 17 consult the peoples concerned through appropriate 18 procedures, and in particular through their 19 representative institutions, whenever 20 consideration is being given to legislative or 21 administrative measures which may affect them 22 directly. 23 And also speaking of best practices, 24 there is the World Commission on Dams report, of 25 which Manitoba Hydro was one of the funders, 6053 1 although there is a little blurb in the book that 2 says, just because you fund this thing doesn't 3 mean you necessarily agree with it. But I think 4 it is an acknowledgment that there is this 5 attainment, or attempt to attain best practices. 6 The World Commission on Dams report describes a 7 set of guidelines for good practices on getting 8 the principle, or on implementing the principle of 9 free, prior, and informed consent. And it says 10 this, and this may be applicable to South Indian 11 Lake, as well as all throughout the region. It 12 says, 13 "Indigenous and tribal peoples are not 14 homogenous entities, such as an 15 Aboriginal community. The manner of 16 expressing consent with be guided by 17 customary laws and by the practices of 18 the indigenous and tribal peoples and 19 by national laws. Effective 20 participation requires an appropriate 21 choice of community representatives 22 and a process of discussion and 23 negotiation between the community and 24 the external actors. At the beginning 25 of the process, the indigenous and 6054 1 tribal peoples will tell the 2 stakeholder how they will express 3 their consent to decisions, including 4 the endorsement of the key decisions." 5 So it is our peoples are the ones that decide what 6 are the institutions for consultation. 7 MR. DYSART: I tend to agree with 8 that, and that still needs to take place. I 9 didn't plan on coming here -- 10 MR. MAYER: You said that several 11 times. 12 MR. DYSART: Mr. Chartrand, your last 13 comment in your presentation, I understood the 14 context you were using about going to war. But if 15 that time does come, give me a call, I'm sure I 16 could round up a few of my First Nations brothers 17 and sisters and maybe a community or two to join 18 that fight, and maybe give honour to the history 19 of this Province, and even Western Canada, of the 20 alliance of MMF -- 21 THE CHAIRMAN: I think this is out of 22 order, Mr. Dysart, and it is not a question. So I 23 will cut you off at this point. 24 MR. DYSART: Thank you for allowing me 25 to question. 6055 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, Mr. Nepinak. 2 MR. NEPINAK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 3 President Chartrand, first, I want to 4 welcome you here, I'm very pleased to see you and 5 your panel. I just want to echo one of the 6 Commissioners that I think you did an excellent 7 job in your presentations here this afternoon and 8 this morning. 9 I just want to say that, you know, as 10 a First Nations member in this panel, and also in 11 this Commission, and also as a First Nations 12 proponent in this hearing -- and I'm going to base 13 my question on that -- we had Grand Chief White 14 Bird here yesterday from the Assembly of Manitoba 15 Chiefs, and you know, he made some comments. But 16 before I go into that -- that is going to be part 17 of my question, but before I go into that, I just 18 want to go back, you know. As I understood the 19 Metis Federation and the First Nations, and I 20 think we go back a long way, and I think the 21 relationship has been harmonious as one expressed 22 there by Mr. Dysart. And we had at one time, I 23 believe in the late 1950s, '58, '59, somewhere 24 there, we had our own Indian Metis conferences, 25 you know, dealing with the issues of the day in 6056 1 the Province, and of course National issues. And 2 I think out of that we chose to go our separate 3 ways, you know, to deal our issues in a different 4 manner, but supporting one another. 5 And I was fortunate to be one of the 6 observers in the patriation debate, and I think 7 your elder and your senator were present. And I 8 think, you know, it was definitely history in this 9 country, you know, when the Metis and the Innuit 10 were recognized in the Canadian constitution. So 11 we have supported one another throughout. 12 Now I want to go to our local area. 13 As you are well aware, for the Commission and for 14 those present, you know, we have joined resource 15 management areas. And again, you know those 16 areas, specifically traplines, were developed in 17 the '50s, you know, jointly, the Metis and First 18 Nations people. And we had Metis representation 19 on our side, First Nations, and so was yours on 20 the other side when the two fur blocks were 21 established in this Province. 22 In the early '80's we were asked to 23 attend a chiefs' conference here in Winnipeg, I 24 don't know how many chiefs were present, but I'm 25 sure your organization was present. And there was 6057 1 Provincial representation, I'm sure Federal, and 2 all types of industry. The issue was particularly 3 the north, you know, how we are going to 4 participate, or how the north, you know, in its 5 development. And I am sure it was because one of 6 the issues after the Northern Flood. And one of 7 the northern chiefs -- you know I always, I can 8 never forget this, it always sticks with me -- in 9 his speech and how First Nations and people like 10 yourselves, you know, were not involved. And the 11 term he used was, you know, now we see you coming. 12 And when I first was asked to sit in this 13 Commission, that is the first thing that came into 14 mind regarding the north. And I think it is 15 something that I will always remember, how the 16 First Nations and the Metis want to get involved 17 in northern development. 18 As we travelled north, Thompson and 19 The Pas, recently, one of the Swampy Cree chiefs 20 made a presentation. As he was leaving, he 21 pointed to the table and said, where were you 22 people in the '60s. The gentleman was from the 23 Grand Rapids area, and it certainly had effects 24 like in the Grand Rapids, like Mr. Morrisseau has 25 identified. 6058 1 And after all of these years, I 2 understand that they are coming into some kind of 3 an agreement, you know, as to how to work together 4 in the future with the corporation and perhaps the 5 Government of this Province. 6 The area that I understand has come to 7 be the traditional area, and as you are aware, 8 President Chartrand, you know, we, the way we, I 9 guess, look after our own traditional resource use 10 areas that, you know, how our people work 11 together. And I travelled north, and listening, 12 and it must be working, they must be working as we 13 are. And I like to think that way that, you know, 14 in order to benefit today, and to correct in some 15 way the devastation that has occurred perhaps 16 through the northern flood -- I guess my question, 17 Mr. Chartrand, is, I will just cut short here, 18 when the Grand Chief was here, you know, he 19 expressed on record to the Commission, you know, 20 the Lake Winnipeg/Churchill/Nelson River project 21 had its devastating impacts to First Nations, 22 their way of life. First Nations had little voice 23 in the decision to go ahead, you know, as was 24 expressed by Elder Morrisseau -- little say in the 25 future or no control, there was huge impact in 6059 1 their home lands. And I think he made reference, 2 not reference, but for me I interpret -- my 3 question to you is, in the last paragraph on the 4 first page he says that economic recovery is what 5 NCN seeks, a future of economic independence, as 6 do all First Nations. NCN should have that 7 opportunity is his closing on that paragraph. 8 If you and your organization, 9 Mr. Chartrand -- and I know you will say you don't 10 wish to enter the court route or to blockades, I 11 think, you know, you and I know, and most people 12 in this room, what happens to that route. 13 Mr. Chartrand, if you were to find a mechanism in 14 dealing with the Province and the Hydro issue, are 15 you prepared to support NCN, as does the Grand 16 Chief and his organization? 17 MR. CHARTRAND: Thank you for your 18 question, Harvey. I think as you commenced this 19 sort of preamble towards, leading towards your 20 question, I think it is important that we do 21 reflect the past, and the wise words of the Chief 22 when he said, "now we see you coming." I think 23 that is something that we've talked about for a 24 long time, and for us it is an ongoing discussion 25 in our households and around our table, about the 6060 1 Metis -- we didn't even see them coming, when they 2 came and started doing what they did to our 3 economy and to our future. And we are still 4 feeling the negative effects of that, it will 5 continue, a generation has been affected. And 6 when I made the comments earlier in my statements 7 to the chair on behalf of all the committee, that 8 you are here to represent all of Manitoba, and I 9 know you were appointed by the Government, but 10 clearly your actions and your decisions will have 11 a long effect for years to come. 12 And when I listened to the Grand 13 Chief's recommendation, I just want to reflect, 14 when we were first -- to show you the positive 15 attitude of the Federation -- and we have a member 16 of NCN here, a council member, and he can echo 17 this and no one can ever deny this, because I made 18 it very plain and very blunt to NCN, that the 19 negotiations that we were left in the dark on, and 20 the entire Wuskwatim project, and we were 21 completely left out and we didn't even know it was 22 happening until it came, we didn't even see them 23 coming, Harvey. And this was happening, of 24 course, in closed door sessions, you might as well 25 use that phrase, with the NCN band and the five 6061 1 Cree bands is what they reference in the future, 2 but the key effect they wanted is the support of 3 the NCN. 4 NCN negotiated -- I will give an 5 example on the training initiative -- that 6 60 million would be accessed to develop Aboriginal 7 peoples so that they can get jobs, meaningful 8 jobs, not as they did to us in Limestone, we 9 became the power saws and brush clearers, and the 10 rest of the non-Aboriginal society moved in from 11 the big urban centres and took all of the good 12 jobs and we ended up with nothing. We said we 13 would never do that and let that happen to us 14 again as a people. 15 Ncn, and I give them credit in the 16 negotiations that they were able to capture this 17 particular training initiative. And when I met 18 with the Chief, Jerry, and had a positive chat 19 with Jerry and some of his councillors, I also met 20 the other chiefs of the five Cree -- I was at 21 the -- I took a position on behalf of my people in 22 Manitoba that under the training initiative, 23 because I felt we needed to be involved in the 24 consultation just to look at the environment and 25 culture, that is a separate issue altogether. But 6062 1 on the training one, NCN negotiated a private deal 2 with Hydro, that 60 million, that they would have 3 full authority of 75 percent of the 60 million, 4 that the remaining 15 million would be the rest 5 for the Aboriginal people, and the five Cree bands 6 would have the right to decide where that 7 15 million would go. Some of that changed, the 8 dynamics of that remaining 25 percent changed, 9 that the five Cree bands wouldn't have the final 10 say where it went. 11 But I took a position very positively, 12 because I sat done and met the Chief and met NCN, 13 and I said, you know what, if I was a Chief and in 14 your territory, I would have did the same thing 15 you did to negotiate the deal, as much money as I 16 can get for training dollars for my people. But 17 I'm very very concerned for the Metis side that we 18 have been left completely out. 19 There is 15 million left out of that 20 60 million. The Metis Federation will try and 21 access 10 million. We will support your 22 initiative because we believe we don't want to 23 stop all of the work that you have done now for 24 how many years. There was sort of a nod of 25 agreement, but never a solid commitment that would 6063 1 come forward. But I took a proactive approach, 2 Harvey, very proactive. I could have said, forget 3 it, I want 50 percent of the 60 million, and start 4 a war or start a fight with the First Nations. I 5 took the opposite approach. I said keep your 6 75 percent, you negotiated that in good faith, 7 Hydro is the one that decided to leave us out, we 8 will not interfere with the success of that 9 negotiation. 10 Instead of doing that, we are left now 11 on the outskirts, where the Province said we are 12 not giving you 10 million, we are going to give 13 you five. And we said how can five be sufficient 14 for the amount -- I already gave up everything, I 15 could have been fighting you and I didn't, I took 16 the positive approach. I wanted to show -- as you 17 said, we worked as partners, we worked as 18 government, and I wanted to show that I'm in 19 support of the First Nations growth, because they 20 are challenged with economic development just as 21 we are. 22 And NCN can never deny that is the 23 approach I took immediately as leader on behalf of 24 my people, only to find that I would be shoved to 25 the side later, and I didn't find NCN or anybody 6064 1 coming to my side after I went on their side to 2 help them. 3 I look now where things have gone, 4 Harvey, and I asked myself, you know, we have gone 5 and grown since the '60s, First Nations Government 6 have grown, the development of their 7 infrastructure, the capabilities of their 8 negotiating ability has grown, the litigation 9 strength has grown after winning many different 10 rights based arguments in courts. And the Metis 11 have grown, we have also grown. We are further 12 behind than the First Nations because they are 13 ahead of us in litigations, but we are coming and 14 we are coming fast and we are coming hard. 15 What the problem is here, Harvey, is 16 this; Hydro hasn't grown. Hydro's policies still 17 exist in the '60s. While we have grown as 18 governments, Aboriginal governments, Hydro's 19 policies still use, I will use the analogy of 1960 20 policies of how to deal with Aboriginal people. 21 It doesn't work that way any more. Our people are 22 getting more educated and more advanced, and we 23 know our rights and we know what effects we should 24 have. And they are not going to just do what they 25 did, like Mr. Morrisseau said, come with a 6065 1 bulldozer one day and just take over and plow down 2 the houses to make room for a future development. 3 Our nation is no different than the 4 First Nations in many aspects regarding what we 5 want to see happening. We too want to see 6 economic recovery. The fishing industry is taking 7 a disastrous-, in Waterhen and all of the other 8 lakes, the north comes back to haunt us in regards 9 to the dams. Fairford dam has done damage beyond 10 explanation. 11 The sad part about it is I -- the 12 first ever in history, western commercial fishing 13 conference, myself and Chief Ron Evans in 14 Winnipeg. I asked Hydro to participate, because 15 you have a direct effect on the fish and we need 16 to look at solutions. Hydro said it is not my 17 responsibility, it is not my jurisdiction, 18 fishing, go see the Department of Natural 19 Resources or DFO. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Chartrand -- 21 MR. CHARTRAND: Mr. Chairman, I want 22 to show a point here and I will shut up right 23 away. 24 They sent me a cheque for $1,500 and 25 said, that is our contribution to your conference. 6066 1 I sent it back and said you must need it more than 2 I, keep it. And the conference went ahead. 3 I'm at a standpoint as a people, and 4 the question that Harvey poses is not an easy one, 5 Mr. Chair. It is one, what do the Metis people 6 want, and why are we doing what we are doing now 7 today to try and defend ourselves? Well, we know 8 what was done to us in the past and we know what 9 is going to happen to us here. If we are not 10 consulted and we don't have the opportunity to at 11 least express the issues of the direct damage that 12 will happen to us, and the long term effect it 13 will have on our people and generations to come, 14 there is no turning back. You can't turn back 15 history. 16 And the decision that you will make, 17 Harvey, along with your colleagues, is one that 18 will have an impact, not only on me, it will 19 impact on NCN directly, if you look at South 20 Indian Lake, it will be affected. If you look at 21 all around the whole area, it is going to have an 22 effect, somehow it is going to trickle down to us. 23 And if we can't look at if from the context of how 24 it affects our future, and we can't say to 25 ourselves openly and consciously that we know the 6067 1 decision we make as a Commission will not affect 2 the Metis people, then you support -- if you sit 3 down, however many are on the Commission, and come 4 to the conclusion that there will be no effect to 5 the Metis people, that there be no process in 6 place, that you feel that the Metis have been 7 properly consulted, and that there will be no long 8 term effects to the Metis people on the impacts 9 that we echoed on the components, then you support 10 that the dam go ahead. But in your minds and your 11 hearts I know you will see clearly by the evidence 12 presented to you today, that is not the case, and 13 you will do the right thing, Harvey, on behalf of 14 the Aboriginal people, you will stand by and 15 protect the Metis people, and we will work 16 together as one again. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: We will take a very 18 short break. Ten minutes is reasonable. 19 MR. CHARTRAND: Our lawyer has to 20 catch a plain at 5:45, and I heard Robert say he 21 has to catch one too. Is there many people that 22 are going to ask questions that we would need our 23 lawyer here, that's what I am interested in, if 24 lawyers are going to ask questions, I want my 25 lawyer here. 6068 1 THE CHAIRMAN: As soon as we come from 2 the break, we will give them a chance. 3 4 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 3:30 P.M. 5 AND RECONVENED AT 3:45 P.M.) 6 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, 8 we are about ready to start again. Ms. Matthews 9 Lemieux. 10 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Thank you. 11 Before I start in terms of just asking a few basic 12 questions, one of the things I'm going to mention 13 is that I found it interesting when you spoke, Ms. 14 Teillet, about both the English and the French in 15 terms of the cultural heritage of the Metis, and 16 that is one of the reasons there was both a French 17 and English lawyer for Louis Riel, is that right? 18 MS. TEILLET: That is news to me. 19 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Well, it is 20 actually one that has been of interest to me, 21 because Francois Xavier Lemieux was the French 22 lawyer for Louis Riel, so it is one that's part of 23 our family history. 24 Leaving that aside I will go on and 25 ask the next questions. In terms of the northern 6069 1 region and the membership, you indicated there is 2 3,000 members of the MMF approximately within the 3 northern region, I think Mr. Montgomery or Mr. 4 Chartrand. 5 MR. CHARTRAND: Sorry? 6 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: The number 7 3,000, there is 3,000 within the generating 8 station area, Metis, who belong to the MMF; is 9 that correct? 10 MR. CHARTRAND: Yes, who are adults, 11 18 and over. 12 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: These would be 13 people who could vote for the leadership? 14 MR. CHARTRAND: Yes. 15 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: In terms of the 16 membership records, I am just trying to sort this 17 out, exactly how many members are there who are 18 part of the MMF? 19 MR. CHARTRAND: 36,000, 18 and over, 20 voting members. 21 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: 36,000 voting 22 members 18 and over. How many of those would be 23 in Northern Manitoba? 24 MR. CHARTRAND: Depends on what you 25 mean by Northern Manitoba. The third parallel? 6070 1 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Yes. 2 MR. CHARTRAND: To be honest with you, 3 I don't have the exact numbers in front of me. I 4 can get you the numbers if you want. 5 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: The only reason 6 that I'm asking is because there has been 7 difficulty sorting out exactly how many people are 8 members of the MMF who are voting members, is that 9 correct? There has been some difficulty sorting 10 out exactly how many members are voting members of 11 the MMF? 12 MR. CHARTRAND: No. 13 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: In the 14 participant assistance application I believe it 15 was indicated there was 40,000. Is that not 16 voting members, or is that all members? 17 MR. CHARTRAND: If you look -- I want 18 to go to actual members. These are just voting 19 members. If you look at the text of how much 20 Metis people actually exist in Manitoba, it has 21 been quoted as over 100,000 Metis exist in 22 Manitoba, if you count the children and everybody 23 else in there. 24 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Is it your 25 position that those are all members of the MMF? 6071 1 MR. CHARTRAND: We speak on behalf of 2 all Metis in this province. In fact, if I may 3 state, we are the only Aboriginal organization in 4 Canada that has a ballot box election province 5 wide. 6 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: In terms of the 7 election province-wide, there were some problems 8 in terms of the membership in terms of the last 9 election, correct? 10 MR. CHARTRAND: I think there is 11 problems in every voters list in Canada, whether 12 it is Canadian Federal elections, provincial 13 elections, municipal elections or MMF, people pass 14 on and electoral lists are put in place and the 15 list goes on and on why there would be challenges 16 to any electoral list. 17 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Okay. Ms. 18 Teillet, I understand from what you indicated in 19 your evidence that you gave a definition for the 20 Metis. And you indicated that that definition has 21 been accepted by the MMF, is that correct? 22 MS. TEILLET: Yes. 23 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Now, you have 24 also written that there are different definitions 25 for different purposes, is that correct? 6072 1 Different definitions of the Metis for different 2 purposes? 3 MS. TEILLET: Where are you suggesting 4 that I wrote that? 5 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Well, there is 6 an article, the Supreme Court of Canada, this is 7 the Metis law summary 2003, volume 2, and in that 8 particular article under the heading Who Are the 9 Metis, in section 35, in that particular article 10 you've delineated that there are different 11 definitions of Metis. 12 MS. TEILLET: Can you quote that to 13 me? I don't recall writing that I said that there 14 are different definitions of Metis for different 15 purposes, but maybe you can refresh my memory. 16 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Who are the 17 Metis in section 35, and this is where you are 18 discussing the Powley decision and you say the 19 court made a distinction between Metis identity 20 generally for citizenship, cultural purposes and 21 Metis rights holders. The Supreme Court of 22 Canada's decision only relates to Metis rights 23 holders. The court did not set out a 24 comprehensive definition of Metis for all 25 purposes. Instead the court set out who the Metis 6073 1 are for the purposes of section 35. 2 MS. TEILLET: Okay. I didn't think I 3 had said exactly that, and I don't think that 4 statement says that. I think what that says is 5 that the court was defining -- actually the court 6 didn't define the Metis. The court went out of 7 its way to say we are not going to define the 8 Metis, but by giving general guidance we will say 9 that to self identify, you have to be of Metis 10 heritage or genealogically connected to the 11 Aboriginal community and you have to be accepted. 12 And what we were trying to distinguish there was 13 that we didn't believe it is the job of the courts 14 or the proper place of the courts to define the 15 Metis people. And so those are broad 16 characteristics. It isn't what I would call a 17 definition of the Metis people, it is broad, which 18 is self identification, ancestry, and community 19 acceptance. But that could be the same definition 20 that you could use for any Aboriginal people 21 anywhere across the world. So I think that what 22 we are saying is that we think it is absolutely 23 within the self-governing role of an Aboriginal 24 people to define themselves. So that is what we 25 are talking about. We are not trying to say there 6074 1 is a definition of Metis for hunting purposes and 2 there is a definition of Metis for HRDC purposes, 3 or there is a definition of Metis for census 4 Canada purposes. We are not saying that at all, 5 and that is not what that is intended to say. 6 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: But you did 7 write here, though, that the court did not set out 8 a comprehensive definition for all purposes. 9 MS. TEILLET: Yes. And I think I just 10 reiterated that. And we asked them not to because 11 we don't think it is the court's role to do it. 12 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Now, I think it 13 was Mr. Chartrand who indicated that the locals 14 are conduits to the members, is that correct? 15 MR. CHARTRAND: Yes. 16 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: And you also 17 indicated that some locals are not active. And 18 I'm just wondering which ones in the north would 19 not be active? 20 MR. CHARTRAND: Well again, I can 21 probably get that back to you. I don't know 22 offhand which local would we consider -- you have 23 to have four meetings a year. And a meeting may 24 happen, if you have two meetings instead of four 25 they can be considered non-active. So I would 6075 1 have to look at the stats or numbers in my office 2 to find out that particular question. That is an 3 unusual question to be asking anyway. 4 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: That was part 5 of your evidence that some of the locals were not 6 active, and I'm trying to understand which ones 7 are not active. 8 MR. CHARTRAND: There are still 9 leaders, there are still elected bodies, there are 10 still the chair, there is still the executive of 11 the local, you don't call them president. The 12 locals however have to follow in the guidelines of 13 the constitution which states they have to have 14 four meetings a year. If they don't have four, 15 they are considered non-active and then dialogue 16 happens with them. 17 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: During the 18 course of the year, do they receive correspondence 19 in between the meetings? 20 MR. CHARTRAND: They receive 21 correspondence on a regular basis from our office 22 pertaining to issues that we are moving on. For 23 example, assembly, we are having one in September, 24 a letter will go out to every local advising of 25 the meeting in September, inactive or active. 6076 1 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: In terms of the 2 workshops that were held, did you attend the 3 workshops? 4 MR. CHARTRAND: No, I didn't. I got 5 an administer of chair. 6 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Is that Mr. 7 Benoit that attended those meetings, the 8 workshops? 9 MR. CHARTRAND: As a technician he 10 definitely attended the meetings, yes. 11 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: In terms of the 12 workshops that were held, I understand from 13 reading the material that you filed, that the 14 executive summary of the EIS was presented at that 15 meeting, is that right, Mr. Benoit? 16 MR. A. BENOIT: Yes, the brochure that 17 NCN and Hydro had made available. 18 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: You didn't 19 request NCN or Hydro representatives to attend the 20 meetings to explain the project in greater detail, 21 did you? 22 MR. A. BENOIT: No. In fact, in The 23 Pas region, for instance, when an NCN member 24 entered the room, people were very cautious of 25 speaking in front of NCN and I presume that would 6077 1 be the same for Hydro. 2 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Other than 3 providing them with the information about the 4 overview, was there any other information provided 5 them about the project? 6 MR. A. BENOIT: What we did is we used 7 materials that were made available to us. People 8 asked questions. Sometimes that material was not 9 available inside of the brochure. And with the 10 limited resources that we have, we at the moment 11 don't have the ability to go into more in-depth 12 studies in order to find answers to everyone's 13 questions. 14 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Did you make 15 available to them the entire EIS? That was made 16 available to you, I understand. 17 MR. A. BENOIT: Well, the entire EIS 18 we do have it and, yes, it is considerable. And 19 in fact I'm quite sure that it has a lot of many 20 uses. For people who are semi-literate it is not 21 very useful in getting information out to the 22 public. 23 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: What about the 24 newsletters that were provided to the MMF? Did 25 you provide those at the workshops? 6078 1 MR. A. BENOIT: Newsletters -- are you 2 sure you sent them and we received them? 3 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Let's go back. 4 Did you receive the round 1 and round 2 PIP 5 newsletters? 6 MR. A. BENOIT: I'm not too sure I 7 understand. 8 MR. CHARTRAND: Received it from whom? 9 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Well, that is 10 what I'm just going to get to in a minute. What I 11 have is that I have copies of correspondence going 12 back to 2002, that were sent to Senator Ed Head, 13 who I understand Mr. Benoit read a presentation on 14 today, so he is certainly involved in the 15 organization I gather. There was a letter to Judy 16 Mayer as vice president of the MMF in The Pas, 17 there is another one to Mr. Darryl Montgomery, and 18 these are all dated April 22 of 2002, and that is 19 another one to, as I say, Mr. Darryl Montgomery, 20 who I understood was a board member of the 21 Thompson local at that time. And there was also a 22 letter dated the same date to yourself, Mr. 23 Chartrand. 24 MR. A. BENOIT: I would like to answer 25 that. In fact, when I was going through your 6079 1 materials and there was -- there is two parts, one 2 about letters being sent out, I understood it 3 being invitations. And I did speak to, as I'm 4 recalling from memory here, I don't have my notes, 5 I spoke to Mr. Montgomery and I spoke to Judy 6 Mayer and Senator Head, and they were not aware of 7 actually receiving those materials. 8 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: So your 9 evidence is that nobody at the MMF, in terms of 10 people that I have mentioned, received letters 11 explaining to them that there were going to be 12 these public meetings where further information 13 could be obtained about the projects? 14 MR. A. BENOIT: No, I didn't say that. 15 It is possible that you did send it. It is 16 possible that it ended up at, you know, someone's 17 office. 18 MR. CHARTRAND: Can I interject for a 19 second? I feel very uncomfortable here because I 20 don't know what you are talking about. If I had a 21 letter in front of me, maybe if I read it I would 22 know if I did see it in my office, and I will be 23 very sincere, if I did see it, I will tell you. I 24 don't know what you are talking about. It would 25 be great if I can see this letter. And who did it 6080 1 come from? I asked that question earlier. 2 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Sorry, I didn't 3 hear you. It came from Ed Wojczynski and William 4 Elvis Thomas. 5 MR. CHARTRAND: I don't ever remember 6 seeing a letter. But can I see, please? 7 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Sure. Mr. 8 Montgomery, is the address correct, 44 Copper 9 Road? 10 MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes. 11 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: That is the MMF 12 address in Thompson. And Mr. Chartrand, 3rd 13 floor, 150 Henry Avenue? 14 MR. CHARTRAND: Yes, it is. 15 MR. A. BENOIT: Excuse me, did you 16 send that registered mail at all? 17 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: I would have to 18 check on that. 19 MR. A. BENOIT: Okay. 20 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Judy Mayer, and 21 it is a box number, box 2467? You don't know if 22 that is the correct address. Okay. And Senator 23 Ed Head was 623-185 Smith Street. 24 MR. CHARTRAND: I don't know his 25 personal address, but I could probably get it. 6081 1 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Now, your 2 position then is that you never received any of 3 that correspondence? 4 MR. A. BENOIT: As I said, I just -- 5 when I saw in the materials that you had this list 6 of people that were invited or participated in 7 these open houses, I did inquire to Darryl and 8 others, and they weren't aware of the invitation 9 proper, no. 10 MR. MONTGOMERY: As I indicated 11 earlier, when Leslie asked a question, I did 12 attend the open house in Thompson. And I made 13 that clear when Leslie presented. 14 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Okay. In terms 15 of the attendance, because what I have in terms of 16 the record is that you attended the round 3 open 17 house in Thompson, would that be correct? 18 MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I know I 19 attended. I don't know what round it was, but I 20 attended an open house in Thompson and I had 21 asked -- I wrote down and requested information 22 from that round two or round three consultation. 23 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: While you have 24 got the microphone, maybe I could ask you a couple 25 of other questions. I was curious about 6082 1 something. You indicated that Leslie Dysart is 2 your first cousin, is that right? Leslie and you 3 are first cousins? 4 MR. MONTGOMERY: You are going to have 5 to take me to court for me to answer that. It 6 doesn't feel very good, does it? No, he is my 7 cousin. 8 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: I thought I 9 understood you to say that you had the same 10 grandfather, is that right? 11 MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes. 12 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Now, your 13 grandfather I gather would have taken you out on 14 the land to teach you how to hunt, trap and fish, 15 is that right? 16 MR. MONTGOMERY: No, I learned from my 17 uncles. 18 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: So not from 19 your grandfather? 20 MR. MONTGOMERY: No. 21 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Did your 22 grandfather live in South Indian Lake? 23 MR. MONTGOMERY: Until like I said in 24 my presentation there was no opportunity, nor 25 resources in the community to take care of him, so 6083 1 he had to live the remainder of his last year in 2 Lynn Lake. 3 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: But when you 4 were younger, he was still living in South Indian 5 Lake? 6 MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes, he was there. 7 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: And in terms of 8 any -- so you are saying that he never did teach 9 you how to hunt, trap or fish? 10 MR. MONTGOMERY: No, he taught my 11 uncles and they taught me. 12 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Okay. Did 13 Leslie ever go out with you when your uncles were 14 teaching you? 15 MR. MONTGOMERY: I think we went goose 16 hunting one time. 17 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Did you ever go 18 fishing with Leslie? 19 MS. TEILLET: Mr. Chairman, is there 20 some point to these questions? Are we attempting 21 to do the consultation here at the public meeting? 22 Really, what is going on here. 23 MR. MAYER: Better late than never. 24 MS. TEILLET: Are we going to sit here 25 and have everybody grilled about their family and 6084 1 their fishing and hunting practices so that then 2 NCN and Hydro can turn around and say, well, we 3 have got all of the information now. 4 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: I think I'm 5 entitled to ask questions. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: I was just going to say 7 that those are just a few questions that have been 8 asked so far, and we have listened to lengthy 9 presentations, so be patient. 10 MR. CHARTRAND: Go ahead ask me who my 11 cousin is. 12 MS. TEILLET: I will tell you all 13 about my family too if you want. 14 MR. MONTGOMERY: The only concern that 15 I have, and I'm glad to have a lawyer, is if this 16 is going to be -- this is all public documents, I 17 don't know that I should be admitting that I went 18 hunting, because -- 19 MR. MAYER: Don't finish that 20 sentence. 21 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: So you were 22 indicating that you've gone goose hunting you can 23 remember at least once with Mr. Dysart. What 24 about any others? 25 MR. MONTGOMERY: I took pictures, I 6085 1 didn't shoot. 2 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Okay. And also 3 with other members of your family, you said I 4 think there were 12 that were Bill C31 I think is 5 how you described them, is that right? 6 MR. MONTGOMERY: No. 7 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: I think you 8 said there were members of your family -- 9 MR. MONTGOMERY: I think the majority 10 of them have gotten their Bill C31. It is funny 11 because when I say 17, when I talk to my mom and I 12 talk to my uncles, they have debates on how many 13 kids. They have talked about exactly how many 14 kids and so -- 15 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: And you 16 yourself have not applied to become an NCN member? 17 MR. MONTGOMERY: No. 18 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: But what you 19 are indicating is in terms of the rest of the 20 family, at least the 12 out of the 17, those, that 21 part of the family have all become NCN members, is 22 that right? 23 MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I have five 24 sisters. They are just asking me if they are NCN 25 members, or if they are registered under -- 6086 1 MS. TEILLET: You do understand that 2 registry under the Indian Act is not synonymous 3 with registry with the band. There is a general 4 registry list, and not everybody who is registered 5 as an Indian under the Indian Act is a member of a 6 band, and we have no information as to how that 7 happens because -- 8 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: That is not my 9 question. I'm quite sure that our client knows -- 10 MS. TEILLET: But you did ask if they 11 were members of the band as by way of asking about 12 the Indian Act. 13 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: I asked if they 14 were members of NCN. Do they consider themselves 15 to be NCN members? 16 MR. MONTGOMERY: The family members? 17 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Yes. 18 MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes, they are under 19 NCN I think. 20 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: All right. 21 Thank you. Now the remaining members of your 22 family, when we are talking about 17 out of the 23 family, there was 17 brothers and sisters, 12 who 24 decided to apply for membership as Bill C31. Now 25 what about the other five, they decided not to? 6087 1 MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes. I mean it is 2 quite the experience to go back and have 3 discussions about that exact topic, because there 4 have been specific family members that have chosen 5 not to apply and get their Bill C31. It is just a 6 personal decision that they've made and feel 7 strongly that, you know, they were a part of -- 8 you know, they lived the life for as long as they 9 have without the benefits of treaty status and 10 they feel strongly about it. 11 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Just in terms 12 of the, like the members of your family that have 13 applied to become NCN members as a result of Bill 14 C31 and the members of your family who have not, 15 and they have made, as you said, a very personal 16 choice not to be members of or apply for NCN 17 membership, I should say, what would be the 18 difference in the traditional knowledge between 19 the two sides of the family? 20 MR. MONTGOMERY: I will let Al answer 21 that. 22 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: No, I'm asking 23 you about your family. I'm just asking you about 24 your own family. Like, you've told us that part 25 of the family has made a decision, personal 6088 1 choice, not to become NCN members through the 2 vehicle that is open to them in Bill C31, and the 3 others have. So what is the difference in terms 4 of the traditional knowledge between the two sides 5 of your family? 6 MR. MONTGOMERY: I'm not sure exactly 7 how to answer that. But I will just say from my 8 experience I spent 22 years of my life trying to 9 figure out who I was. And I don't know if Chris 10 can attest to this, but I was considered a 11 mistigoshen (Cree Word) in South Indian Lake for 12 the longest time. I took exception to it and it 13 bothered me, until I started realizing and 14 associating with the Manitoba Metis Federation and 15 realized -- and including when I went out to 16 school and I attended high school in Winnipeg, 17 Manitoba, and I got the other side and was, you 18 know, discriminated against for being a little 19 darker, I guess. And it made me look and realize 20 that I was a Metis person and that, you know, that 21 I could benefit and utilize that to my advantage. 22 When it comes to traditional knowledge 23 I was very fortunate to have grown up with my 24 uncles and we can say post Bill C31, prior Bill 25 C31, but we, you know, I had learned a lot of 6089 1 traditional ways of hunting and fishing and 2 trapping. I don't know if that answers your 3 question or -- 4 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: The only other 5 point I want to ask you about your own family here 6 is that the uncles that you have explained to us 7 that you have learned from, are some of them then 8 Bill C31 and they are actually now NCN members and 9 some are not, or did they all become NCN members? 10 THE WITNESS: I think the ones that 11 applied for the Bill C31 applied through NCN. 12 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Okay. In terms 13 of the questionaries, Mr. Benoit -- maybe, Al 14 Benoit, you can help me on these ones. Can you 15 tell us who developed the questions? 16 MR. A. BENOIT: It was -- the 17 questions were internally generated within our 18 office. 19 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: By whom? 20 MR. A. BENOIT: By the staff. 21 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: And who 22 analyzed them? 23 MR. A. BENOIT: Again, it was by the 24 internal MMF staff. 25 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Now, in terms 6090 1 of the questionaries, maybe you could just get it 2 in front of you, this is part two of your 3 submission, there is a table in it. 4 MR. MAYER: What submission are we 5 referring to? 6 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: This is the MMF 7 submission that they filed, I believe it was in 8 February, I just don't remember the date, there 9 were two parts, part one and two, and there was a 10 table on the second and third page I have. It 11 shows the region, the date of the meetings, number 12 of participants, number of questionaries. 13 MR. A. BENOIT: I have it. 14 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: And I just have 15 a couple of questions about it. From looking at 16 this table, am I right that members from the 17 various locals attended more than one meeting or 18 could have attended more than one meeting? And 19 just to show you what I mean, for example, under 20 Thompson it shows that Thicket Portage members 21 attended from that local and then Thicket Portage 22 shows up again under Winnipeg. 23 MR. A. BENOIT: As I recall and, Dan, 24 you may correct me, is that there was no 25 duplication in the actual use of the materials. I 6091 1 think you are asking me if half a dozen people 2 went from one local, then went to another workshop 3 and sort of had a travelling show. 4 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: I'm not asking 5 if there was a traveling show. What I'm 6 interested in knowing is if there could have been 7 any overlap of attendees from one place to 8 another? 9 MR. A. BENOIT: I don't recall that 10 happening. 11 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: What about in 12 terms of the questionaries themselves? There is a 13 total of 173 surveys that were completed, 14 according to this document. Now, were there any 15 attempts made to ensure that people didn't fill 16 out more than one survey? 17 MR. A. BENOIT: What we did is we gave 18 people one and, yes, there was an attempt to make 19 sure they didn't fill out more than one. 20 People -- you have to realize that a lot of people 21 are illiterate. And, therefore, they had to have 22 someone assisting them in filling out the 23 application, because they can't read or write. 24 And as you can see, even with that attempt to 25 assist them, that there were a number of people 6092 1 who would not be able to do a written survey. But 2 they did make comments, and comments were taken 3 down from verbal, you know, when they sat up at a 4 table and said something. 5 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: And that was 6 recorded for them on the actual survey? 7 MR. A. BENOIT: We wrote it down and 8 you have got those in the book, yes. 9 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: And that is 10 included in the total number of 173. 11 MR. A. BENOIT: They would have 12 been -- if a person made a comment while they were 13 in the workshop and they were out of the larger 14 number, yes, their comment would have been written 15 down, if it was a comment that they wanted to have 16 recorded. 17 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Were there a 18 lot of people who indicated they didn't want to 19 complete them? There is quite a difference 20 between the attendees and the number of surveys. 21 MR. A. BENOIT: I don't know if it can 22 be looked upon that way. To get 173 surveys I 23 think is actually very successful. 24 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: I'm just asking 25 you, though, if there were a lot of people. 6093 1 Because according to the information it shows that 2 there were 282 attendees but only 173 surveys, and 3 I'm wondering why that was the case? 4 MR. A. BENOIT: I think I gave the 5 case there are individuals who won't fill out 6 surveys and there are individuals who can't read 7 and write and were too proud to ask people for 8 assistance. Those are the types of things that 9 are reality when you are out in the field. 10 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Now, as I 11 understood the evidence, and I don't recall, I 12 think it was Mr. Chartrand, following the 13 workshops, you indicated that there were a number 14 of questions that had been raised during the 15 course of these workshops. After the workshops, 16 did you go back and try and answer those questions 17 or try and obtain additional information to answer 18 them from NCN or Manitoba Hydro? 19 MR. A. BENOIT: Yes, I think that is 20 most appropriate -- coming back to myself. No, we 21 haven't gone out for a second round. It is always 22 our intention, and also to get the materials out, 23 we do that with our other work that we do, such as 24 our Commission on Metis laws on the hunt, we 25 attempt as much as possible to get the materials 6094 1 back out to the people. As you are well aware, 2 there is capacity issues and resource issues. And 3 we have not had adequate resources to go into 4 large scale consultations as there would be with 5 the First Nations that are working directly with 6 Hydro. 7 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: That wasn't my 8 question. My question was did you phone NCN or 9 Manitoba Hydro in order to request information to 10 be able to assist you to respond to the questions 11 that were raised during the workshops? 12 MR. A. BENOIT: No, we haven't. 13 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Thank you. I'm 14 just going to pose this question, and I guess you 15 can decide who you want to answer it. You will 16 agree with me that where there is a duty to 17 consult with Aboriginal people, there are 18 corresponding obligations on Aboriginal people? 19 MS. TEILLET: I agree it is not a one 20 way communication. That the duty to consult with 21 Aboriginal people has to be -- I think it has to 22 be -- the people who are asking for a consultation 23 have to have the meaningful intention of informing 24 themselves, and that means, as we said earlier in 25 our submissions, simple invitations to public open 6095 1 houses is not in our view and never was an 2 indication of a meaningful fulfillment of any kind 3 of obligation to consult, and nor does it 4 constitute even a meaningful invitation to sit 5 down and dialogue. 6 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Would you agree 7 with me, though, that an invitation is one way to 8 start discussion? 9 MS. TEILLET: An invitation to an open 10 house, no, I do not agree that is one way to start 11 a discussion with a distinct Aboriginal people, 12 no. 13 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Would you agree 14 that one of the obligations on Aboriginal peoples 15 is to learn about the project themselves? 16 MS. TEILLET: No, I would not put it 17 that way. What I would say is that that is 18 turning the obligation on its face. And I think 19 that was what was -- what I read out in that 20 Athabaska Chipewyan case, which was that the 21 burden is not on the intervenors to demonstrate 22 the adverse environmental impacts or to understand 23 the project. The onus is entirely on the 24 proponent. 25 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: So your 6096 1 position is that there is absolutely no 2 responsibility on the part of your clients to 3 learn about the project? 4 MS. TEILLET: I didn't say that. What 5 I said was that -- I didn't say that at all. But 6 I also think that is not the issue here. The 7 issue is whether Hydro has informed itself about 8 the Metis people, and I think what we said in our 9 earlier submissions was that it is a two step 10 obligation. One is to inform Aboriginal people 11 about the project and what it is going to do and 12 the second step is to inform itself about the 13 Aboriginal people. And what we said was even if 14 there is a possibility of saying that the 15 information was out there to fulfill step one, it 16 doesn't fulfill step two in any way, shape or 17 form. And you can't turn around and say it is all 18 the fault of the Aboriginal people for not 19 informing themselves about it. Especially when 20 they were only invited to open houses and public 21 meetings. 22 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Mr. Chartrand, 23 the meeting that you referred to with Chief 24 Primrose about the training issues, that meeting 25 was last August, is that the one that you are 6097 1 referring to? 2 MR. CHARTRAND: I don't know the exact 3 date. I can check my calendar. I met with 4 Mr. Primose on more than one occasion. 5 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Was that the 6 one that there was also Councillor Thomas in 7 attendance, Ezra Vogel, Bob Letterman and Bruce 8 Hicky, do you remember that meeting? 9 MR. CHARTRAND: I'm not good with 10 names. I know people's faces. I know he was 11 there anyway. There was several meetings. So it 12 depends on the exact -- We talked about this, 13 Jerry and I, more than once. 14 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: I want to make 15 sure I understood your response to Commissioner 16 Nepinak when he asked you whether you would be 17 willing to support the project if in fact there 18 was a way to deal with consultation. And I just 19 want to make sure that I understand what your 20 evidence was about this meeting that took place. 21 Now was it your evidence that what you were 22 requesting on behalf of the MMF, on behalf of your 23 people, was $10 million for training, and if you 24 received that $10 million then there would be 25 support for the project; is that what you are 6098 1 saying? 2 MR. CHARTRAND: That is not what I 3 said. 4 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: That is why I 5 want to understand. 6 MR. CHARTRAND: I will make it very 7 clear. The time frame for us -- the only reason 8 we were drawn into this discussion at all is 9 because Federal Canada raised a question to the 10 proponents making it very clear on this new 11 program that Canada has put in place called ASEP, 12 which they do matching funds. And it is for all 13 Aboriginal people. And Hydro and the Province of 14 Manitoba both put a submission together, along 15 with NCN, and in that submission they were asking 16 for matching funds. ASEP however raised the 17 question when looking at the proposal that there 18 was nothing to do with the Metis. So Canada said, 19 well, where are the Metis in this, and that is 20 when we were drawn into the picture. So the 21 discussion that I had with Mr. Primose was 22 basically all on the training. I was doing, I 23 would say respecting with the elected officials 24 that I was going to show my support on the 25 training area, nothing to do with the consulting. 6099 1 We were left completely out of that. That is a 2 separate issue altogether. But it was showing my 3 respect to the leadership that we could probably 4 find, as pointed out by Harvey, that we could find 5 a way to work together to make sure that 6 Aboriginal people get jobs here and learn from 7 Limestone what happened to us. That was the 8 discussion that took place. It had nothing to do 9 with consultation and I'm sure your colleague 10 beside you will tell you that very clearly. 11 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: I'm trying to 12 get the timing, because I understand that meeting 13 took place in August 2003, whereas the issues 14 related to the ASEP issues were later. 15 MR. CHARTRAND: I have a letter 16 written August 27 that I wrote to Jerry. 17 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: I have that 18 one. But there was one of November 12, 2003, that 19 you wrote to -- what I have got is Bob Brennan 20 which Chief Primrose received a copy of. And it 21 is in that letter that you talk about -- in fact 22 you say in our view the alternatives that you have 23 before you are quite simple, either return to the 24 compromise whereby the Metis would receive 25 10 million of the total 60 million that is being 6100 1 proposed for Aboriginal pre-project funding, or we 2 go back to the drawing board, pure and simple. 3 MR. CHARTRAND: That is about 4 pre-project training under ASEP. It is nothing to 5 do with consultation. This is about training in 6 jobs in Hydro in the future. 7 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: So, you saying 8 that the two of them aren't connected at all? 9 MR. CHARTRAND: Pardon me? 10 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: You are saying 11 the two of them are not connected at all then? 12 MR. CHARTRAND: Consultations and jobs 13 are two separate things. 14 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: I'm not clear 15 then as to your response to Commissioner Nepinak. 16 I thought in some way you were saying there had 17 been discussions at some point about your support 18 for the project, and you would be willing to 19 support the project if you received the monies for 20 the training. 21 MR. CHARTRAND: No. I indicated very 22 clearly, if you recall Mr. Nepinak's question was 23 the final conclusion of Grand Chief White Bird's 24 comment about the fact, I will try and quote it, I 25 wrote it down, I believe in the economic factors, 6101 1 would we be willing to support something in the 2 same context. We feel as if the same -- I'm 3 trying to find the exact words on my papers here. 4 But Mr. Nepinak was asking me about the basis of 5 Grand Chief White Bird's issues of economic -- I 6 can't remember the exact quote that you wrote on 7 Grand Chief's final comments, and I said clearly 8 that is our view too. We want to see -- because 9 this dam and the development of this dam may have 10 future economic devastations that we do not see 11 and the effects that it may have on us in the long 12 term. So that was addressing that particular 13 question, that page that was left according to Mr. 14 White Bird. 15 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: So when you 16 indicated there were these discussions with Chief 17 Primrose previously about support for the 18 projects, what were you referring to? 19 MR. CHARTRAND: To the training. 20 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: So you weren't 21 referring to the Wuskwatim project at all? 22 MR. CHARTRAND: I don't understand 23 your question. I will make it clear this way. We 24 were never discussing any agreement on 25 consultations because none of it happened for us. 6102 1 Any discussions that Mr. Primose and I have had 2 was on a professional matter, and it pertains to 3 the training that would come out of future 4 developments and particularly Wuskwatim, the jobs 5 that would come out of there, that is the 6 application on ASEP. And the only reason we are 7 there is because Canada said where are the Metis. 8 And it never was a trade off. I will make it 9 verry clear. 10 She is indicating to advise you that 11 there is no way ever there was a trade off that we 12 would get $10 million and we walk away if we get 13 consultations, never. 14 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Just for the 15 record, she being your lawyer is advising you? 16 MS. TEILLET: No, I would like to make 17 it clear what I was saying to my client, which was 18 that I was trying to make him understand what I 19 thought the gist of your question was, which was 20 was there is a trade off going on here, was that 21 what was being asked. And I wanted him to address 22 it to you. I'm not advising him to tell you that, 23 I'm asking him to inform you about the reality of 24 whether there was a trade off, and President 25 Chartrand will speak to that. 6103 1 MR. CHARTRAND: Yes, so if you want to 2 rephrase any question to me, go ahead. 3 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: The only 4 question I wanted to have for the record is who 5 she was, and your lawyer was -- 6 MR. CHARTRAND: As you heard, she 7 clarified that she wanted to make sure that I 8 understood the question that she believes you were 9 posing to me, and definitely there was no trade 10 off ever intended for this process. It was 11 clearly a discussion that Canada intervened and 12 asked the proponents why aren't the Metis included 13 in the training package, and that is where we have 14 been since square one, that is the only time that 15 we have been drawn in to be honest with you. 16 MR. MAYER: That is not what I 17 understood your comments to Mr. Nepinak to be. I 18 heard you very clearly say that when they cut it 19 back to five, I didn't see Chief Primose assisting 20 me. Those were your comments. 21 MR. CHARTRAND: Yes, that was on the 22 training. 23 MR. MAYER: Put it back to 24 Mr. Nepinak's question. He asked you if you had 25 the proper consultation, or if that could be 6104 1 resolved, would you support the project. Your 2 answer was, when they came back with the 5 million 3 instead of 10 million, I didn't see Jerry Primose 4 come to my defence. 5 MR. CHARTRAND: I will rationalize 6 your own statement. Let me rationalize. You said 7 and agreed to 100 percent, I said if there was 8 proper consultations, we didn't have any 9 consultations. The issue I was trying to address 10 to Mr. Nepinak was to advise him if there was ever 11 consultations, then this issue of the training 12 which was a separate matter, which Canada 13 intervened asking where are the Metis, that was 14 the only time we have been drawn into any 15 discussion with the future of Wuskwatim and the 16 effects it may have on us. 17 MR. MAYER: The record will speak for 18 itself. 19 MR. CHARTRAND: The record will speak 20 for itself, clearly. 21 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Just give me a 22 couple of minutes here. 23 MR. CHARTRAND: Mr. Chair, if I can, 24 Mr. Chair, let the record very clearly show, in 25 case Mr. Mayer misunderstood my comments to 6105 1 Mr. Nepinak, at no time did the Manitoba Metis 2 Federation ever negotiate that if we would get 3 $10 million, that we would not demand 4 consultations, never did that happen. And that is 5 a clear black and white issue for us and there has 6 never been a time that that happened. And if by 7 some chance, Mr. Mayer, my words were not properly 8 digested by some, in my own way that I have given 9 it, I apologize. But clearly never was there any 10 give and take on the situation. It was all to 11 address a training matter that was raised to us, 12 and only raised to us because Canada wouldn't fund 13 it unless the matter with Metis were addressed. 14 That is what draws the discussion with Jerry. 15 Otherwise I wouldn't even have bothered to have 16 been at the table with Jerry. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 18 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: We have no 19 other questions. Thank you. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: No other questions. 21 Some people have to take airplanes. I thank you. 22 Thank you all, thank you for the -- 23 MR. CHARTRAND: Mr. Chair, I would 24 like, on behalf again of the Metis people, thank 25 you for the patience and time that you have 6106 1 expressed and shown us today. Mr. Mayer asked a 2 question, if I can, on the question of the 3 differences in some of our cultural basis. I want 4 to leave a book here for the record for Mr. Mayer 5 and hopefully the Commissioners, and possibly try 6 and buy the book for every one of you. And it is 7 really a good book. It talks about the 8 difference, especially it talks about the 9 traditional words they use -- 10 MR. A. BENOIT: Medicine. 11 MR. CHARTRAND: Medicines and so 12 forth, that is what this book is about. I will 13 leave it for the record for you to have. I 14 believe it is called Aboriginal Plant use in 15 Canada's Northwest Boreal Forest. 16 MS. TEILLET: And if I may, the reason 17 that Mr. Chartrand wishes to leave it with you, is 18 it is published by Natural Resources Canada, and 19 it has, throughout the book it distinguishes the 20 natural resource plant use of the Metis from 21 Indians. It make a big distinction. And the 22 message to be take from it is that Metis resource 23 use, at least with respect to plants, is very 24 different from Indians. And we leave it with you 25 by way of example that if there was a similar 6107 1 study on all other aspects, it may be that we 2 would find significant differences in all resource 3 use for Metis people. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: I get that I was too 5 concerned about -- hold on a second. I did not 6 ask whether Mr. Bedford had questions or Mr. -- 7 no, okay. I thought there wasn't. All right. We 8 will proceed. That is fine then. 9 We thank you again for the lengthy 10 presentation with all of the information. And 11 before we go, we have to proceed with the closing 12 ceremony, as usual, and I will call -- 13 Mr. Bedford. 14 MR. BEDFORD: You have been asking me 15 all week about this undertaking. I won't speak to 16 it, I could just give it to Mr. Grewar and you can 17 take it home with you, how is that? 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, would you do that 19 right now and Mr. Grewar can maybe give it a file 20 number for the record? 21 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, there is 22 also still a matter about the document that was 23 just tendered, a book of some kind. I haven't 24 assigned it a number. I haven't seen it. Is it 25 to be entered as an exhibit? I'm not sure what 6108 1 its status is. 2 MR. THOMAS: Mr. Chairman, if I may, 3 our elder had to leave, but in honour of the 4 Metis, I would like to ask the Metis elder to come 5 and do our closing prayer for today. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 7 MR. MORRISSEAU: Thank you. Creator, 8 thank you for this day. Thank you for all of the 9 great information, and the sharing of information. 10 Let those who have to have decisions and 11 recommendations made look thoroughly at the 12 information that was provided today. And creator, 13 thank you for the life that you have provided us. 14 Thank you for all of the good things that you have 15 provided us. See after those who are in need and 16 help us on our way. Meegwetch. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: For those still around, 18 when we reconvene on the 25th it will be -- it 19 will be at the Sheraton hotel at 9:00 o'clock, not 20 this hotel. That is it. 21 22 (ADJOURNED AT 4:50 P.M.) 23 24