6434 1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION 2 3 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT 4 Volume 27 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 Wednesday, May 26, 2004 22 Sheraton Hotel 23 161 Donald Street 24 Winnipeg, Manitoba 25 6435 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 6436 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 6437 1 2 3 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 4 5 6 Trapline 18 7 Greg McIvor 8 Don McIvor 9 10 Tataskweyak Cree Nation 11 Victor Spence 12 13 14 15 Wellington Spence - Private 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6438 1 2 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 3 4 Number Page 5 18-1000: Video Presentation: 6 "Ferguson Creek Hydrological 7 Investigation" 6497 8 9 T18-1001: Clean Environment 10 Commission Wuskwatim Generation 11 Projectand Wuskwatim Transmission 12 Line Project. 13 Presentation by Greg and Donald McIvor, 14 Trap Line 18 and Trap line Area 430. 15 Additional Reference Materials 6498 16 17 T18-1002: Presentation Slides: 18 Clean Environment Commission Wuskwatim 19 Generation and Transmission Projects, May 20 26, 2004. Presentation by Greg McIvor and 21 Donald McIvor, Trap Line 18 and Wobowden 22 Registered Trap Line Area 430 6498 23 24 25 6439 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 3 4 MC-1004: Undertaking MC-80: 5 Advise which recommendations from What 6 You Told Us document were not implemented 7 and provide reasons why 6527 8 9 MC-1005: Undertaking MC-82: 10 Inquire of Ms. Hickson if she reviewed 11 seven items and provide results of 12 review 6527 13 14 TCN-1000: Tataskweyak Cree 15 Nation presentation by Mr. Spence 6548 16 17 MH/NCN-1042: Record for Trapline Holders for 18 Trapline 18 6550 19 20 MH/NCN 1043: Letter, April 22, 2004 from Ken 21 Adams to Gary Kubly, letter, 22 March 12, 2004, from Tim Sale and 23 Eric Robinson to Ellen Anderson, 24 Minnesota Senate, with Excerpt 25 from Hansard 6643 6440 1 2 3 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS 4 5 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE 6 7 8 9 MH/NCN 90: Provide copies of updated terms 10 of water regime alterations 6558 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6441 1 WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 2004 2 Upon commencing at 9:08 a.m. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning, ladies and 5 gentlemen. The only person who seems to be not on 6 time this morning is me so let's correct that 7 immediately and get on with it. 8 Mr. Grewar, you have some changes or 9 corrections to make in regards to the filings? 10 MR. GREWAR: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My 11 apologies. The exhibit numbers went quite off kilter 12 yesterday. It was a computer error where I was using 13 two different files on two different computers and so 14 I ended up using numbers twice. I've now, I think, 15 sorted out everything. And so if you'll bear with 16 me, I'd just like to read into the record the 17 corrections to the assignment of certain exhibit 18 numbers yesterday. 19 Starting with the exhibits for the MMF, 20 the Manitoba Metis Federation, the first one I'd like 21 to correct is MMF-1001, it now becomes MMF-1003. And 22 that is the summary of results from Wuskwatim 23 workshops, MMF-1003. 24 The next logical correction would be MMF 25 1002 becomes MMF-1004. And that's the Manitoba Metis 6442 1 Federation response to interrogatories CEC/MMF/EIS 1 2 to 7, that is now exhibit number MMF-1004. 3 And the final two are TREE exhibits, 4 TREE/RCM. And the first being TREE/RCM-1008 becomes 5 TREE/RCM-1009. And that is Wuskwatim advancement 6 with adjusted basic forecast. 7 And finally, Mr. Chairman, Exhibit 8 TREE/RCM 1009 becomes TREE/RCM 1010. And that is 9 Wuskwatim advancement with adjusted basic forecast 10 with 400 GWh revision. 11 So my apologies. I think that's now all 12 corrected in the record. One final note, Mr. 13 Chairman. Respecting the transcript is that at the 14 Commission's request and direction, the transcript 15 from yesterday has been prepared but not released. 16 We have asked Hydro and NCN to take a look at the 17 section that was causing some concern yesterday, that 18 they had requested to be stricken. They are going to 19 provide us later today with their request in the 20 sense of letting the Commissioners review the 21 transcript and determine what sections should be 22 excised, at which time we can advise the 23 transcription service who will carry out that and 24 ensure that those sections of the record that the 25 Commission would prefer excised is done so before 6443 1 it's posted. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. This is day 27 3 and our order paper says we will now hear Trapline 4 18. So, Mr. McIvor, it's your show. 5 MR. G. MCIVOR: It's May 26th today, 6 right? 7 MR. GREWAR: Yes, it is. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Day 27 of the hearings. 9 MR. G. MCIVOR: Oh, I thought you said 10 May 27. 11 MR. GREWAR: If I can get you each to 12 state your names for the record, please? 13 MR. D. MCIVOR: Donald McIvor. 14 MR. G. MCIVOR: Greg McIvor. 15 MR. GREWAR: Gentlemen, are you aware 16 that it is an offence in Manitoba to knowingly 17 mislead this Commission? 18 MR. D. MCIVOR: Yes. 19 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yes. 20 MR. GREWAR: Knowing this, do you promise 21 to tell only the truth in proceedings before the 22 Commission? 23 MR. D. MCIVOR: Yes. 24 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yes. 25 MR. GREWAR: Thank you very much, sirs. 6444 1 (DONALD MCIVOR: SWORN) 2 (GREG MCIVOR: SWORN) 3 4 MR. G. MCIVOR: Mr. Grewar, can you maybe 5 just tell me, what is the penalty for misleading this 6 hearing just in case, just in case I break my 7 promise. 8 MR. GREWAR: It would be an offence under 9 the Evidence Act and I wouldn't presume to know what 10 that penalty might be, but it is a part of our 11 legislation that the Commission's proceedings fall 12 under the Evidence Act. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: You get locked up in here 14 for the rest of your life. 15 MR. G. MCIVOR: Oh, no. All right. 16 Okay. What we're going to be doing is as I 17 understand the video that we are about to review form 18 parts of Manitoba Hydro and NCN's submission on 19 behalf of Trapline 18 for the Environmental Impact 20 Statement. So what I'd like to do is take you 21 through that video just to show you -- give you guys 22 an idea of where Trapline 18 is in Manitoba, what 23 Trapline 18 is, what it consists of in terms of 24 waterways, trees, shrubs, bogs, marsh, just those 25 types of things so you can visualize where, you know, 6445 1 as we continue with our presentation, what we're 2 talking about in terms of Trapline 18. 3 So with that, I'll ask the gentleman to 4 start the video. And while that's working its way 5 through the system here, one of the things I do want 6 to do for the folks to acknowledge here while they 7 are watching this video, Manitoba Hydro picked up my 8 brothers, Norman and Donald, at Setting Lake Wayside 9 Park which is a couple of kilometres from Wabowden on 10 the east side of Setting Lake, transported them up to 11 Trapline 18 and about half an hour later, brought 12 them back to Setting Lake Wayside Park, dropped them 13 off, took off to Thompson and gassed up. Fuelled up 14 the chopper, came back, picked them up again, left a 15 couple passengers behind at Setting Lake and 16 continued on with the, whatever they call it, 17 reconnaissance of Trapline 18. 18 So basically here we just crossed the 19 Setting Lake and are heading into the Grass River 20 system or along the Grass River system. And 21 hopefully it gets better than this. 22 This is actually the original video that 23 we received from Manitoba Hydro. There is no audio 24 to this so what I'm going to try to do is just 25 provide you with some idea of where we're going and 6446 1 what we are looking at. 2 Basically we're on Trapline number 3 of 3 the Wabowden registered trapline area. We've come to 4 the fork in the river that leads to the Grass River 5 on the left and to the Ferguson Creek directly in 6 front of us. 7 This was taken May 14th, 2003. So as you 8 know, there's been some drought in this province for 9 the last couple years. The water is pretty low and I 10 think when you look at this video, what you'll see 11 is, you know, a really accurate blueprint of the 12 waterways, streams, swamps, bogs, moss, moss areas, 13 fens, whatever you want to call them, in this whole 14 area. 15 MR. MAYER: Which river is that? 16 MR. G. MCIVOR: That's Ferguson Creek. 17 In this -- on Setting Lake, there was an old trading 18 post that belonged to the Hudson Bay Company. One of 19 the first explorers that came from Europe had a 20 trading post on Setting Lake right by Setting Lake 21 cottage owners, cottage development which is just, 22 you know, like three or four kilometers from Sasigui 23 Rapids. And on the mouth of the Grass River when we 24 cross Setting Lake to come on this trip, on the 25 right-hand side there used to be a little community 6447 1 or a community that was consisted of 100 per cent of 2 the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation members. And along 3 the Grassy where we came there, and at the mouth of 4 the Grassy, there's a graveyard, a couple of burial 5 sites along the Grassy that -- and also on Fish Creek 6 where the -- you know, there's a family member from 7 NCN buried there by the name of McDonald. 8 NCN at one point, their members, because 9 of the proximity to Wuskwatim, used to travel back 10 and forth from the Setting Lake area to the Wuskwatim 11 Lake where they did a lot of the trading and, you 12 know, those types of things with the Hudson Bay. 13 And, you know, Setting Lake at one time 14 was very productive in terms of fish, pickerel, 15 jackfish, whitefish, you know, all those types of 16 things. 17 So, you know, that just gives you an idea 18 of some of the history. And as you know, and Bob has 19 mentioned a couple times, that the Grass River is, 20 you know, a national canoe route. I don't know if 21 it's got its designation but it is a national canoe 22 route that people come up from all over the world to 23 travel. 24 So as we get into this area here, what 25 you're going to be looking at as we come around this 6448 1 corner is Trapline 18. You're going to be looking at 2 Goose Rapids and then just above that is Goose Falls 3 which is where the main cabin of Trapline 18 is 4 situated, on the northwest side of the falls. So 5 that's the trapline right in there. And you can see 6 our dock that we've had to extend a few times and 7 then take down a few times just to get away from the 8 water levels as they go up and down. But this is a 9 beautiful spot any time of the year. And that's why 10 we selected it for the site of our cabin. 11 So this is just to give you an idea why 12 people do the things they do. 13 MR. MAYER: Is that the falls or the 14 rapids? 15 MR. D. MCIVOR: That's the falls. Some 16 of those spruce trees that you're looking at are in 17 excess of 120, 130 feet high. The circumference at 18 the bottom could reach up to about 32 inches in 19 diameter. 20 Now we're heading down the Ferguson Creek 21 towards Trapline 18. What you're looking at is what 22 used to be some trees but, you know, through various 23 changes in the environment, you know, they had been 24 pushed back and forth and rubbed out and, you know, 25 that type of thing. So we lost a lot of vegetation 6449 1 and you'll see some new growth in that area as well. 2 What you see here is because of the low 3 water conditions, what the traditional level is right 4 about here along this, before it gets dark here on 5 the edge. So it's down, you know, probably three 6 feet, two or three feet at this point. 7 So we're going to be getting into the 8 Rocky Lake area. And you'll see as we go through 9 this, you'll see a couple of shots that show you the 10 panoramic landscape or horizon sort of thing. And if 11 you look hard enough, you can see Wuskwatim from 12 there, just a glimpse, you can catch a little glimpse 13 of it. We are not all that far by air. It's only 14 like 24 kilometres as straight as a crow flies. 15 And you've got to understand, too, we're 16 flying at about 2,000 feet on this flight. So some 17 of those trees you're looking at are actually taller 18 than they look. 19 Rocky Lake is where we initially started, 20 like where we had our cabin or our prospector's tent 21 basically which was, you know, wood construction the 22 first four feet and then we use a prospector's tent 23 over top. And it was on the other -- right in here 24 is where we used to have our main cabin. And this is 25 Ferguson Creek, this area here, this winding little 6450 1 river. 2 So you can see where the -- you know, 3 from the views, you know what the landscape looks 4 like as well. You could see the cuts in through the 5 forests and, you know, from other waterways. And a 6 lot of this area that you're looking at here is on 7 the north side of Trapline 18 as we fly west to the 8 NCN area. We've lost access to that area because of 9 fallen trees and debris and, you know, loss of use in 10 that area along that Nelson House, old Nelson House 11 winter road, you know, because of just the 12 conditions, you know, caused by water fluctuations. 13 So you can see a lot of the area where, 14 you know, there are trees that have been just kind of 15 plucked out of certain areas. This used to be all 16 forested. Now there's just a couple of trees here 17 and there. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Where it's bare and 19 there's no trees, what's that? 20 MR. G. MCIVOR: That's mostly silt, mud, 21 clay in this area here, and moss, you know, just 22 grass from this area here, willows, red willows. So 23 you can see that -- you know, on occasion, this area 24 that you see, some of these areas where it's been 25 burnt out, it looks like it's burnt out, when it 6451 1 floods, you can basically cut across all those little 2 winding areas. You can cut across there with a 40 3 horsepower, 16 foot Lund if you want, on occasion. 4 And it's like this area, for example, you can go 5 straight across from there to over here sort of thing 6 or further up, just because of the high water levels. 7 So you can see a lot of the effects of 8 something adjusting the environment on the river. 9 And it's not just a drought that created that in the 10 last couple of years. You know, it's just over time, 11 you know, I think changes in not only water levels 12 and the causes of high and low water levels, which 13 you'll see as we go through this, you know, how that 14 affected that whole environment, that whole terrain. 15 You can see a lot of this area here, you 16 can see Wuskwatim Lake way in the background there, 17 just north of this little lake that you'll see again 18 here. It's called Fox Lake and it's a lake that we 19 used to use. It's very close to the old Nelson House 20 road and we normally go up to Nelson House, cut 21 across to this end here and then travel back. 22 So you could -- like there's different 23 types of trees in this area as well, like vegetation, 24 a lot of tamaracks, you know, a lot of spruce, a lot 25 of poplar, aspen, jack pine. You know, just a whole 6452 1 broad selection of trees. 2 So in here what you'll see as well is, 3 you know, some beaver houses along the river. You 4 won't see a lot of them but the ones that you will 5 see are basically dead. You will see a few beaver 6 dams, not a lot. Some of the beaver dams that you're 7 going to see are actually trees across the creek and 8 just sort of continuous from one side to the other. 9 So they look like a beaver dam from 2,000 feet. You 10 could see all this area here along the creek but 11 there's also different creeks that feed into the 12 Ferguson Creek as well. 13 MS. AVERY KINEW: Is that still your 14 trapline? 15 MR. G. MCIVOR: That's still our 16 trapline, yeah. What I'll do towards the end is I'll 17 show you where our trapline ends and where NCN 18 trapline ends as well because we go to Trapline 63 19 and Trapline 64 within the NCN area. And we'll show 20 you those areas. 21 I do have some -- there's some little 22 maps here that were provided by Hydro just to show 23 you the chopper ride and it's the red line that shows 24 you where they took us by chopper and how it all fits 25 together. 6453 1 MR. MAYER: On this map, Don, the portion 2 of the lake and the large lake, are we looking at 3 Pakwa and Setting on the bottom left-hand corner? 4 MR. ABRA: Can you speak up, please? 5 MR. D. MCIVOR: Yeah, I went to the 6 junction or the Grass River or Ferguson when we went 7 over the lake just past Trapline number 3. 8 MR. G. MCIVOR: So you can see the 9 different colour in the water here, it's a little 10 darker than the brown that you're looking at this 11 stuff here. There's a little haze of water that are 12 a different colour from the main creek. You get blue 13 and you get brown. 14 Okay. Here's another little beaver dam. 15 The Ferguson Creek is down here and there's other 16 areas that feed in here, like Fox Lake, that Little 17 Fox Lake area. And there's Big Fox Lake as well. 18 It's further north of that. 19 A lot of these lakes, if you look at the 20 map, there are no names on them. So you know, if you 21 look for names as you go through this, you won't find 22 some of the names because there is none. 23 This area here is all good forest. The 24 clay and silt along the shorelines, you can see how 25 much the shore has eroded along the creek. You can 6454 1 see from side to side here what it looks like when 2 you are in a drought. 3 So you can tell why, you know, in the 4 early years, all we could use along this river was 5 about a 4 horse motor to get from one end to the 6 other. But on occasion, we've been able to throw 40s 7 and 30s, 18, 16 foot Lunds and you don't have to 8 worry about anything, just fly right through there. 9 So in a couple of seconds here, we'll be 10 taking a shortcut, getting beamed right to Setting 11 Lake in a few seconds here. 12 Right about now, we'll be turning and 13 heading back to Setting Lake landing and it's just 14 straight across. So it's not going to take too long 15 I don't think. 16 So this is just some of the area that is 17 south on the Trapline 18 area. And then you'll get 18 into Trapline 17 as well which is in the Rosenberry 19 Lake, Davis Creek area as well. Yeah, this is just 20 on our way back to Setting Lake. 21 MR. MAYER: Where are you taking off and 22 landing from, Greg? 23 MR. G. MCIVOR: Setting Lake Wayside Park 24 directly west of Wabowden. It's across from the gas 25 station. 6455 1 MR. MAYER: The one the community built 2 with its Hydro compensation? 3 MR. G. MCIVOR: The one that the 4 community built and then couldn't use because of the 5 Hydro compensation. 6 MR. MAYER: It was open this weekend by 7 the way. 8 MR. G. MCIVOR: Is that the deal that you 9 wrote up there, Bob? 10 MR. MAYER: I said it was open this 11 weekend. 12 MR. G. MCIVOR: Oh, I thought you said 13 you wrote up the deal on that. 14 This little trip back is about another 15 three minutes. So we'll have a look around, enjoy 16 the view. If you want anything to drink, coffee is 17 in the back. 18 MS. AVERY KINEW: That's still your 19 trapline? 20 MR. G. MCIVOR: That's Setting Lake here. 21 Here is the mouth of the Grassy here. This is the 22 mouth of the Grassy. Pakwa is back there. We're 23 heading back to Setting Lake, crossing the ice. 24 We're heading back to Setting Lake. Right at the 25 landing here, there used to be an old fish plant and 6456 1 ice house. There used to be a little community that 2 lived on this side of Setting Lake that you process 3 the fish and they had little houses back in the bush 4 here and the fish plant used to be located right 5 here, right on this point. There's a cement pad in 6 there that you can see. You know, so the big boats 7 would come in and just right up to the packing plant 8 that was located right here. I don't know if they 9 will do that any time soon. 10 This is a little tepee village that 11 the -- set up by the community. Oh, now we're back 12 on Ferguson Creek. See that, pretty quick. Don't 13 have to take that seven minute ride back. 14 So you can see all the swaths that are 15 cut through these forests here where the creek's 16 waterways were all the way through. I don't know 17 what happened there but we missed something. 18 So this is Ferguson Creek here. There's 19 that panoramic view looking for some mountains. I 20 don't see any. But Hydro's charts go like this, 21 showing you mountains in that area. Here's that 22 Little Fox Lake. And here's Wuskwatim right over 23 there. Wuskwatim is not that far. 24 Okay. If you look at your little map 25 there, I don't know if you can see the times on it, 6457 1 but there's a little lake up at the Ferguson Creek 2 west. This is what we call Ferguson Lake. So you 3 can see a lot of the shores dried up, the land, the 4 marsh, bog, it's just like it's been baked and 5 cracked. You see the different colours of water here 6 along the ways. We'll show you a little bit more of 7 that as we go along, a little beaver dam. 8 MR. MAYER: It would be a nice canoe trip 9 if you can access it from the top here. 10 MR. G. MCIVOR: You can. Just go to 11 Nelson House and you can come right across from the 12 south end of Three Point Lake to Old Burntwood, you 13 can come right in there. We'll even make you 14 breakfast. You can see that in that area there 15 there's two different colours of water. There's a 16 little sort of like a little, not a beaver dam but 17 there's a barrier between two waterways, different 18 water sources. One is blue, the other is a little 19 bit darker. 20 This is -- we're heading into -- and if 21 you see the video jump once in a while and the 22 scenery has changed, it's because this video has been 23 edited as well, not by us. I did hand out a little 24 piece of paper that shows you where the edits are. 25 You can see a lot of the trees falling into the river 6458 1 or dying and falling into the creek. So what ends up 2 happening is you have to cut those out with power 3 saws and whether you are in a boat or on a skidoo. 4 Back in the early seventies, this line 5 was one of the most productive lines in the Wabowden 6 registered trapline area. My brother had won some 7 awards for production that were offered by the Hudson 8 Bay Company who used to buy the furs at that time. 9 Around 1970 in this area here, 1978 I 10 should say, when lynx prices varied from $200, $300 11 to $1,400, $1,500 a pelt on Trapline 18, we harvested 12 close to 87 pelts that year with an average of about 13 $800 to $900 per lynx. So that was a very nice year. 14 Christmas was really nice. 15 So we're going to be travelling back onto 16 the Ferguson Creek here right away. And this area 17 that you're looking at is basically the Nelson House 18 management resource area on this section here. This 19 is probably in trapline 64 -- 62, 63, 64 in that 20 range because they are right here actually, in here 21 on the trapline. And right as you go down here, this 22 heads to the Nelson House Management Resource area or 23 NCN Resource Management area. This is the Ferguson 24 Creek continuing on. Our trapline ends right about 25 here in this vicinity here and, you know, we'll just 6459 1 continue into the Trapline 63 of the NCN Resource 2 Management area. 3 I think we travel about eight kilometres 4 past the Trapline 18 boundary. So this area 5 covers -- this area covers here the one kilometre 6 distance that Manitoba Hydro is going to be building 7 the transmission line. So you can see quite a ways 8 down this area here that the water seems to be 9 consistently flowing and somebody has been cutting 10 roads into the bush here. This is all swamp and bog 11 and fen. 12 So when you look at the EIS document that 13 they prepared with the transmission lines, I'll show 14 you a couple of examples off this on this area here. 15 This area here used to be, back to the day when 16 Jimmie Flett and old Roddy Garrick and all those 17 folks were around, they used to be for goose nesting 18 and caribou calving and all kinds of other activities 19 in this area here. So this is all Nelson House 20 Resource Management area you're looking at. 21 That little lake that you just saw was on 22 Trapline 63. So all this stuff here, it's all bog or 23 fen or just dry, hey, you know. So you can see the 24 little outcrops that are here, you know, on the 25 video. 6460 1 And, you know, we do have some drill hole 2 results from this area dating back to 1959 up to 1970 3 that showed a lot of abandonment by mining companies 4 because there is, you know, 26 and 100 metres of 5 overburden basically. So this is what Nelson House 6 looks like from our point of view on Trapline 18. A 7 lot of swamp and bog and different things happening 8 there. 9 So that's why you could see those direct 10 connections from Trapline 18 to 63, 64, 47, you know, 11 all the way up to, you know, that end. 12 And as you've seen at the falls, the 13 water flows from west to east on Ferguson Creek in 14 that direction or south to north if you're heading to 15 Hudson Bay, to the Hudson Bay, the sea, the ocean or 16 whatever it is. 17 So we're just cruising around, checking 18 out the scenery. You could see a lot of these little 19 tributaries off Ferguson Creek where there has been a 20 lot of activity and, you know, with the experience 21 that I'm sure a lot of NCN members had over the last 22 30 years. Some of those little activities that you 23 see are caused by flooding, high waters, fluctuations 24 in water. That's all damage caused by high water. 25 For years, we've tried to, you know, 6461 1 bring this to the attention of folks that were 2 responsible. And you know, they said this was all an 3 act of God. Where is Mr. Brennan? I'd like to speak 4 to God. 5 So what you see here, like this, you 6 know, devastation and destruction of, you know, some 7 very pristine forests, a very productive trapline at 8 one time. You know, every time they open and close 9 Notigi, when they use South Indian Lake as a 10 reservoir and close Notigi, this is what happens as 11 well. When they want to feed the Lower Nelson, I 12 understand through some testimony evidence that is 13 provided that it takes six weeks from Notigi to the 14 Lower Nelson. So that CRD Augmented Flow Program 15 operates I imagine on average of 12 to 16 weeks for 16 the winter and summer programs. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: How much longer? 18 MR. G. MCIVOR: How much longer is it? 19 About an hour and a couple of minutes. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, if we're having to 21 watch one way and then the other way back -- 22 MR. G. MCIVOR: No. If you look at that 23 little map we gave you, what they did was they went 24 up -- there are three branches on the Ferguson Creek. 25 So they are all different areas, just different 6462 1 routes that we use on our trapline. 2 I'd really appreciate if we can view this 3 video because it does form part of the evidence that 4 you guys just made comments on, where it's an act of 5 God, it's nature. So let's enjoy the movie. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, you show it, I'll 7 sleep. 8 MR. G. MCIVOR: So what we're doing is 9 just where we are right now is just an area where 10 there's some branches within the Ferguson Creek that 11 lead different areas. We're going to be heading back 12 to that shortly. But you can -- 13 MS. AVERY KINEW: What lake is that? 14 MR. G. MCIVOR: I think this is the 15 Ferguson Lake. So you can see the bottom of the 16 lakes here as we fly over them. There's some trees 17 across the creek there, right in here and here. So a 18 lot of that stuff is just falling across. I call 19 that Dale Hutchison's the beaver dam. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, trees eventually do 21 fall. 22 MR. G. MCIVOR: They fall over when the 23 shoreline is eroded just like there's fish in the 24 water. 25 MS. AVERY KINEW: Can you show us on this 6463 1 big map here where you're at? It's the same as that 2 little map. 3 MS. AVERY KINEW: Where are you right 4 now? 5 MR. G. MCIVOR: Right there, right there. 6 There's a junction there, a little junction. The 7 shoreline along this area where Dale has been 8 avoiding for the last few seconds is fairly high but 9 you could see a lot of the trees, they are falling in 10 and dying along the shores and in the creek. You 11 know, so it takes a lot of effort to clean all that 12 up, to cut all that up and get it out of the river 13 because you have to take it right out otherwise, you 14 know, the next day or year from now or a week, a 15 month, you can hit that with your boat or your motor 16 and, you know, it costs, you know, on average $400 to 17 $600 to rebuild the lower unit on an outboard. 18 So I'm not sure what Dale was looking at. 19 But anyway, the area we're heading into is again off 20 another branch of the Ferguson Creek. You can see 21 some of the contributing waterways, you know, all 22 this area here, in this area to the Ferguson and into 23 like the swamps and bogs and stuff like that, ravines 24 that, you know, where the water comes up and flows 25 into these lakes. We call these -- so we're just 6464 1 heading into some marsh land, swamp area. This used 2 to be all swamp, the kind of swamp where you plow 3 through a rat hole and it looks 11, 12 feet deep or 4 whatever. 5 There used to be a lot of rats in this 6 area because of the marsh. You hardly see any beaver 7 dams or beaver houses along this waterway because 8 what has happened is they moved off into other swamps 9 to build their houses. One of the things that 10 beavers do is when the water levels are unpredictable 11 that they can't control or at least stabilize for 12 their own uses, they will move. They will move off 13 major waterways and tributaries to get away from 14 that. They're just like everybody else. 15 A lot of this stuff here is all clay and 16 silt, you know. And normally you can tell by the 17 type of growth, whether it's spruce or poplar or jack 18 pine or what kind of vegetation or what kind of soils 19 there are. We're not experts, we're not engineers, 20 we're not anything. We're just trappers. This is 21 just our experience that we're sharing, we're sharing 22 with you. 23 So we've got about another 12, 13 minutes 24 if you can bear with us. 25 So in here, you can see that Little Fox 6465 1 Lake again, right in there. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Is this your presentation 3 when this is over? This is the end of your 4 presentation? 5 MR. G. MCIVOR: No. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you please begin 7 with your presentation and -- 8 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yeah, after we -- all I'm 9 viewing is evidence that's been filed with this 10 Commission. So I have some -- 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe you should have 12 viewed your film before. 13 MR. G. MCIVOR: I did and that's why I'm 14 showing it again because I think it's important that 15 you see this. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: This is not useful, you 17 know. 18 MR. G. MCIVOR: It isn't? 19 THE CHAIRMAN: No. 20 MR. G. MCIVOR: Well, if you've already 21 made up your mind, it's not useful. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: I'll show you what you've 23 got to do. 24 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yeah. Well, we'll talk 25 about that. 6466 1 MR. MAYER: Would you be so kind, Greg, 2 to tell us what it is we're supposed to see from 3 this. You're not explaining the direction of flow. 4 You're not explaining how you allege the water gets 5 from Notigi control to the site. I mean you've got 6 to show us or at least explain the direction of flow 7 if that's what this is intended to do. 8 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yeah. That's what I was 9 going to be doing. But as I indicated in my brief, 10 my introduction was that, you know, for the benefit 11 of people that have never been up in the Trapline 18 12 area or on a trapline, I just wanted to give them an 13 idea of what we're talking about. 14 But if you look back to around the 34 15 minute mark, what I had showed you was the end of 16 Trapline 18. 17 MR. MAYER: Yes? 18 MR. G. MCIVOR: And we exceeded eight 19 kilometres over our trapline boundary into the NCN 20 resource management area. And at 2,000 feet when you 21 look towards Nelson House, I would suggest that you 22 would be able to see at least an additional 10 to 15 23 kilometres in that direction. 24 So if you look at your little map there, 25 it's the Old Burntwood River and the Wemapathe River 6467 1 area and Three Point Lake are within kilometres of 2 that area. 3 So in the May 14th engineering report 4 that was stamped by Mr. Glen Cook of Manitoba Hydro 5 prepared by Soiowy from Manitoba Hydro Planning, it 6 says that there are no plausible connections. But 7 yet, you know, we just showed you evidence. 8 MR. MAYER: But, Mr. McIvor, you didn't 9 show us the evidence. That's my concern. You showed 10 us what you said was a swamp area which appeared to 11 be the source of Ferguson Creek. And then you showed 12 us a bunch of dry land and then you showed us some 13 more water that may have been flowing the other way 14 but you didn't mention that. So I think most of us 15 missed that but I clearly saw what I thought was the 16 source of Ferguson Creek. And that's what you told 17 us it was. You said it was swamp area and then you 18 recall you said -- 19 MR. G. MCIVOR: I didn't say it was the 20 source. 21 MR. MAYER: -- and there's a bunch of dry 22 land. But it appeared to be the source because it 23 didn't go upstream from the swamp? 24 MR. G. MCIVOR: Well, no, because Hydro's 25 dime, it's their chopper so they just took us where 6468 1 they wanted to take us. They just showed you what 2 they wanted us to see. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: You are showing this. 4 MR. G. MCIVOR: This is what we got from 5 Manitoba Hydro as a result of the May 14th ride. It 6 forms part of the EIS I assume. I mean that's what 7 they based their report on. You guys made reference 8 to that in the EIS. So all I'm showing you is what 9 they filed. If you haven't seen it, then maybe you 10 guys should do your job as well. 11 MS. AVERY KINEW: This is a trip that you 12 designed. 13 MR. G. MCIVOR: No. This is Hydro. 14 Yeah, Dale Hutchison and Carl Johnson. 15 MR. MAYER: Which of you were on the 16 aircraft? 17 MR. G. MCIVOR: Donald. Donald and 18 Norman and Bryan Hart as well as Dale Hutchison and 19 Carl Johnson from your northern operations. So we 20 didn't design anything, we just went for a ride. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: You're showing it. 22 MR. G. MCIVOR: And we're just showing it 23 because from what I understand, it forms part of your 24 evidence regarding Trapline 18. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: No, it doesn't. 6469 1 MR. MAYER: I haven't seen this in the 2 EIS. I am assuming if it's filed as an exhibit or 3 it's about to be filed as an exhibit, I don't know. 4 Sorry, I just missed your point when I thought I saw 5 the source of Ferguson Creek. 6 MR. G. MCIVOR: There's the second cabin 7 at the north end there, halfway up the trapline. 8 MR. SARGEANT: Your cabin? 9 MR. G. MCIVOR: That's our cabin, built 10 around 1978. It's about 10 feet in height. And this 11 is just across from it. It's all dried up right now. 12 But I think if you'd bear with me, I think in the 13 Power Point presentation, you'll see some of the 14 evidence that we have that causes our concerns. 15 So we're just a few minutes away, like 16 six, seven minutes away from completing this video. 17 What you will see towards the end here is 18 where we go into another trapline on the NCN resource 19 management area. And you know, Bob, to try to answer 20 your question, I mean, you know, those creeks that 21 you see, the water flows into Trapline 18 from, you 22 know, on the other side of our trapline from the NCN 23 area. Because of the limited flight that we were 24 involved in, you know, we know it extends into both 25 63 and 64 traplines and possibly into 47 which is 6470 1 adjacent to Three Point Lake, in between Wuskwatim 2 and Three Point and 41. So a lot of this stuff is, 3 you know, we just we were limited. We don't own 4 choppers so we can't take our own rides. We have 5 boats and skidoos. 6 MR. MAYER: Are you telling us then that 7 this video doesn't show that? 8 MR. G. MCIVOR: Well, what it does is 9 this video was provided by Manitoba Hydro. 10 MR. MAYER: I understand that. Does it 11 or does it not show the linkage? 12 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yeah, it does, it shows. 13 MR. MAYER: Where did we miss that, Don? 14 MR. G. MCIVOR: I'll show you again in 15 the Power Point if you want. This is one of the 16 first lakes that we trap for rats and beaver and 17 everything else, the swamp that connects another 18 little lake that you're going to view in a few 19 seconds. And one of the things that you'll see here 20 is something that hasn't happened on Trapline 18 and 21 its history. Like this area, you know, as you can 22 see, is a lot of swamp and everything else. And I 23 understand that it's very difficult to measure what 24 type of waters. But this second lake here that you 25 see, you know, where, you know, you could see the 6471 1 bottom where it's all dry. You know, we've never 2 experienced this in Trapline 18. 3 MR. MAYER: What is it you haven't 4 experienced? 5 MR. G. MCIVOR: The drought, the dried up 6 lake. 7 MR. MAYER: But I thought your argument 8 was that they were flooding you out? 9 MR. G. MCIVOR: Well, they are flooding 10 and this is a drought, Bob. And like everybody else 11 in Manitoba, I think Trapline 18 is in Manitoba, so 12 we experience the same things. But I think 13 compounded with the Churchill River Diversion and the 14 Augmented Flow Program, when it's drought, it gets 15 even drier now since they built that project, so. 16 MR. MAYER: That makes no sense at all to 17 me. Are you suggesting that Ferguson Creek is 18 backing up or running backwards? 19 MR. G. MCIVOR: What I'll show you here, 20 Bob, is if I have -- 21 MR. MAYER: I'm trying to follow your 22 argument and I'm trying to follow your video and I 23 know that your argument is that you want to show us 24 that as a result of releasing water from Notigi, you 25 get flooded out? 6472 1 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yeah. 2 MR. MAYER: But now you're telling us 3 that when on a drought, somehow Churchill River 4 Diversion, which puts more water through the area, is 5 stealing your water? Is that what you're suggesting? 6 MR. G. MCIVOR: That's what happens. 7 MR. MAYER: Thank you. I have your 8 point. 9 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yeah. So I mean when 10 they open and close the gate, they either stop the 11 water or they let it go. So if they stop it, it 12 affects us. If they let it go, it affects us. 13 So this is a Nelson House Management 14 Resource area that we're talking about. This is 15 Trapline 63, 64, you know, where these creeks just 16 keep going and going. Because we haven't been making 17 that trip by chopper or otherwise in the air where 18 you can see these types of things, what we're 19 suggesting is that they do connect, you know, from 20 the Three Point and Churchill River Diversion, from 21 that south end when it backs up down the Old 22 Burntwood and down Wemapathe River, that through that 23 swamp, through the swamp, what's done is cut new 24 trails of waterways into the Trapline 18 area through 25 the swamp and the bog. 6473 1 And I'll show you some other information. 2 So this is all like Trapline 64 of Nelson House 3 flowing into Trapline -- 4 MR. MAYER: Which direction are we now 5 travelling? 6 MR. G. MCIVOR: We're travelling west and 7 that water flows into Trapline 18, all this water 8 here that you see. And there's other tributaries. 9 MR. SARGEANT: Is that natural water? 10 MR. G. MCIVOR: That's not natural water. 11 On this flight here as well, if look at any map, 12 national and topographical maps, even the Hydro map 13 that was provided to you on the wall right here, you 14 know, there's an area that has been connected that 15 was never connected before. It's just kind of 16 joined. So because we've never had -- you know, 17 we've never had the luxury of owning a chopper or 18 affording to own a chopper, we didn't know what was 19 creating a lot of these problems for the last 28 20 years because we are always on the ground, in a boat, 21 on a skidoo. 22 But this is just the example of your 23 question, Bob. When we get to -- we're going to be 24 going to Goose Falls here right away. We're going to 25 be cutting from here in about 10 seconds back to 6474 1 Goose Falls. 2 MR. MAYER: Goose Falls is on what? 3 MR. G. MCIVOR: That's on Trapline 18. 4 MR. MAYER: It's on Ferguson Creek? 5 MR. G. MCIVOR: It's on Ferguson Creek. 6 Some people call it Ferguson Falls, we call it Goose 7 Falls. But here, see Goose Falls area or Ferguson 8 Creek right here. But over the years, if you look at 9 this side here, all this area here, this is where the 10 water comes rushing down and it just backsplashes 11 into here and just pulls everything into the river, 12 over the falls, down the Ferguson into the Grassy 13 River system. 14 MR. SARGEANT: And water comes down that 15 whole area? 16 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yeah. 17 MR. SARGEANT: Why wouldn't that be act 18 of God water? 19 MR. G. MCIVOR: Because if you look at 20 the -- if you remember the panoramic shots, I mean 21 the elevations that Hydro is providing you, you know, 22 I think are measurements of outcrops like you saw in 23 the swamp where there's little islands, in between 24 all the swamp, you know, that's the type of terrain 25 that we're in on Trapline 18, 62, 63, 64, 41, 47, all 6475 1 the way back. So naturally water will, you know, 2 find its way. I mean it will go wherever it wants to 3 go basically. 4 So when you look at this map here that 5 was provided by Manitoba Hydro as a result of the 6 reconnaissance trip as well, this is a national 7 topographical map. And when you look at the Three 8 Point Lake and directly to the Grassy River, it's all 9 swamp, it's all designated swamp. 10 When you look at Manitoba Hydro's map and 11 you look at this little legend down here, this yellow 12 area is medium to high elevation. So if this guy has 13 it as swamp, how can this be medium to high 14 elevation? There are some discrepancies. And like I 15 said, we're not engineers, we're not lawyers, we just 16 have some experience up there. And if people have to 17 go through this type of initiatives to make it look 18 like an act of God, then maybe that's what it is. 19 So I don't know if you guys want, it's 20 ten after 10:00, Mr. Lecuyer. If you want to take a 21 break, we can set up for the Power Point. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, we'll do that. We'll 23 take a break until 25 after. Thank you. 24 25 6476 1 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 10:14 A.M. and 2 RECONVENED AT 10:32 A.M.) 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: All right, ladies and 5 gentlemen. Sit down and watch the show which Mr. 6 McIvor is going to lead us through. 7 MR. G. MCIVOR: Before we get into the 8 Power Point, Donald is just going to make some 9 introductory comments as part of the Power Point 10 presentation. 11 MR. D. MCIVOR: Good morning, ladies and 12 gentlemen, elders, members of the Clean Environment 13 Commission. My name is Donald McIvor Jr. I reside 14 in Wabowden, Manitoba all my life. I have trapped on 15 Trapline 18 since 1975. Became a licensed registered 16 trapline holder in 1980. My experience on the 17 trapline over the past 29 years has provided me an 18 opportunity to experience a lifestyle and culture, 19 once an accepted family practice in the seventies in 20 Wabowden. 21 The (inaudible) line was a sign at which 22 time the community on Trapline 18, we will produce in 23 excess of 40,000 plus (inaudible) trap line. In 24 1978, we made over 80,000 plus. 25 In the early years, I had an opportunity 6477 1 to teach my sons, nephews and brothers how to trap, 2 hunt, survive off the land. We still go up there to 3 hunt. I'm not comfortable taking them due to unsafe 4 and unpredictable conditions. I will still go to get 5 my quotas if it was reasonable and good trapping 6 conditions. I had to look for other work to offset 7 losses on the trapline over the past couple of years. 8 Since the operation of the CRD in 1976, 9 we had begun to see changes in water levels and it 10 became more evident in 1978. We had always listened 11 to Native Communications Incorporated as they would 12 give us the water levels on Footprint Lake and Nelson 13 House area which gave us an idea of what the levels 14 of water on Trapline 18 are likely to be. 15 And during the winter, the ice would drop 16 causing (inaudible) creating a lot of slush on 17 rivers. Sometime when travelling on the snowmobiles, 18 due to the sloping of the ice, snowmobile (inaudible) 19 would break and we had to walk back to camp and then 20 back to town. 21 Other times when travelling, we would 22 suddenly fall through the ice. Not much water 23 because ice hanging three to six feet in places. Or 24 we would just fall through the ice because a section 25 of the ice would just break off the trail and the 6478 1 snowmobile and sleds would sink. And we had to walk 2 home again. The snowmobiles would get stuck in the 3 slush and would ruin the engines trying to get them 4 out of the slush. And our sleighs would be too heavy 5 to pull and end up walking home again. Almost every 6 year, we had to rebuild our snowmobile engines a few 7 times and replace sleighs. 8 Whenever there was slushing, we would 9 lose traps because the water was coming up fast and 10 sometimes overnight, sometimes by morning, it would 11 be a couple of feet of slush. 12 Water levels coming up in late fall would 13 wash out all beaver feed down river from their 14 houses. Also high water caused the water animal, the 15 beaver, otter, rats move to other locations or 16 further in the bush. 17 High water levels dropping after 18 freeze-up created hanging ice and the river will be 19 so low that beaver houses would be froze up. 20 We've had hundreds of traps of different 21 sizes. In the fall and spring, we'd lose traps and 22 furs. In the fall, traps would be covered up by 23 slush and dig them out. And, for example, the water 24 came up in the middle of April causing early breakup 25 effects leaving ice three or four feet under water. 6479 1 And travelling in the boat, we experienced sheets of 2 ice area 50 feet long that would shoot up straight up 3 behind us and back down under water. 4 In the spring, the water levels would get 5 so low, we'd have problems travelling with a 4 horse. 6 In the spring, setting traps were difficult because 7 of high water and traps would be washed away with fur 8 and we would end up losing traps because high water, 9 shoreline erosion causing large trees and debris in 10 the river. 11 At one point in 1978, water levels were 12 approximately eight to 10 feet high, putting the 13 cabin at the north end four feet under water. 14 Over the years, during the summer, water 15 would come up in July and stay until October which 16 would sometimes go right down to almost drought 17 conditions making hunting and trapping a lot harder. 18 During the summer, the water was like 19 down, drought conditions, causing a lot of damage to 20 boats and outboards. 21 We had talked to an elder from NCN who 22 indicated he was familiar with the area and their 23 waterways that traditionally flowed into Trapline 18 24 and the Burntwood River, Three Point Lake area. He 25 indicated he often travelled on these waterways. The 6480 1 elder had also indicated that the area around and 2 including Trapline 18 and adjacent to NCN traplines 3 47 and 62, 63, 64 are a very marshy and swampy 4 terrain. He also said flooded 30 miles back toward 5 our trapline. 6 Mr. Edward Head, former exploration 7 driller for various mining companies conducted a lot 8 of drilling all over Northern Manitoba. Mr. Head had 9 indicated at one time he spent a substantial amount 10 of time west of Old Nelson House Road and had 11 conducted drilling tests around the area for Noranda 12 Mines, Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company. Mr. 13 Head had indicated they were (inaudible) satisfactory 14 during results due to the conditions which consisted 15 of overgrowth and water before he can reach anything 16 substantial. 17 Now with the new Hydro project, Wuskwatim 18 and the transmission line which goes near the 19 trapline, it would cut out trails causing animals to 20 travel elsewhere and it moves caribou, lynx, fox, 21 martin, fisher to move somewhere else. Recreation, 22 snowmobilers would have more access to more trails 23 scaring the animals away during the trapping season. 24 And Hydro personnel checking the lines would 25 interrupt the animals and scare them away. 6481 1 Elders Jimmy Flett, Roy Garrick, 2 Wellington Beebe, former trappers and residents of 3 Wabowden would tell us about the roads they had and 4 travelled at one time and showed us where rivers, 5 they used to paddle there. And also identified 6 portages that were used. 7 Mr. George (inaudible) former 8 owner/operator of Cross Lake Air Service in Wabowden 9 would inform us of water levels on our trapline in 10 the fall of that year and several other years before 11 on a few occasions, he would tell us that it was 12 flooded all the way back to Nelson House so it may 13 not even be worthwhile going out. 14 This description was confirmed by Mr. Ken 15 Hireman (ph), former chief pilot for Skyward Aviation 16 and the local Wabowden resident. In addition, Mr. 17 Kowalski, a pilot and fisherman referenced the same 18 condition. Because of fluctuated water levels and 19 unpredictable conditions, end of year trapping became 20 very expensive and dangerous. 21 The material used on the trapline that 22 were damaged over the years included Lund boats, 23 canoes, outboards, snow machines, sleighs, traps and 24 damage to cabins. That's it. Thank you. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 6482 1 MR. G. MCIVOR: To the Power Point 2 presentation. First slide is just the presentation. 3 The second one is just basically a history of the 4 trapline which my brother just went over. Just an 5 indication of the Rocky Lake area that we had used 6 with the prospector's tent and the construction of 7 the main cabin and the second cabin on Trapline 18. 8 Just to reiterate what my brother has 9 indicated, there will be significant changes that 10 have been undergone on Trapline 18 that you viewed on 11 the video as well. The fact that we've witnessed all 12 this flooding over the years. And he's also 13 indicated different water levels, eight to 10 feet. 14 There's also been increases of six to seven. 15 This is the second cabin that you viewed 16 on the video, 1978. The cabin, the water is right to 17 the base of the cabin and had receded by about two, 18 three feet as well by the time this photo was taken. 19 So that was a 1995 picture. 20 This is an aerial photo of Trapline 18 21 and with the maps, you could see the little lake on 22 the left-hand side, it looks like a pistol. That's 23 sort of our marker I guess. 24 MR. MAYER: What's the red line? 25 MR. G. MCIVOR: The red line is just to 6483 1 show you where our trapline is. It's on the upper 2 portion of this photo. 3 And that photo was from 1978. This one 4 is from 1998, different angle. The pistol is in the 5 bottom right-hand corner and that's Trapline 18. If 6 you look at this area here, this is Goose Rapids and 7 also Goose Falls and then into Rocky Lake here into 8 Ferguson. So you can see the little creek. 9 As my brother indicated around 1978, he 10 had harvested close to over 85 lynx and other 11 products, other animals as well that were a value of 12 $80,000 plus for 1978. And as you go through this 13 presentation, you will see photos of his sons and my 14 nephews I guess. 15 This is just some photos taken from the 16 Hydro video that you had previewed earlier. We had 17 Dale Hutchison from mitigation, Manitoba Hydro, Carl 18 Johnson, community liaison from the Manitoba Hydro 19 office up north. And Norm McIvor, Bryan Hart as an 20 observer and my brother Donald. 21 This is the Setting Lake area where we 22 took off with the helicopter. This is the part that 23 Mr. Mayer referred to. Hydro built that right there. 24 This is Goose Falls from the video that 25 you saw. This is the cabin, the main cabin. This is 6484 1 Goose Falls in August 2001 with high water levels. 2 You can see right here where this is dry on this 3 side, the water is right over in this area here. And 4 in the distance here is quite shorter from here to 5 here. 6 On Trapline 18, you know it's a spawning 7 area for a number of species, walleye, northern pike, 8 sauger, sturgeon suckers, white fish, bullheads or 9 burbot. Some other areas, this is the swamp marsh 10 area at the north end. We call it the north end but 11 it's actually west of in between the Nelson House 12 area and Trapline 18. 13 This is the creeks that you were looking 14 at that were dry. This is a photo from 1995 showing 15 the water right up to the -- right up to this area 16 here which is where the trees are. This is the 17 Ferguson Creek. As we indicated, there is different 18 branches along the Ferguson Creek and those were 19 identified on the map that was drawn out by Manitoba 20 Hydro on the helicopter ride. This is just upstream 21 of Ferguson Rapids, as you saw on the tape. A couple 22 of shots. This is what it would look like in here, 23 this area here with 2001 similar type conditions. 24 This is the Nelson House Management 25 Resource area, this is about where our trapline ends 6485 1 in this area down here. And you can see quite a 2 distance. I'm not sure how you'd measure that at 3 2,000 feet, what you'd be viewing sort of thing. 4 And this is just some other marsh and bog 5 area. So you can see the conditions not only in 6 Trapline 18 but in the Nelson House Resource 7 Management area as shown on the national 8 topographical map. It's all swamp on that side. 9 This is the drought conditions, a picture 10 taken out of the video that shows the water levels 11 here about three feet below the natural water levels. 12 This would be the natural water levels. This tree is 13 right in here. So it's about a natural water level 14 here. So you can see the difference is about three 15 feet. 16 This photo was taken in '95 of October. 17 This shows the same picture under 18 drought. 19 This shows the '95 photo where the water 20 is right to the base of the cabin and, you know, has 21 receded. And there is proof that my brother is a 22 trapper, right there, same cabin. 23 This is the little lake that you looked 24 at. It's experienced severe water loss and that's a 25 little swamp in between. There's that second lake 6486 1 again. It's all dried up. And as my brother 2 indicated, the water levels varied and fluctuated 3 throughout the years, different seasons and some of 4 the effects of that. 5 So just some of the definitions of slush 6 ice, snow ice, hanging ice that we have come up with. 7 We're not engineers, we're not hydrologists, we're 8 not lawyers, we're just trappers. So forgive us if 9 it's not 100 per cent accurate. 10 This is just an example of the Augmented 11 Flow Program that operates through the Notigi Control 12 Structure. As you could see here, the water levels 13 are substantially low. This is the actuals when it's 14 a decent year I guess in Manitoba. Everybody is out 15 golfing and that type of thing. 16 And here in October, about the middle of 17 October, from the evidence that had been provided 18 here through this process in early March, one of the 19 things that was indicated that in order to move water 20 from the Notigi Control Structure or the CRD to the 21 Lower Nelson, it takes about six weeks. So they open 22 the gate here to release water, you know, so it 23 reaches its maximum peak, maximum peak around 24 early -- late January or early February. And this 25 is -- I got this off the Hydro website, page 2 of 3. 6487 1 This is the main cabin, November 6, 2004. 2 This is 1994 where the water levels are fairly low. 3 This is looking at the Goose Falls from 4 the cabin side of the falls. So you can see the 5 rocks here. That rock is right here in this photo. 6 There's Donald again with his son. And they are 7 standing right in the middle of the falls here or 8 just about in the middle. This is the falls again, 9 my brother and his son were standing right about 10 here. This rock is now in this area here. So you 11 can see the water comes all the way back and around. 12 November 6th, you see the slush, slushing 13 of the ice and open water. Again, you know, here, 14 this is slushing right on the river, this dark area 15 that you see. This is open water. So what you can 16 see is, you know, from the time we went on the 17 chopper ride to the time these pictures were taken, 18 the water had come up quite considerably. And I 19 don't know if it snows in November -- I mean rains in 20 November, I know it snows. 21 And there's just some of the things that 22 my brother was talking about where snow machines 23 would fall through the ice and sleighs. 24 MR. MAYER: November of 2003 was one of 25 our warmest Novembers on record, right? 6488 1 MR. G. MCIVOR: This is actually 2004. 2 Sorry, Bob. 3 MR. MAYER: I'm sorry, we haven't hit 4 November 2004. 5 MR. G. MCIVOR: Oh 2003, you're right. 6 It could have been warm. 7 And this is some of the stuff that my 8 brother had indicated with the breaking tracks and 9 boogies and different things like that. 10 And this is again just another chart 11 showing some of the conditions or slushing here. You 12 know, you can see the shoreline up here so the ice 13 kind of slopes in the middle. There's a shoreline 14 here. These are along the same river. You can see 15 the water right to the shoreline. And that's this 16 stuff up here. 17 Here is the second cabin again, when 18 you're looking at it from the river. You know, 19 there's that little tree, same little tree as right 20 here. That tree right there is right there. You can 21 see the water is quite high and the cabin is way up 22 there. There's some hanging ice. This is in 23 February now where the water has been closed at 24 Notigi and it's dropped on Ferguson Creek. So you 25 can see -- this thing here is a makeshift measuring 6489 1 stick. Right here is one foot, two feet, three feet, 2 four feet, five feet. So you can see it's about four 3 and a half feet of dropping ice there, hanging ice. 4 All along the river, some hanging ice in here as well 5 and lynx tracks along here. Didn't get it, but. 6 Here is a beaver house entrance. I know 7 you've heard some evidence from CASIL yesterday on 8 that. Similar conditions on Trapline 18. This is 9 the beaver house. Due to the drop in the water 10 levels and the hanging ice, what has happened is the 11 beaver had been basically locked out of his house and 12 either in the river died somewhere or he's frozen 13 anyway somewhere. Here's the hanging ice again. 14 Same beaver house. 15 This tree here had fallen across the 16 river. It's about 140 feet long. The base of it is 17 about 28 inches in diameter. This is another tree 18 that had fallen across the waterway that these guys 19 would have to cut out and clear before they can 20 proceed. And that was in August 2001. 21 This tree here, you know, this is about 22 the size of the tree. My nephew was just looking 23 at -- this part here is where that water was at one 24 time, the level of the water was that high. This 25 tree had just fallen over into the creek. And it 6490 1 still has all the clay and soil and roots and stuff 2 like that. 3 This is just an idea, you know, of the 4 slush in the shoreline. The shorelines appear, the 5 water -- you know, the ice slopes to the centre. 6 This is just flood waters in that same creek. Once 7 again, another shot of the river banks in comparison 8 to drought and winter and flooding conditions. 9 This is another map of the area from the 10 1978 aerial map. Same thing, 1998, this is the same 11 area. 12 And as I indicated, Manitoba Hydro had 13 used this reconnaissance trip to form part of their 14 evidence for the EIS portion and indicated that based 15 on their engineer reports, hydraulic reports, that 16 there's no plausible explanation. 17 The Ferguson Creek report provided the 18 basis for this assessment was in part derived from 19 the reconnaissance trip on May 14th, which was 20 documented with georeferenced video and published in 21 MH/NCN/PIP. 22 MR. MAYER: Excuse me, this May 14, 2004 23 was a week ago. 24 MR. G. MCIVOR: 2003, I'm sorry, typo, 25 sorry. Now, this is the topographical maps, 6491 1 referenced topographical maps with watershed 2 boundaries. They also indicated there was no need to 3 obtain any additional environmental or hydrology 4 tests to confirm the evidence. 5 You know, we still maintain our position 6 that, you know, the systematic degradation of 7 Trapline 18 is not a natural occurrence and that 8 there is possible connections between the Churchill 9 River Diversion and Trapline 18. 10 Just in terms of the maps, as I indicated 11 earlier, this topographical map here, if you look at 12 the south end of Three Point Lake where the Old 13 Burntwood feeds into South Point, it shows a lot of 14 swamp area right from there right down to the south 15 end here. And on this map here, it shows a 16 difference that there's apparently an elevation 17 that's medium to high. I'm not sure what the range 18 is. I don't know how to read the topographical 19 measurements or whatever. So we'll leave it at that 20 for now. 21 This is Goose Falls, the main camp, 1994. 22 So you can see the water just peaking through the 23 falls. You could see this is the rapids that you 24 looked at prior to getting to the Goose Falls which 25 is just behind this tree here. So you can see the 6492 1 rocks extend right across here. This is the same 2 location, the same tree right here and the water 3 right across. So you know, the water levels do 4 fluctuate quite considerably. To get into this level 5 from here to here, it's probably about six feet. 6 This is Goose Falls. The rapids that you 7 looked at earlier just behind that is the Goose Falls 8 with flooding. So you can see where it was peaking 9 through, it would have been about here. Now it's 10 just, you know, even got some mist. See princesses 11 in the mist. 12 Here is our cabin. You know, same 13 picture, different angle. So you can see all the 14 water that comes down that area. Again, just to give 15 you an idea that, you know, these are just some of 16 the experiences that we've had with different water 17 level fluctuations over the last 28 years since the 18 CRD. 19 So this, you know, just a slide of the 20 flooding right to the shorelines that you've seen on 21 the video, this is the same creek that you had looked 22 at. 23 That's Ferguson Creek again, just showing 24 the flooding. This is an example of one of the 25 trees. This tree was about 22 inches in diameter at 6493 1 this point here and they had cut off quite an 2 extensive amount of it to get it out of the river. 3 And I don't know if anybody logged in their life but 4 those are pretty big trees. 5 This is that marsh and bog area that you 6 see along the Ferguson Creek, the flooding right to 7 and over the banks or into the bush or to the tree 8 lines that are here. 9 This is my nephew, Donald's son Andy 10 McIvor. He's completed his Natural Resource Studies 11 at the Keewatin Community College as a result of I 12 think a lot of the experience that he had gained by 13 trapping with his father. And this is just a friend 14 of my brother's that accompanied him quite a few 15 times on the trapline. 16 This is the rapids again, Ferguson Falls 17 Rapids. Same tree, just a little bigger picture for 18 you to look at. You can see the water had come down 19 here. It shows elevations of the flooding water. 20 Same thing at the Goose Rapids there. 21 Ferguson Creek, Goose Falls, Ferguson Creek. You can 22 see here the discolouration. The water dropped two 23 or three feet there. This here is all the marsh and 24 the swamp. And there he is again, the mad trapper. 25 There's his cabin, a little bit lower water. So you 6494 1 can see the -- you know, it does increase, the water 2 does increase. 3 This here used to be Wellington Beebe's 4 trapline on the Grass River system. This is on 5 Trapline number 3. 6 MR. MAYER: Can you explain where that 7 is, please? 8 MR. G. MCIVOR: When you come down the 9 Grass River from Herblet Lake, or Herb Lake, put it 10 that way, you'd pass this point which is a trapline 11 on Trapline number 3 in the Wabowden Resource area. 12 MR. MAYER: Is that on Metishtu (ph) 13 Lake? 14 MR. G. MCIVOR: No, it's further north of 15 Metishtu. It's on Pakwa Lake. So that's 16 Wellington's. This again shows you the swamp. You 17 can see the water in here right to the tree line. 18 There is another Dale Hutchison beaver dam with a 19 tree across the river. This is a tree across the 20 river, it's not a beaver dam. Sorry, Dale, I didn't 21 mean to pick on you. 22 This is just a shoreline again. You can 23 see the water levels are a little bit higher and it's 24 right to the tree line there in the back. Same 25 thing. Just show you the -- you can see this thing 6495 1 here, this usually sticks out four to five feet and 2 you can just see the top of it here. 3 There's another tree. So these are 4 just -- this is that rapids, Goose Falls again. You 5 can just drive right there through there without 6 worrying about hitting the rocks. And we're just 7 suggesting that in addition to the effects on 8 Trapline 18, there's other impacts such as hunting in 9 that Setting Lake, Wabowden resource area on the west 10 side of number 6 that would include Pakwa and 11 Metishtu and Five Mile and August Lake area as well 12 as the Ferguson Creek. Fishing in the area as well, 13 canoeing down the Grass River and related areas of 14 canoe routes. Camping along not only the lakes but 15 at Setting Lake Campground and Sasigui Rapids 16 Campground. 17 Additional potential impacts are on 18 tourism. You've seen the water levels at Setting 19 Lake. You have seen, you know, the area in the top 20 line. Recreational use for loading, canoeing, 21 swimming, water-skiing, camping, whatever, fishing, 22 you know, same thing, outings and picnics. A lot of 23 people used to go berry picking across the lake in 24 different areas, their secret hiding spots. Cottage 25 development, you know, at Setting Lake and other lake 6496 1 locations along that system, and environmental 2 impacts shoreline erosion. 3 MR. MAYER: Just a sec. What are you 4 suggesting is doing this? 5 MR. G. MCIVOR: All I'm saying is from 6 the -- 7 MR. MAYER: I was listening to you when 8 you told me about Ferguson Creek but now you've 9 showed me Pakwa Lake and now you're talking about the 10 Grass River system. And I'm sorry, Mr. McIvor, I 11 have a lot of trouble believing that the Grass River 12 system is connected to the Burntwood River system 13 anywhere north -- or sorry, anywhere south or 14 upstream of the bottom end of Kettle Generating 15 Stations or Kelsey Generating Stations. 16 MR. G. MCIVOR: I think the Burntwood 17 River system does not connect with the Grass River 18 system, only at Kelsey. Grass flows into the 19 Burntwood. 20 MR. MAYER: Into Split Lake. 21 MR. G. MCIVOR: This water coming over 22 Goose Falls travels down the Ferguson, joins the 23 Grassy River at Trapline number 3 just a couple of 24 kilometres north of that cabin that I showed you, 25 and then flows into Setting Lake. 6497 1 MR. MAYER: Which is very dry right now. 2 MR. G. MCIVOR: Which is I imagine. And 3 that's to conclude our video presentation. And I 4 just want to let you guys know that if we have some 5 difficulty answering any of your questions, it's 6 because we are not hydrologists, we are not 7 environmentalists, we are not counsel, legal counsel 8 or anything else for anybody else. We're just a 9 family that trapped on Trapline 18 since 1970 and 10 what we're giving you is our experience with some 11 visual aids. With that, thank you. 12 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Grewar. 14 MR. GREWAR: Just in terms of exhibit 15 numbers, I am assuming that we would want the video 16 entered as an exhibit in which case I have a copy of 17 the video as T18-1000. 18 19 (EXHIBIT T18-1000: Video Presentation: 20 "Ferguson Creek Hydrological 21 Investigation") 22 23 MR. GREWAR: The next would be the Clean 24 Environment Commission Wuskwatim Generation Project 25 and Wuskwatim Transmission Line Project, presentation 6498 1 by Greg McIvor and Donald McIvor Trapline 18, 2 Additional Reference Materials is how it's titled. 3 And that would be T18-1001. 4 5 (EXHIBIT T18-1001: Clean Environment 6 Commission Wuskwatim Generation Project 7 and Wuskwatim Transmission Line Project. 8 Presentation by Greg and Donald McIvor, 9 Trap Line 18 and Trap line Area 430. 10 Additional Reference Materials) 11 12 MR. GREWAR: And finally the slide 13 presentation we've just seen would be T18-1002. 14 15 (EXHIBIT T18-1002: Presentation Slides: 16 Clean Environment Commission Wuskwatim 17 Generation and Transmission Projects, May 18 26, 2004. Presentation by Greg McIvor and 19 Donald McIvor, Trap Line 18 and Wobowden 20 Registered Trap Line Area 430) 21 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Questions? 23 Mr. Sargeant. 24 MR. SARGEANT: Mr. McIvor, the difficulty 25 that I am having, I mean I watched both your video 6499 1 and your Power Point presentation. I am not 2 questioning that you do have problems with an 3 abundance of water at times. But I mean I am not a 4 geographer or a geologist or a hydrologist either but 5 I do have some sense of rises of land and I just 6 don't see how water gets from the CRD system into 7 your area. I mean it would have to go uphill. And 8 you know, I'm just a poor dumb lawyer and I don't 9 understand how water goes uphill. 10 MR. G. MCIVOR: Well, we're just poor 11 dumb trappers, too. But you know what, every year 12 when they operate the CRD, you know, the water levels 13 increase based on the operation of that. And the 14 only thing that we can suggest, you know, to assist 15 you with that is that, you know, as a result of the 16 swamp that comes from the south end of Three Point 17 Lake and is evident in that area between Three Point 18 and along the Burntwood and Wuskwatim is that, you 19 know, you heard information yesterday from CASIL. 20 When you lower South Indian Lake, even at two feet, 21 and then you have got to squeeze all that water 22 through Notigi control structure, the amount of water 23 that has to fit through there is coming at 30,000 24 cubic feet per second I understand. So you know, it 25 pushes all the way through those little rivers, 6500 1 erodes the shorelines all the way down into the 2 Footprint Lake, into Three Point. And if you look at 3 Three Point Lake, it's right directly in front of 4 that force of water coming down. 5 So if you have a swamp that is there with 6 no buffers such as bedrock or anything else or some 7 solids to wash up against, what will happen, I think, 8 I would suggest, is that water would push its way 9 through that swamp and would continue under the bog 10 to wherever it has to go. 11 But I'm sure everybody knows that, you 12 know, if you control water enough, that you can cut 13 two or three inches of steel with water. 14 MR. SARGEANT: But isn't there a fairly 15 significant difference in elevation between the head 16 waters, the swamp that form the head waters of 17 Ferguson Creek and Three Point Lake, Burntwood River? 18 MR. G. MCIVOR: Well, that's what I mean. 19 You know, if you look at the elevations and you look 20 at the terrain, I mean what you're looking at is 21 outcrops of rock. Around those rocks is swamp and 22 bog and fen and overgrowth where water could easily 23 soak through there or run through there underneath of 24 it. And it will -- like water is just like anything 25 else, it will just find its way through. 6501 1 And I think in the video, you know, where 2 our trapline ended and, you know, you could see for 3 kilometres, a swath of land cut along the waterway 4 that goes into that same area of bog and swamp and 5 also the NCN Resource Management area. 6 So like I said, you know, we've never 7 flown over that area because I mean we're up there in 8 snow machines and boats and at various times of the 9 year and, you know, we've always been told that, you 10 know, it's not affected. But I mean look at what's 11 happening. 12 MR. SARGEANT: Another point, your 13 brother in his comments said that he had met elders. 14 I believe it was he who had met elders that spoke of 15 waterways that connected Three Point Lake, Burntwood 16 River with the Ferguson Creek area? 17 MR. G. MCIVOR: Um-hum. 18 MR. SARGEANT: I mean have you or your 19 brother or other members of your family found these 20 same waterways or have map makers or others found 21 these waterways? 22 MR. G. MCIVOR: Well, I think what my 23 brother mentioned was, I am not sure if he said 24 connected, but you know, people do travel from the 25 Wuskwatim or Nelson House area to Setting Lake and 6502 1 use those waterways to access those points. 2 MR. MAYER: Mr. McIvor, I'm trusting it 3 was in jest but you said I could access Ferguson 4 Creek by canoe from Three Point Lake from Nelson 5 House? 6 MR. G. MCIVOR: Well you can. Now you 7 can. 8 MR. MAYER: I can paddle it? 9 MR. G. MCIVOR: You can do that now. You 10 have my permission. 11 MR. MAYER: Well, why wouldn't you show 12 us that route? Because if that is in fact the case, 13 that's proof positive. 14 MR. G. MCIVOR: Well you know what, I 15 will tell you what. As a result of -- 16 MR. MAYER: Would I be going downstream 17 all the way? 18 MR. G. MCIVOR: You're going downstream 19 from Three Point to Trapline 18 I would imagine. 20 MR. MAYER: If you could show that, you 21 wouldn't have any difficulty. 22 MR. G. MCIVOR: I think we just tried to 23 show you that. You know what, Mr. Mayer, I think 24 what you have to appreciate is that Manitoba Hydro 25 chartered a helicopter. Manitoba Hydro provided the 6503 1 video material. 2 MR. MAYER: Mr. McIvor. 3 MR. G. MCIVOR: Georeference material. 4 MR. MAYER: You do not need a helicopter 5 if what you say is true. You put a canoe in at 6 Nelson House, you go down to Three Point Lake, you go 7 to where you say the creek that joins to Ferguson is 8 and you paddle down it. You do not need a helicopter 9 to do that. 10 MR. G. MCIVOR: We just showed you that. 11 MR. MAYER: Have you done that, sir? 12 MR. G. MCIVOR: We just showed you that. 13 MR. SARGEANT: Have you done it? 14 MR. G. MCIVOR: We haven't done it. 15 That's Nelson House's territory. We don't go there. 16 MR. SARGEANT: You're a member of Nelson 17 House Band, aren't you? 18 MR. G. MCIVOR: No, I'm not. 19 MR. SARGEANT: I'm sorry, I thought you 20 were. 21 MR. G. MCIVOR: No. We don't go into 22 Nelson House territory to go on their traplines. 23 It's tough enough going up on the trapline never mind 24 going an extra 30 kilometres or 23 kilometres to 25 Nelson House. For what? 6504 1 MR. SARGEANT: Are you saying anybody 2 would have taken a boat or a canoe from Nelson House 3 to the Trapline 18 area? 4 MR. G. MCIVOR: No, not recently. You 5 know, I mean I'm just -- from the elders, they have 6 indicated that they've been able to get to the Nelson 7 House area with a portage. I would suggest that in 8 The Pas, on March 25th, that, you know, Mr. Yetman's 9 comments to a question that Mr. Mayer had asked, he 10 indicated that there was about eight or nine 11 traplines on that south end which is the same area, 12 the 64 and 47, those traplines in that area. Very 13 unproductive over the last several years. 14 MR. SARGEANT: I want to just repeat what 15 Mr. Mayer suggested. If indeed you can travel by 16 boat from Nelson House to Trapline 18, then you've 17 got a pretty simple solution for the argument that 18 you've been posing for many years. That gives you 19 proof that your argument is correct. But to date, we 20 haven't seen this proof. And if you want us to 21 comment favourably on it, we need some kind of proof. 22 MR. MAYER: And by the way, Mr. McIvor, 23 although you may cross through the Nelson House 24 resource area, if you wish to access Three Point Lake 25 without going through Nelson House, you can in fact 6505 1 enter the Burntwood River from a logging road just 2 outside of Sherridon. You can paddle down it. I 3 understand it takes about four days and you'll be in 4 Three Point Lake and readily able to access where you 5 tell us you can get in through to Ferguson Creek. 6 So I'm assuming, before this dam is ever 7 constructed, you'll have done that and we'll have 8 proof positive that you have a claim for CRD. 9 But you're not suggesting, are you, in 10 any of this presentation, since Wuskwatim isn't yet 11 built, that your claim would have anything to do with 12 the construction of Wuskwatim Generation, right? 13 MR. G. MCIVOR: Well, Mr. Mayer, if you 14 look at the effects that are currently on Trapline 15 18, on the basis of the Augmented Flow Program that 16 currently exists, then you construct Wuskwatim. You 17 maintain the same program that you are currently 18 operating now plus continue with the Augmented Flow 19 Program after that. What you're going to do is 20 you're going to be adding more water to that system 21 and I would suggest you're going to have more impacts 22 on Trapline 18. 23 MR. MAYER: But, Mr. McIvor, you're 24 telling me it's coming out of Three Point Lake which 25 is well above what even South Indian Lake accepts is 6506 1 the effects of Wuskwatim in that there will be no 2 hydraulic effects of construction of Wuskwatim 3 Generation above Early Morning Rapids. Your route is 4 well above Early Morning Rapids. In fact, it's well 5 above several sets of other rapids; isn't that 6 correct? 7 MR. G. MCIVOR: Well, you know what, Mr. 8 Mayer, what I can -- 9 MR. MAYER: I mean is it correct? Am I 10 correct? 11 MR. G. MCIVOR: Like I said, I am not a 12 hydrologist. I'm not a geophysicist or a geographer. 13 MR. MAYER: You can read a map, sir. 14 MR. G. MCIVOR: Not very good. I'm 15 not -- I mean I can tell you that the topographical 16 map that was provided by the National Mapping Branch 17 shows that area that we're talking about is all 18 swamp. 19 MR. MAYER: The topographical map also 20 shows several sets of rapids between Wuskwatim Lake 21 and Three Point Lake, right? 22 MR. G. MCIVOR: It shows a lot of swamp, 23 too. But you know, in response to your question. We 24 made an application for participation assistance 25 which I understand it was reviewed by Mr. Strachan. 6507 1 In his comments, he says request from Trapline 18 for 2 $60,000. Direct effects from generation project is 3 unlikely. Transmission line may have effects. Need 4 for professional hydrologist for $20,000 is 5 inappropriate. So if I was able to answer your 6 questions, they would have provided resources for a 7 hydrologist. 8 Project management, $10,000. Not 9 appropriate. I mean this is 10 months already. 10 Travel, presentation support, administration support 11 costs, $20,000 was excessive. Recommended funding 12 was $20,000. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. McIvor, on a normal or 14 average year, when is the water high along the 15 trapline? 16 MR. G. MCIVOR: Like we said, we could 17 base it on the Augmented Flow Program. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: When I asked. 19 MR. G. MCIVOR: When last? 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I'll ask your brother. 21 When is the water level high on the trapline along 22 the creeks you were showing? 23 MR. G. MCIVOR: Well, I think it's -- 24 THE CHAIRMAN: What time of the year? I 25 am asking him. 6508 1 MR. D. MCIVOR: That depends on what 2 year. That depends on what year. Sometimes it will 3 be spring, during the summer, during the fall. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: But I'm asking in a normal 5 or average year. On the average, when is the water 6 high? 7 MR. D. MCIVOR: Mostly in the fall. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Mostly in the fall? 9 MR. D. MCIVOR: Yeah. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: And when is the water low? 11 MR. D. MCIVOR: During the summer, 12 spring, summer and be high in the fall. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: The water is high in the 14 fall, not in winter? 15 MR. D. MCIVOR: No. It starts dropping. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: And it's not high in the 17 spring? 18 MR. D. MCIVOR: Sometimes, not every 19 year. 20 MR. G. MCIVOR: Like I said, it's based 21 on the operations of the Churchill River Diversion. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: But the point is that the 23 operation of the Churchill River doesn't change every 24 year in time line. That's why I'm asking the 25 question. 6509 1 MR. G. MCIVOR: But you know what, my 2 understanding is that the interim licences for the 3 Churchill River Diversion haven't been maintained 4 either. So how do you know it doesn't change from 5 year to year? We don't know. Nobody consults with 6 us. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: It's for a defined period 8 of the year. 9 MR. G. MCIVOR: Well, sure it is. But it 10 changes from what I understand. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. That's not what I 12 understand. Other questions? 13 MR. ABRA: Mr. Chairman. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Abra. 15 MR. ABRA: Thank you. Mr. McIvor, could 16 you look at the last page, please, of Exhibit 1001 17 which you put in today which is entitled Clean 18 Environment Commission Wuskwatim Generation Project 19 and Wuskwatim Transmission Line Project Presentation 20 by Greg McIvor? 21 MR. G. MCIVOR: Okay. 22 MR. ABRA: The last page which is the 23 chart. 24 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yes. 25 MR. ABRA: You put this in as part of 6510 1 your evidence. 2 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yes. 3 MR. ABRA: Did you get this from Manitoba 4 Hydro? 5 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yes. 6 MR. ABRA: Just to follow up on what Mr. 7 Sargeant was asking you, sir. If you take a look at 8 the chart, it shows start of Ferguson Creek and it 9 shows it being approximately 265 metres above sea 10 level. 11 MR. G. MCIVOR: Sure. 12 MR. ABRA: Wuskwatim Lake is shown at 13 approximately 235 metres above sea level. 14 MR. G. MCIVOR: I can't challenge that 15 information. 16 MR. ABRA: Now, the water flows out of 17 Wuskwatim Lake to the north and Ferguson Creek runs 18 south; am I correct? 19 MR. G. MCIVOR: No. Ferguson Creek runs 20 from the southwest to north to Setting Lake or 21 northeast to Setting Lake and then into the Hudson 22 Bay. 23 MR. ABRA: Well, it shows start of 24 Ferguson Creek on this diagram and you show the 25 trapper's cabin. Is the trapper's cabin not on 6511 1 Ferguson Creek? 2 MR. G. MCIVOR: There's two of them 3 there. 4 MR. ABRA: The one that's shown. Get the 5 diagram, please. 6 MR. G. MCIVOR: I've seen the diagram, 7 sir. 8 MR. ABRA: The one that's shown at 240 9 metres above sea level, is that on Ferguson Creek? 10 MR. G. MCIVOR: You know what, Mr. Abra, 11 I don't question the numbers on that because that was 12 produced by Manitoba Hydro but I would suggest that 13 the video that you just reviewed, all the panoramic 14 shots, if you look at that chart, I mean what it's 15 saying is that Ferguson Creek is like that. The 16 elevations on that rise somewhere around 30 metres, 17 so there's a mountain there somewhere. But in that 18 video you didn't see any mountains. I didn't anyway. 19 MR. ABRA: Sir, you put this in as part 20 of your evidence, this chart? 21 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yeah. 22 MR. ABRA: This chart shows a difference 23 of 30 metres between Wuskwatim Lake and the start of 24 Ferguson Creek? 25 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yeah, that chart was 6512 1 provided by Manitoba Hydro for the EIS. 2 MR. ABRA: You tendered it as part of 3 your evidence, sir. 4 MR. G. MCIVOR: I used that as an example 5 to reference the video to show that from the 6 panoramic shots and along the flight line, that there 7 are no mountains as that chart would indicate. 8 MR. ABRA: Well, they are not mountains. 9 I mean 30 metres isn't a mountain. Would you not 10 agree that 30 metres has to at least be some height 11 of land that exists between Wuskwatim Lake and 12 Ferguson Creek? 13 MR. G. MCIVOR: Sure. And I would 14 suggest, too, that Manitoba Hydro knows that the 15 terrain in that area would, you know, not allow them 16 to go in a straight line because all the swamp and 17 the bog and the cost of, you know, putting in the 18 footings for those towers. What they have to do is 19 they have to hop from outcrop of bedrock to outcrops 20 all the way through to get to Herblet Lake. 21 MR. ABRA: Now, this document says, 22 "If anything, the water in Ferguson 23 Creek watershed would be flowing 24 towards Wuskwatim Lake not the other 25 way around. There is thus no 6513 1 plausible explanation for the CRD 2 water to enter into Ferguson Creek 3 watershed." 4 Now, that's in the document that you've 5 put into evidence. But as you say, you received it 6 from Manitoba Hydro. 7 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yeah. 8 MR. ABRA: But do you have any evidence 9 to refute that statement? 10 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yes. We just showed you 11 the video, sir, and that's basically what we have is, 12 you know, all the tracks of land that were cut along 13 the creekways, the waterways, right into the Nelson 14 House Resource Management area which I would suggest 15 go right back through the swamp right up to the Three 16 Point and the Burntwood River. 17 MR. ABRA: So do I understand you to be 18 saying that you are relying on whatever it is that 19 the panel can see from the video to somehow show that 20 the water gets from Wuskwatim Lake into Ferguson 21 Creek? 22 MR. G. MCIVOR: I would suggest, Mr. 23 Abra, we could have provided you all those answers 24 had we been given the adequate financial resources to 25 do that. 6514 1 MR. MAYER: You could have paddled 2 (inaudible). 3 MR. G. MCIVOR: Well, you could have done 4 it too, Bob. 5 MR. MAYER: I quite frankly don't think 6 it's there. 7 MR. G. MCIVOR: I just showed you it. 8 MR. MAYER: No, you did not. And if you 9 did, put it in. 10 MR. G. MCIVOR: And I think that's our 11 point of this presentation is that, you know, based 12 on your unobjective analysis of this trapline, that a 13 further study has to be taken. I mean you have to 14 undertake further environmental hydrology tests to 15 show that -- you know, to get answers to your 16 questions, Mr. Abra, and I would suggest to Mr. Mayer 17 and Mr. Lecuyer as well. I mean that's all we're 18 saying is that look, we've experienced this for 28 19 years. You know, we've been told that there's no 20 impacts. But, that's our experience. 21 I mean how do we answer that? I mean 22 we're trying to get information to the public, to the 23 Commission, to the government and also to the people 24 that are accountable for, you know, what has happened 25 on Trapline 18. And we can't fight the resources 6515 1 that they have. We don't have the resources. Even 2 when we asked for some, we didn't get any. 3 MR. ABRA: That's fine, thank you. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Other questions? Ms. 5 Valerie Matthews Lemieux. 6 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Mr. McIvor, just 7 to go over this particular issue where actually we've 8 got the benefit of having both Wellington Spence, 9 who's referred to in Mr. Donald McIvor's statement, 10 and also Jimmy D. Spence with us who have heard the 11 testimony this morning. And both -- I am advised 12 that both of these elders have travelled that area. 13 And what they advise is that you would go through 14 from the Burntwood River to, and I am not going to 15 probably say this correctly, but Wemapathe Creek. 16 And there's no way by water to get from Wemapathe 17 Creek to Ferguson Creek, that they do not connect. 18 Now you disagree with that? They say you can 19 portage? 20 MR. G. MCIVOR: One of the things that we 21 have identified through this process, Ms. Lemieux, is 22 if you look at the video footage and some of the 23 photographs that we've shown, there's a creek that my 24 brother calls Jimmy Flett Creek. And the reason he 25 calls it that is Jimmy Flett had trapped with my 6516 1 brother back in the seventies and showed him all 2 those waterways in and behind the, you know, the west 3 end of the trapline and how you can get to Nelson 4 House and how you can go and harvest goose eggs in 5 that swamp and bog and also where the caribou were 6 calving and that type of stuff. 7 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. Mr. McIvor, 8 you know Wellington Spence, right? 9 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yes, I do. 10 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: And you also know 11 Jimmy D. Spence, right? 12 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yes, I do. 13 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: And you know that 14 they've both travelled the waterways in that area for 15 a considerable period of time, correct? 16 MR. G. MCIVOR: If it's the same Jimmy D. 17 Spence that was born in Wuskwatim and identified 18 Cranberry Lake and Sesep Lake as lakes that were 19 never there before CRD, I know him. 20 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: That's the person 21 I'm referring to. Okay. What they are saying is 22 that there is no connection by water between the 23 Burntwood River system and Ferguson Creek. Are you 24 telling us you disagree with what they're saying? 25 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yes, I would. 6517 1 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. Now, you 2 indicated that your family has trapped, and I just 3 want to get the date clear, has held the rights to 4 this trapline since 1970; is that right? 5 MR. G. MCIVOR: Um-hum, yes. 6 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. I am just 7 going through what I am told is a record of the 8 various people who have held Trapline 18 and it shows 9 that in 1970, from '70 to '72, Abel Hall held the 10 trapline? 11 MR. G. MCIVOR: Okay. 12 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Do you disagree 13 with that? 14 MR. G. MCIVOR: No, I don't. Like we 15 tried to get the same information. You know, we 16 asked for productions on Trapline 18 as well from 17 1970. 18 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. What I'm 19 also told is that it was vacant from 1972 to 1974. 20 And that when, it would be, Donald McIvor Sr., which 21 would have been your dad? 22 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yeah. 23 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Obtained the 24 rights to this trapline was in 1974. Do you have any 25 reason to doubt that? 6518 1 MR. G. MCIVOR: No, don't have any 2 reason. But I know we were there since 1970 because 3 when I was 10 years old, we had done the, on the log 4 jam, hunting and stayed at the cabin. 5 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: So when it was 6 held by Abel Hall, you are saying you still trapped 7 in that area? 8 MR. G. MCIVOR: No. I think Abel Hall 9 had owned that until about 1970 and stayed at Rocky 10 Lake with his prospector's tent. 11 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. When you 12 say you tried to obtain the information, who did you 13 try and obtain the information from? 14 MR. G. MCIVOR: From Mr. Dean Berezanski 15 at the Conservation Department out at Saulteaux 16 Crescent. 17 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Well, I'm just 18 going to show you what I've received and it was sent 19 to Marcel Moody from Gordon Dumas in Wabowden. 20 MR. G. MCIVOR: Sure. I would suggest 21 you make copies so everybody can have it. 22 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I will. I didn't 23 realize it was an issue. 24 MR. G. MCIVOR: I didn't think it was an 25 issue. I don't have any issues. 6519 1 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: (inaudible) 2 MR. ABRA: We can't hear you. 3 MR. G. MCIVOR: She had asked if I had 4 accepted if that's the accurate record and I 5 indicated to her that I don't. 6 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: We'll get copies 7 made and we'll provide them to the Commission. 8 Now just in terms of the issue of water 9 fluctuations, as I understand the material that you 10 have presented to us, it's your position that there 11 are six foot fluctuations in water that are caused by 12 the CRD, is that correct, like in the area of the 13 vicinity of your trapline? 14 MR. G. MCIVOR: Well, as we indicated, it 15 varies. Water fluctuations levels have been as high 16 as 10 feet. You know, they vary, depending on, you 17 know, the operations like we had indicated. 18 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. Just to 19 make sure I understand it then. Is it your position 20 that there were no fluctuations in water levels in 21 this area prior to the CRD? 22 MR. G. MCIVOR: Well, I think prior to 23 that, the natural fluctuations would normally occur 24 in the spring when you have, you know, the snow 25 melting and the ice melting and, you know, that type 6520 1 of thing. Just like anywhere else, where there's no 2 Augmented Flow Program. 3 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Now, you heard the 4 evidence of Fred Fitzer and Henry Garrick about the 5 fluctuations occurring naturally? 6 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yeah. 7 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: In that area? 8 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yeah. 9 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: So you disagree 10 with that evidence as well? 11 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yes, we do. And as I 12 indicated up in Thompson, Fred Fitzer trapped for 13 maybe a year. He's been caught probably poaching 14 more than he's trapped. 15 But also just as a note, Ms. Lemieux, 16 there was a meeting in Wabowden on Friday, April 16, 17 2004, that was attended by Vince Kuczek and Carl 18 Johnson from Manitoba Hydro. They had called or 19 convened a meeting of the Wabowden Trappers 20 Association and indicated at that point that Trapline 21 17 and -- Trapline 18 and Trapline 19 would be 22 compensated as part of the Wuskwatim project. 23 Upon hearing that, Mr. Fitzer and Mr. 24 Garrick were both very upset and stated that, you 25 know, you guys told me that we were going to be 6521 1 compensated. So I think that's why they provided you 2 with their prepared statements in Thompson. 3 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: You had a chance 4 to ask questions and you did ask questions of them 5 when they appeared in Thompson. So obviously the 6 record will speak for itself in that regard. 7 MR. G. MCIVOR: Sure. 8 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Are you aware that 9 there was a land use occupancy and habitation study 10 conducted by NCN within its resource management area 11 in the last few years? 12 MR. G. MCIVOR: Yes, I do. And I believe 13 it was done by Mr. Mike Anderson of Manitoba 14 Keewatinowi Okimakanak, Natural Resource secretariat. 15 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I'm actually 16 advised that Bill Yetman, the resource management TLE 17 coordinator, Mark Linklater and Conrad Moore were 18 involved from NCN. Do you know anything about that? 19 MR. G. MCIVOR: Was that under Article 6? 20 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: No. 21 MR. G. MCIVOR: Okay. I wasn't aware of 22 that. 23 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Okay. I am 24 further advised that there were no concerns that were 25 raised with respect to a connection between Ferguson 6522 1 Creek and the Burntwood River System by any of the 2 trapline holders who were located within the Nelson 3 House Resource Management area. 4 MR. G. MCIVOR: Is that the same trappers 5 that had very unproductive lines for several years on 6 the south end, eight or nine trappers? 7 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Trapline 63 and 64 8 were mentioned but there were several no concerns is 9 what I'm advised. 10 MR. G. MCIVOR: Mr. Yetman made comments 11 in The Pas to a question by Mr. Mayer saying that 12 there's eight or nine traplines on the south end that 13 have been very unproductive. And further to that, 14 Mr. Hicks, in the opening statements, I think it was 15 March 2nd or 3rd, also indicated that the trappers on 16 the south end were quite happy that the transmission 17 line was going there because now they can have 18 access. Before that, there was too much fluctuations 19 of water and slushing and unpredictable conditions. 20 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Well, actually I 21 think what he had indicated, and again the record 22 will speak for itself, but the issue related to 23 access and opening up that end of the resource 24 management area. 25 MR. G. MCIVOR: And I believe it was 6523 1 because of the fact that the last few years or number 2 of years, they haven't been able to access that 3 because of unpredictable fluctuations in water. 4 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: If you could just 5 give us a minute. We have no further questions. 6 Thank you. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Other questions? Seeing 8 no hands, no one standing, I take it there are no 9 further questions. We thank you, Mr. McIvor. 10 MR. G. MCIVOR: Just before you kick us 11 out of here, I just want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, 12 that as part of this process, that you ensure that 13 the community effects assessments have been 14 conducted, you are inclusive of the whole project 15 area, the whole region. You know, I'm sure yesterday 16 you heard Mr. Dysart say that -- and he's a pilot as 17 well as a fisherman/trapper, he indicated that he had 18 measured the effects of the CRD off the system to be, 19 you know, around 30 miles from the actual CRD system. 20 And he's been fishing and trapping for years and 21 years. 22 We know that the environment on Trapline 23 18 has been disturbed and I'm sure that there's other 24 areas that have been disturbed. And you know, the 25 effects are significant and it's going to change the 6524 1 way of life for a lot of people that utilize the 2 trapline and utilize the area for hunting. 3 You know, I think that the onus is on the 4 Commission to ensure that all these issues are looked 5 into and to ensure that the public in particular are 6 provided with all the accurate information. You 7 know, and I think that some of the testimony provided 8 through this process where, you know, interim 9 licences have been in place for 31 years and, you 10 know, they had been changed from year to year and 11 vary from year to year, violated agreements that were 12 in existence previous. I mean a lot of this stuff is 13 serious. 14 And you know, to have the province, who 15 owns Manitoba Hydro, monitoring and supervising what 16 they do, I would suggest they haven't done a very 17 good job. And, you know, they continue to do a bad 18 job in terms of what is being done. 19 You know, the Tritshler Report that came 20 out in '79 indicated that, you know, you shouldn't be 21 building on speculation, that you should do proper 22 consultation. You know, that you should be doing, 23 you know, a lot more to prevent what happened in the 24 early seventies as a result of Hydro development. 25 So you know, what I was going to do is I 6525 1 was going to show you the, you know, in your EIS 2 document, the CD that was provided as part of the 3 evidence, a couple of creeks on the way from 4 Wuskwatim to Herblet Lake where if you look at that, 5 if you're travelling from north to south, there's one 6 creek in there that shows a beaver dam being built to 7 hold the water back on the north side. If what Mr. 8 Mayer and Mr. Sargeant are saying is that the water 9 flows in this way or that way, well, you know, that 10 creek shows that the water is flowing from the north 11 to the south when it should be flowing from the south 12 to the north. I was hoping to show you that but I'm 13 sure everybody has seen it. 14 So with that, we want to thank you. And 15 unfortunately, I think because of the scheduling and 16 a lot of problems that the CEC has experienced over 17 the last little while, you know, with the 18 participants, you know, we haven't had an opportunity 19 to do any cross-examination on the Environmental 20 Impact Statement that was provided by Manitoba Hydro. 21 You know, we certainly look forward to doing that at 22 some point. But you know, I guess it's 27 days 23 already and I understand there's closing statements 24 that are being provided to participants, so we'll 25 look forward to that as well. And thank you very 6526 1 much. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. This is 25 to 3 12 and there are no other presenters this morning, 4 Mr. Grewar? 5 MR. GREWAR: No, Mr. Chairman, there are 6 no other presenters although I do know that Manitoba 7 Conservation and also Manitoba Hydro/NCN have both 8 indicated they have some undertakings they would like 9 to put on the record, so whether that happens now or 10 after lunch. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: We will do it now. 12 MR. GREWAR: They weren't expecting this 13 so Mr. Strachan I believe has an item that he wants 14 to put on the record or an undertaking. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Strachan. 16 MR. STRACHAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 17 I have two undertakings. MC-80, "Advise which 18 recommendations from What You Told Us document were 19 not implemented and provide reasons why." And 20 there's a document here that addresses that. 21 Undertaking MC-82, "Inquire of Ms. 22 Hickson if she reviewed seven items and provide 23 results of review," and the information is also 24 provided. So I can provide copies and I don't know 25 whether you want to address it in detail now or once 6527 1 you've had a chance to look at the document. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 3 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, I'll just 4 distribute these. But perhaps what I can do right 5 now, just before I distribute them, in the interest 6 of time, is assign an exhibit number to each of 7 these. The first would be Undertaking MC-80 and we 8 would assign that Exhibit MC-1004. 9 10 (EXHIBIT MC-1004: Undertaking MC-80: 11 Advise which recommendations from What 12 You Told Us document were not implemented 13 and provide reasons why) 14 15 MR. GREWAR: And undertaking MC-82 would 16 be assigned Exhibit MC-1005. 17 18 (EXHIBIT MC-1005: Undertaking MC-82: 19 Inquire of Ms. Hickson if she reviewed 20 seven items and provide results of 21 review) 22 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 24 MR. MAYER: While we're waiting, Mr. 25 Strachan, did I ask or did you undertake to find out 6528 1 why that caribou study wasn't completed in 2002? 2 MR. STRACHAN: No, you did not, but I did 3 provide some information on the -- 4 MR. MAYER: You told us that there will 5 be one in 2004. 6 MR. STRACHAN: That's correct. 7 MR. MAYER: And I was wondering why there 8 wasn't one in 2002 because the 2000 report said there 9 would be one in 2002. 10 MR. STRACHAN: All I can report is it 11 just wasn't done, Mr. Mayer. 12 MR. MAYER: Thank you very much. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bedford, are you going 14 to be filing these undertakings or is it Mr. 15 Wojczynski? 16 MR. BEDFORD: Mr. Wojczynski has one. 17 The others we have, one is for Mr. Cormie to put in. 18 He's not here. And the other is for Mr. Adams and 19 he's not here this morning either but Mr. Wojczynski 20 can do one. 21 Well, Mr. Wojczynski points out to me 22 what he is about to address is something we had 23 planned to do on redirect of the EIS Panel. More 24 logically it belongs for redirect, so I would suggest 25 we hold it until tomorrow. 6529 1 THE CHAIRMAN: That's fine. This is now 2 20 to 12:00. We'll just go a little earlier then for 3 lunch and try to be back a little earlier, at quarter 4 to 1:00. So that's a bit more than an hour. 5 6 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 11:43 A.M.) 7 AND RECONVENED AT 12:55 P.M.) 8 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, 10 will you please take your seats. Thank you. 11 Just before we begin -- maybe we will 12 have to wait a few minutes for the Tataskweyak 13 group to get here. Thank you. 14 While you are doing that, the panel 15 has reviewed the record of yesterday afternoon's 16 comment and I have asked for some comments to be 17 struck from the record. Mr. Grewar will do that 18 right now, I believe. 19 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 20 For the record, at the Commission's 21 direction, the response of Mr. Hart to a question 22 asked yesterday, a comment made respecting a 23 sacred site, shall be excised from yesterday's 24 transcript. Page 6420, line 21 over to 6421 to 25 the end of line 8. At the direction of the 6530 1 Commission, that will be stricken from the record. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. And the 3 record will indicate the comments that have just 4 been made and they will appear in that portion of 5 the record. 6 MR. GREWAR: I neglected to mention 7 that it was a comment that the Commissioners did 8 want included on the record was that the purpose 9 for the deletion of this statement was to preserve 10 the confidentiality of the location of a sacred 11 site. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That's what 13 should be reflected as comments in there. 14 We begin this afternoon with a 15 presentation from Tataskweyak Cree Nation. 16 Mr. Grewar, will you proceed with the 17 swearing in. 18 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 19 I ask you both to state your full 20 names for the record. 21 MR. SPENCE: Victor Spence. 22 MR. MACKENZIE: I am Douglas 23 MacKenzie. I am legal counsel to TCN, so I am 24 just here to give advice to Mr. Spence. 25 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Spence, are you aware 6531 1 that it is an offence in Manitoba to knowingly 2 mislead this Commission? 3 MR. SPENCE: Yes, I do. 4 MR. GREWAR: Do you promise to tell 5 just the truth in proceedings before this 6 Commission? 7 MR. SPENCE: Yes, I will. 8 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, sir. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Any time you are ready, 10 you may proceed, Mr. Spence. 11 MR. SPENCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 12 My name is Victor Spence. I am the manager of 13 Future Development for Tataskweyak Cree Nation. 14 Our First Nation, formerly known as Split Lake 15 Cree First Nation, appreciates this opportunity to 16 make our presentation in this review process of 17 the Wuskwatim generation and transmission 18 projects. 19 Our reserve and the Split Lake 20 resource management area are located on the Nelson 21 River downstream from Wuskwatim. We were and 22 continue to be affected by Hydro development. We 23 expect that there will be other Hydro developments 24 planned for northern Manitoba that will also 25 affect us. The fact is that more than 75 percent 6532 1 of the electricity produced in Manitoba is 2 generated by the developments within our resource 3 management area. We know we will feel the effects 4 of Wuskwatim if the project goes ahead. We are 5 currently trying to understand to what extent. 6 The process for approval and 7 development of Wuskwatim is of particular interest 8 to TCN. We are currently exploring a partnership 9 with Manitoba Hydro for the joint development and 10 ownership of another proposed hydroelectric 11 development on the Nelson River, referred to as 12 the "Keeyask" project. 13 TCN has been monitoring these hearings 14 to ensure that we are fully aware of any direction 15 and precedence that come forward as a result of 16 this process. As I indicated earlier, we have no 17 doubt that the Wuskwatim will affect us. We have 18 many issues and concerns about the project, but 19 until now, we choose not to make a presentation to 20 the committee. Based on what we have learned 21 through this review process, however, it would 22 appear, perhaps timely and beneficial, to share 23 TCN's perspective and approach concerning these 24 possible involvements in yet another hydroelectric 25 development, the Keeyask project. 6533 1 TCN supports the joint efforts of 2 Hydro and NCN to develop the Wuskwatim project. 3 To deal with our issues and concerns and to get an 4 understanding about how we might be affected, we 5 entered a Wuskwatim joint technical review process 6 with Hydro and NCN. This was done under existing 7 agreements, specifically under our 1992 8 implementation agreement. We saw this as the best 9 way to ensure our complete understanding of the 10 impacts of Wuskwatim, while respecting the 11 arrangements between NCN and Hydro. If the 12 project is approved and goes ahead, we are 13 confident that issues and concerns raised by our 14 members can and will be addressed through our 15 ongoing and continuing dialogue under the joint 16 review process that we are involved in with NCN 17 and Hydro. 18 TCN has a wealth of knowledge and 19 firsthand experience about hydroelectric 20 development situated on the Nelson River at Split 21 Lake, just downstream from the Kelsey Generating 22 Station, which was brought into service in 1961. 23 Our community has lived every day for almost the 24 last 50 years with the impacts of hydroelectric 25 development. Kelsey was followed by the Lake 6534 1 Winnipeg Regulation and Churchill River Diversion 2 which, coupled with other developments in our 3 resource area, such as the Kettle, Limestone and 4 Long Spruce generating stations, have directly or 5 indirectly affected every aspect of our way of 6 life, heritage and culture. 7 Like many other First Nations, TCN was 8 confronted with the necessity of coping and 9 adapting over a short time to the sudden changes 10 on our environment because of these projects. By 11 the mid-1970s, we were beginning to understand 12 that the changes that came with these developments 13 could never be undone. We also came to understand 14 that the impacts of development must be dealt with 15 in a way that TCN members can accept, but also in 16 a way that provides for future generations of our 17 nation. 18 TCN members, leaders and especially 19 our elders recognize that we live in an 20 ever-changing environment. Changes occur either 21 naturally or with the help of man. We know that 22 there will be further development in our 23 territory. Whether that is hydroelectric or 24 another type of development, our elders tell us we 25 must be prepared. 6535 1 In the face of new Hydro developments, 2 we decided as a community, in spite of severe 3 opposition and adversity at the time to take a new 4 path by attempting to shape Manitoba Hydro's 5 presence in the north. We are no longer satisfied 6 or prepared to have others take decisions for us 7 or to speak on our behalf. By pursuing joint 8 development and ownership of new hydroelectric 9 projects in the north, we believe that we can 10 influence the type of developments that occur and 11 provide a legacy for our future generations. 12 As part of our ongoing discussions on 13 future development, TCN has developed and 14 implemented a perspective that aims to protect and 15 preserve our rights, while at the same time 16 providing new opportunities for our members 17 individually and collectively. We build this on 18 the foundation that TCN members have been 19 sustained by the land and water around us from 20 time immemorial, and future generations of TCN 21 members will continue to be sustained by the land 22 and water, but in the ways that are not all the 23 same as those of our grandfathers and their great 24 grandfathers. 25 In 1977, TCN was one of the five Cree 6536 1 Nations that signed the Northern Flood Agreement. 2 The "NFA" in short. The NFA was intended to 3 compensate for the effects of past Hydro 4 development, but it was largely ignored for more 5 than 15 years. 6 In 1992, TCN was the first of the five 7 NFA Cree Nations to enter into the implementation 8 agreement with Canada, Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro 9 to clarify the obligations arising out of the NFA 10 and to put in place appropriate mechanisms that 11 would ensure implementation. 12 The 1992 agreement with TCN provided 13 for an increased land base, defined the Split Lake 14 resource management area, outlined joint resource 15 management, arrangements with the other 16 participating parties, established environmental 17 monitoring, provided compensation for adverse 18 effects from previous Hydro developments, made 19 provision for community and economic development 20 support and set in place mechanisms to ensure that 21 its implementation proceeded in accordance with 22 the TCN's direction and influence. 23 In 1998, TCN was the first Cree Nation 24 in Manitoba to approach Manitoba Hydro with a 25 proposal to explore the possibility of a joint 6537 1 business relationship; a partnership regarding 2 future hydroelectric development. 3 Following lengthy negotiations that 4 were sometimes very difficult and only after 5 extensive community consultation, TCN and Hydro 6 signed an Agreement in Principle, AIP, in October 7 of 2000 for joint development of the Keeyask 8 Project on the Nelson River, just downstream from 9 Split Lake. 10 TCN and Hydro have since been involved 11 in negotiating the details of a partnership 12 agreement for Keeyask. Since initiating the 13 discussions with Hydro, TCN has opened the door 14 for involvement of three other Cree Nations in a 15 negotiation of this proposed partnership with 16 Hydro. They include War Lake, York Factory and 17 Fox Lake. 18 Learning from our direct experience 19 gained over almost 50 years, TCN is determined 20 that any future development in our territory will 21 respect and recognize our Aboriginal rights and 22 privileges. We are firm on the fact that TCN must 23 be always a full and equal partner in planning for 24 development in the Split Lake resource management 25 area. Aside from Hydro development, the 6538 1 Provincial Northern Development Strategy speaks to 2 forestry, mining, tourism and other resource 3 development initiatives. 4 TCN expects to be an active 5 participant in the planning of each and every 6 sense of development in our territory. Through 7 our joint Resource Management Boards, which was 8 put in place under our 1992 agreement, we will 9 ensure that we have our voice heard. 10 Like other First Nations, TCN has its 11 own system of governance and decision making. 12 Since adopting the approach of influencing and 13 managing the changes that affect us, rather than 14 simply opposing them or allowing them to happen, 15 TCN has insisted upon and provided for total 16 community involvement. Community participation, 17 consultation and agreement through consensus are 18 key to our participation in planning. The Chief 19 and Council seek and take direction from members 20 in shaping our vision for the future. 21 TCN's participation in the Keeyask 22 planning process with Hydro and other Cree Nations 23 has provided an opportunity to further develop and 24 focus our community-based decision processes. Our 25 members will make their own assessments and 6539 1 decisions about Keeyask and its impacts. Their 2 decisions will be based on individual and 3 collective traditional knowledge about the waters 4 and the lands and on understandings based on the 5 first-hand experience about the effects of large 6 developments on our culture, values, beliefs, 7 traditions and customs. 8 Because we know and value the 9 importance of knowledge held by our elders and 10 resource users, TCN developed a comprehensive 11 consultation process. The process has come to be 12 known as OWL, "Overview of Water and Land". It 13 enables us to assess the Keeyask Project and its 14 impact in ways consistent with our Cree world 15 view. This is in keeping with recommendations by 16 the federal/provincial environmental assessment 17 panel that was established in the review of the 18 Voiseys Bay project. 19 OWL provides TCN members with the 20 opportunity to judge the merits of Keeyask based 21 on the best engineering and economic information, 22 and most importantly on Cree traditional 23 knowledge. Both western scientific information 24 and traditional knowledge are of equal weight and 25 importance in coming to decisions about Keeyask. 6540 1 TCN has a vision for our future. We 2 will be a self-governing First Nation with the 3 ability to provide a secure, sustainable economy 4 for our members now and in the future. We firmly 5 believe that it is possible to realize such a 6 vision through the shared use of resources. 7 However, such resource sharing must be built on a 8 long-term regional economic development strategy 9 that can only succeed if it reflects an 10 understanding of the Cree world view, and is 11 focused on and dependent upon sustaining the 12 natural environment through careful management. 13 The proposed Wuskwatim project and our 14 possible partnership with Hydro for the 15 development of Keeyask will provide a variety of 16 opportunities for TCN members. Among the many 17 socioeconomic consequences of such projects, 18 training and employment are key elements for the 19 future of our people. TCN is working to ensure 20 that our members have every opportunity to compete 21 for and secure meaningful employment and business 22 opportunities. To this end, we are working with 23 Canada, Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro and other Cree 24 Nations to develop and implement a wide range of 25 training and support programs. We are building 6541 1 programs to encourage our people to pursue 2 opportunities in careers that are found on 3 large-scale developments. 4 By necessity, such arrangements 5 require the participation of contractors, unions, 6 academic institutions and others. Participation 7 in the development of business, employment and 8 training opportunities, along with other 9 socioeconomic benefits associated with the 10 projects such as Wuskwatim and Keeyask will be 11 stepping stones to the participation of First 12 Nation people in other resource developments in 13 Manitoba. 14 Participation in the plan and review 15 of the Wuskwatim and Keeyask projects continues to 16 be a learning process for TCN and others. Our 17 members continue to identify critical issues and 18 concerns. Negotiations requiring our 19 participation usually have many implications and 20 are often complex. We have developed our own 21 internal structures, including reference groups 22 and round table sessions to secure the widest 23 range of input from our members and to guide TCN 24 negotiators. 25 The Wuskwatim and Keeyask processes 6542 1 have highlighted the critical role of 2 federal/provincial consultation with Aboriginal 3 people in seeking project approvals. Section 35 4 of the Constitution requires that governments 5 consult with Aboriginal people concerning the 6 development that may affect Aboriginal and treaty 7 rights. Although, we are generally very 8 forward-looking, the many and sometimes protracted 9 negative experiences of the past cannot help but 10 cause us to be somewhat skeptical about impacts on 11 our lands, our waters and our way of life. It is 12 because of this we insist that any new initiatives 13 demonstrate rigorous respect for our Aboriginal 14 and treaty rights. 15 TCN appreciates this opportunity to 16 share with others our experiences and the 17 opportunities we see for ourselves as a result of 18 developments in northern Manitoba, particularly 19 the planned hydroelectric projects. 20 TCN insists on being the masters of 21 our own destiny. We will ensure through our own 22 processes that we have a full understanding of how 23 proposed developments are likely to impact our 24 resource areas and other interests. We will make 25 our own assessment of impacts of future projects 6543 1 on our people, culture and values based not only 2 on what western scientists tell us, but using our 3 traditional knowledge and coming from our own 4 world view. We will use our own system of 5 governance to decide whether or not a proposed 6 project in our territory will proceed. And most 7 importantly, we will ensure our constitutional and 8 treaty rights and privileges are always respected, 9 from the very beginning of any planning process 10 through to approvals and licensing as well as 11 during construction and in ongoing operations of 12 the project. 13 As we look to shaping our future, we 14 recognize and respect the rights of other First 15 Nations to make decisions about their future. We 16 support the decision by NCN to develop a 17 partnership with Hydro in relation to the 18 Wuskwatim project. We also respect the decisions 19 that others have taken to implement the NFA as 20 they see fit. We ask that other First Nations and 21 those with whom we share this land, grant the same 22 respect to our decisions and directions. Ekosi. 23 Thank you. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Spence. 25 Mr. Spence, just a couple questions. I understand 6544 1 from what you're saying that you are involved in a 2 process already, in terms of discussions, with 3 Hydro and that you have followed the process 4 unfolding in these hearings to see how that goes. 5 How much involvement has your nation 6 been involved -- to what extent have you been 7 involved in the processes in which NCN has been 8 involved in terms of traditional knowledge and 9 discussions with its own people? Have you 10 followed that process? 11 MR. SPENCE: Yes. Through the CEC 12 hearing from the start, we have monitored the 13 progress of hearings, but we are not involved on a 14 day-to-day. However, in relation to your second 15 question on traditional knowledge -- 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah. 17 MR. SPENCE: -- we have developed our 18 own internal -- it is OWL. We call it the 19 Overview of Water and Land. It is based on 20 Keeyask. Keeyask Generating Station, Tataskweyak 21 Cree Nation, Overview of Water and Land and it is 22 an overview summary and it was done in June 2002. 23 It is a public document and it is available. We 24 have distributed to some First Nations and 25 institutions. Here it talks about -- I don't want 6545 1 to go into great detail, but it is available. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: So, in effect, you have 3 begun the process of collecting information based 4 on traditional knowledge in view -- in gathering 5 environmental assessment information in view of 6 this potential project? 7 MR. SPENCE: Yes. That's how we will 8 assess Keeyask development. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Is the process that you 10 propose to follow, is it -- in your view, is it 11 very similar to what is being proposed by NCN or 12 what is the process they have followed through? 13 MR. SPENCE: I have not been 14 privileged to that information of how they 15 exercise in their traditional knowledge, the 16 gathering of information. But, I do believe that 17 they have met with their elders, their community 18 members and that is the process we also carry. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: You mentioned somewhere 20 in your document towards the end that -- you have 21 made reference to the critical role of the 22 federal/provincial consultation emanating from 23 section 35 of the Constitution. 24 Is this a consultation process that 25 you would like to see happen early in the -- once 6546 1 you have reached a point where Hydro has given an 2 indication that it wants to proceed with Keeyask, 3 is this a consultation that you would like to see 4 early on in the process or towards the back end of 5 the process? 6 MR. SPENCE: I can only speak on our 7 experience to date. We are talking to the 8 Province and Canada and dealing with section 35 9 regarding any future development. I believe TCN 10 believes that these talks will happen in advance 11 of and that's... . 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Questions? 13 Mr. Mayer. 14 MR. MAYER: Mr. Spence, I was somewhat 15 surprised -- I suppose pleasantly surprised -- to 16 see in 2002 you too entered into an Agreement in 17 Principle with Hydro with respect to the 18 development of Keeyask? 19 MR. SPENCE: That's correct. 20 MR. MAYER: And the -- I am not going 21 to ask for the terms of that agreement because it 22 is probably not relevant at this point. 23 Can you tell me did you actually put 24 that agreement to a referendum or did the Chief 25 and Council make the decision? 6547 1 MR. SPENCE: We went to the membership 2 and I have members here that can attest to that. 3 MR. MAYER: I am prepared to take your 4 word for it. 5 MR. SPENCE: It was a difficult 6 decision. It is not easy. 7 MR. MAYER: It was also a reasonably 8 well-kept secret. I don't live that far away. I 9 was unaware that you, in fact, entered into that 10 Agreement in Principle. I have nothing further. 11 MR. SPENCE: I have to disagree that 12 it was a well-kept secret. It was televised on 13 TV, the signing ceremony that we have in Split 14 Lake and then it was in the newspapers. The 15 reason that our elders remember very vividly this 16 moment was that Mr. Doer did a jig at that 17 community hall at that time. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: I guess that we were 19 not involved in the hearings at the time, 20 therefore, we were not finely tuned to these 21 things. 22 Mr. Abra, do you have questions? 23 MR. ABRA: No, thank you, 24 Mr. Chairman. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Other questions? 6548 1 Seeing there are none, Mr. Spence, I want to thank 2 you for a well prepared and good presentation. 3 Thank you. 4 MR. SPENCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 5 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, if we might 6 enter as TCN-1000, the submission of Mr. Spence, 7 the Tataskweyak Cree Nation presentation and 8 Manitoba Clean Environment Commission Public 9 Hearings on Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission 10 Projects, May 26th, Winnipeg, Manitoba. TCN-1000. 11 12 (EXHIBIT TCN-1000: Tataskweyak Cree 13 Nation presentation by Mr. Spence) 14 15 THE CHAIRMAN: I understand there are 16 some undertakings to be filed? Mr. Strachan, we 17 are just waiting for our roving ambassador to come 18 back. 19 We will proceed then and ask the 20 Manitoba Hydro/NCN panel to come forward to carry 21 on with the EIS. 22 While they are doing that, 23 Mr. Strachan has an undertaking he wishes to file. 24 MR. STRACHAN: Thank you, 25 Mr. Chairman. Larry Strachan for the record. 6549 1 Just a correction to an undertaking 2 filed this morning. I noticed over the lunch hour 3 that for undertaking MC-80, the attachment, the 4 numbering system has gone awry once again. There 5 are two number 13s. So, I can either produce a 6 new table or people can just change the second 13 7 to 14, and thereon throughout the table? 8 THE CHAIRMAN: We can call it 13A and 9 13B. 10 MR. STRACHAN: Thank you. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ms. Valerie 12 Lemieux? 13 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I am advised 14 that Mr. Adams is on his way up and will be able 15 to do his undertaking when the EIS panel goes back 16 up, which I understand will be shortly. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Um-hmm. Unless you 18 have other undertakings to file, we can -- as soon 19 as you are ready, we will ask your panel to come 20 forward. 21 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Yes, okay. 22 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, there is 23 one document that we have been provided with. It 24 is the line holders. I am wondering, as 25 requested, RTL records for section 430 from Gord 6550 1 Dumas and this is to be a Hydro exhibit? 2 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Hydro/NCN, yes. 3 MR. GREWAR: Hydro/NCN. Could I just 4 have a title? What would we title this? I am 5 sorry. 6 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: It is the 7 record for Trapline Holders for Trapline 18. 8 MR. GREWAR: We will assign that 9 MH/NCN-1042. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Grewar. 11 12 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN-1042: Record for 13 Trapline Holders for Trapline 18) 14 15 MR. MAYER: While we are waiting, can 16 anybody tell me when Notigi was actually in 17 service and started impounding water? 18 THE CHAIRMAN: We will get to that 19 when they come up. Mrs. Valerie Matthews Lemieux? 20 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: 1976, I am 21 advised. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ladies and 23 gentlemen. Mr. Wojczynski? 24 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Mr. Adams is in the 25 building. He was in the parking lot in the 6551 1 basement and he may have got lost, I am not sure, 2 but he is on his way. 3 Mr. Cormie didn't know that he would 4 have to be on today. He has other commitments. 5 He will be here tomorrow. He was going to do his 6 undertaking tomorrow. I think he may have spoken 7 to Mr. Abra earlier. He could -- and if there is 8 any re-exam that is required of Mr. Cormie, we 9 could be up with him tomorrow, if that was 10 required. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 12 MR. ABRA: Yes, I actually haven't 13 spoken to Mr. Cormie, but I have spoken to you, 14 Mr. Wojczynski. I believe Mr. Farlinger has 15 spoken to Mr. Cormie. Apparently, his response to 16 the undertaking will be ready tomorrow. He will 17 give it tomorrow and then we will decide whether 18 we have any follow-up questions arising or whether 19 or not the response to the undertaking is 20 sufficient for Mr. Farlinger's purposes. 21 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yeah. I had arranged 22 with Mr. Cormie that he be available all day 23 tomorrow, if that is required. Although, we 24 thought he would be doing his undertaking first 25 thing in the morning, but he could be available 6552 1 later on the day. 2 MR. ABRA: As I say, I mean, that's 3 the only area that we have to deal with -- that I 4 have to ask him, in any event. If he can be here 5 first thing in the morning, we can deal with it at 6 that time and that will end. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: So, for everyone here, 8 we originally hadn't foreseen this and that 9 explains perhaps why Mr. Cormie and Mr. Adams are 10 not here at this time because we had not foreseen 11 that we would be pursuing with the EIS questions 12 this afternoon. But, we should make efficient use 13 of the time and, therefore, it is appropriate that 14 we can pursue some of the remaining questions. 15 I would like to get -- I know we dealt 16 with this subject before, but I would just like to 17 go over that once again. 18 So, in regard to the augmented flow, 19 my understanding is that at this point in time and 20 until now, annually, Manitoba Hydro has sent a 21 letter -- it is basically not an application form 22 per se, but a letter, requesting that they be 23 authorized to proceed with an augmented flow on an 24 annual basis; am I correct? 25 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, that's correct. 6553 1 THE CHAIRMAN: When the Minister 2 responds, are there provisions included in this 3 response indicating dates; and if so, what are 4 they? Do the levels authorize -- are they the 5 same year to year? 6 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: It may be better to 7 pursue this when Mr. Cormie is here, but when we 8 get the authorization letter for -- since in the 9 '80s, we have had the same levels requested and 10 the same levels approved, and there are conditions 11 typically in the letter that we received from the 12 Minister granting the approval. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay -- 14 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I may not have 15 answered your question, I am not sure. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: No. My next question 17 is going into more detail, so maybe I do have to 18 wait for Mr. Cormie. 19 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We can try -- 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I was going to ask what 21 the provisions are, and what the actual authorized 22 levels are? Mr. Rempel? 23 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Chair, I believe 24 yesterday when CASIL made their submission, they 25 actually handed out a copy of a recent approval 6554 1 letter from the Minister, if I am correct? It was 2 attached to their submission yesterday, filed in 3 February. It is one of the attachments to the 4 CASIL submission and Mr. Osler advises me that 5 that was actually filed in February. 6 MR. OSLER: Unfortunately, I have 7 taken that the volume from CASIL is back at the 8 office. But, in attachments 10, 11 or 12 -- or 9 somewhere around there -- in the CASIL material 10 filed with the Commission in February, there was a 11 copy of a standard letter from Hydro and I think 12 there was a copy of a Minister's response, which 13 would allow people to have in front of them the 14 very thing you're asking for. It may be available 15 in the room if someone has a copy of it, that's 16 all I am saying. We are trying to find it. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Are the 18 provisions -- basically what I want to know is do 19 these provisions vary or have they varied in the 20 course of the years? 21 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We will get a copy. 22 I know I had one and I can't seem to find my copy 23 with me here right now. 24 But, over the last 18 years or so, 25 there had been small variations in the conditions, 6555 1 but essentially they have been very similar from 2 year to year. I am referring to the conditions 3 the Minister places in the letter. 4 There are two kinds of conditions. 5 One is the actual elevation -- the water regime 6 conditions, which are the actual alterations that 7 we were talking about or was being talked about in 8 the hearing yesterday with CASIL. The other is 9 the conditions that the Minister places upon 10 granting the revision -- the alteration. Those 11 have been pretty consistent over the years. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Like, they were -- I 13 wanted to know, for instance, the variations and 14 levels and in the time frame within which the 15 augmented flow is in operation, do they vary and 16 to what extent have they varied? Like, the dates 17 are they always the same? 18 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, the dates are 19 the same. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. You said that in 21 terms of the level provisions, there has been very 22 little change in that regard. Just for my 23 recollection, can we get an indication of what 24 these levels are? 25 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, we can. First, 6556 1 I do have a copy from 2003, the letter from the 2 Minister. It was Minister Ashton when he was 3 Minister of Conservation. But, I can just 4 summarize briefly what the elevation -- what the 5 changes are in terms of the alteration. 6 First of all, the maximum water level 7 of South Indian Lake is to be increased from 8 elevation 847.0 to 847.5. So, that's a half-foot 9 increase. 10 The second is that the minimum water 11 level is to be -- this is for South Indian Lake -- 12 Southern Indian Lake -- to be decreased from 844.0 13 to 843. So, that's decrease of one foot. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Basically, it is an 15 increase of half a foot and a decrease of one 16 foot? 17 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. Then the third 18 element is the draw down. So, what we just talked 19 about are the minimums and the maximums. 20 The other issue is the draw down that 21 can be undertaken. If you go back to the interim 22 license, that specified in there as well. So, 23 this is a modification of the draw down. The draw 24 down is four and a half feet to be allowed and 25 that's taking that full range from 847 and a half 6557 1 to 843. The maximum annual draw down under the 2 interim CRD license was two feet and now the 3 maximum allowed annual draw down under the 4 Augmented Flow Program is four and a half feet, 5 which makes full use of that maximum to minimum 6 range. 7 As has been explained in the 8 presentations in day one and various other 9 presentations, you can see the annual cycling 10 happening over the last 18 years or so. Actually, 11 I believe CASIL presented that same kind of 12 information yesterday. 13 There is a fourth alteration and 14 that's the minimum water level immediately 15 upstream of the Notigi control structure and 16 that's reduced from elevation 838 to 834. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: That's the minimum? 18 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: That's the minimum at 19 Notigi itself. Minimum water level immediately 20 upstream. In the forebay of Notigi, essentially. 21 And this is -- now that I should 22 explain is -- was from May 16th, 2003 to May 15th, 23 2004. That was received by us April 2003. 24 MR. MAYER: Do you have a new one of 25 those yet? 6558 1 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Just wait a second. 2 We do have a new one, I am not sure -- I am having 3 trouble reading. Is this 2004? It is -- I'm 4 afraid Xerox machine that did these -- that is 5 2004. Yes, we have one: 2004-01-30. We have one 6 for 2004-01-30 and, essentially, it has the same 7 conditions that I just referenced. There are some 8 additional ones and we could provide copies of 9 this as an undertaking, if you would like? 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, please. 11 12 (UNDERTAKING MH/NCN 90: Provide copies of updated terms 13 of water regime alterations) 14 15 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I will try to get a 16 clear one because I am afraid these are, for some 17 reason, hard to read. They must have been done 18 off the yellow copy or something. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Rempel? 20 MR. REMPEL: Yes, Mr. Chair, I have a 21 copy of the letter to Mr. Topping, the same kind 22 of letter Mr. Wojczynski was referring to. This 23 is the 2002 letter and it says that the water 24 regime modifications requested are referred to as 25 the Augmented Flow Program and are identical to 6559 1 those approved for the last 16 years. So, they 2 have been similar for 16 years as of 2002 and they 3 also had the same conditions requested in 2003, 4 and 2004. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: But, they were modified 6 in 2003? 7 MR. REMPEL: 2003? 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, because 9 Mr. Wojczynski said that at that point, the change 10 was from -- a maximum change from 847 to 847.5, in 11 terms of a maximum and from 844 to 843 in terms of 12 minimum. 13 MR. REMPEL: Those are the very same 14 modifications that have been requested for the 15 last 16 years as of 2002. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. The change has 17 been -- that's exactly what I was looking for. 18 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Every year we request 19 a change and the change has to be -- the 20 alteration request has to be renewed every year. 21 So, we are always going back to the interim 22 license and seeking an alteration to the original 23 interim license. So, every year we ask for the 24 same conditions, essentially, and they have been 25 approved and that's why we say for 18 years we 6560 1 have operated the same way. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: So, that's from the 3 very beginning -- no. How far back do we go with 4 the -- 5 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Okay, one moment, and 6 I will get you the dates here. The interim 7 license for CRD was granted in 1973. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: And for the last 16 9 years? 10 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Okay, and then South 11 Indian Lake itself, there was work done, 12 construction work, and impoundment of South Indian 13 Lake -- this is upstream of Notigi -- was 14 completed in the fall of 1976. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. 16 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: And then for a number 17 of years, there was -- part of the agreements was 18 that we required Hydro to carry hydraulic testing 19 and what are called time lag tests. They were 20 done from 1976 to 1979. So, we were sort of 21 testing how the whole regime would operate. 22 By 1979, we had determined that that 23 region could convey higher flows than stipulated 24 in the interim license. That is without exceeding 25 the water levels, constraints on the interim 6561 1 license or the NFA or the City of Thompson 2 agreement. 3 Then in the winter of '79-'80, we 4 requested a deviation from the interim license to 5 raise the outflows from Notigi above the 3000 CFS. 6 That was sort of the beginning of what you might 7 call the Augmented Flow Program. For a few years, 8 we did a series of what could be called winter 9 tests. We said let's go to higher flow levels and 10 confirm the hydrology and the hydraulics and that 11 if you have this much flow and this much release, 12 then these are the elevations. We did that over 13 the winters of '79-'80, '80-'81, and '81-'82; 14 three winters. A summer test program along the 15 same line was done in 1981. 16 Then in 1982, essentially the testing 17 was finished -- and I am using that loosely -- and 18 we had determined that the hydraulic capacity of 19 the CRD was met within those stage constraints, 20 the elevation constraints from downstream and 21 requested a summer deviation. 22 And then after all this testing, since 23 1982, we have made this AFP request on a routine 24 basis and it is a routine component. The CRD 25 operation has been the same since then, except 6562 1 what we have to do is have annual requests. But, 2 all along, since that time, we have been having 3 same AFP kind of deviation requests and approvals. 4 Now, the approvals, as I think you 5 were requesting earlier, had certain conditions: 6 Notification of the communities and compliance 7 with stage constraints and a few others. But, the 8 actual elevation constraints and draw down 9 constraints have been the same over that period of 10 time. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you for 12 that. 13 Earlier on in the process, we 14 established or we were told that when Wuskwatim 15 comes into operation, it is the intention of 16 Manitoba Hydro to seek the same augmented flow. 17 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: You're referring to 18 the augmented flow on the CRD? 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 20 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We would be expecting 21 and intend to continue requesting getting the 22 Augmented Flow Program alterations, and we will be 23 in the near future deciding to request finalizing 24 that and that that would presumably include the 25 Augmented Flow Program provisions, but a decision 6563 1 of exactly when to do that has not been made yet. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: That's correct. If I 3 recall, that's more or less exactly what we were 4 told. 5 What I wanted to get at is, is it the 6 intention or can Hydro make a commitment that at 7 that time it will be seeking the same kind of 8 provisions or will Hydro be going -- in order to 9 maximize operation of Wuskwatim -- to seek 10 provisions that will allow for a greater amount of 11 water flow? 12 MR. ADAMS: Good afternoon, 13 Mr. Chairman. I apologize for my -- 14 THE CHAIRMAN: We apologize too 15 because we didn't know we would be calling on you 16 at this point in time. 17 MR. ADAMS: That I can answer. 18 Manitoba Hydro will commit to request the 19 finalization of the CRD license and the AFP 20 program that does not involve excursions beyond 21 the existing limits. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: That's what I was 23 seeking, so thank you. Mr. Mayer? 24 MR. MAYER: Mr. Wojczynski, you have, 25 according to the evidence that you just gave and 6564 1 evidence we have heard before, a minimum level for 2 South Indian Lake and a maximum level for South 3 Indian Lake. 4 On Lake Winnipeg Regulation, you are 5 allowed to control the water flow out of Lake 6 Winnipeg within certain ranges. At some point in 7 time, the Minister takes over. If you are going 8 to have a flood, you are required to dump that 9 water when the Minister tells you to. If you have 10 a drought, something else has to happen. You 11 don't have any such range or any such conditions 12 with respect to the Augmented Flow Program? 13 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Well, there is 14 actually a comparability and Mr. Cormie had 15 explained some of that earlier, although we hadn't 16 really focused on it and perhaps he could explain 17 a bit more, if that's necessary. 18 What I can say at this time -- I will 19 use the upper end of the range as the more clear 20 example. Unexpected events occur. You can get 21 all of a sudden a rain storm come through or in 22 the case of a few weeks ago, a snowstorm that 23 dumps six inches of precipitation. You could have 24 in a matter of hours or days, all of a sudden, a 25 rise in the level of the lake and over a period of 6565 1 a week -- or certainly within the month, you could 2 have a one-foot increase, say, certainly six 3 inches. And all of a sudden where you thought you 4 would be underneath, all of a sudden you are 5 above. 6 At that point, we are not in violation 7 of our license. You do have to go back to the 8 interim license to look at the full range of 9 conditions. At that point, we are required to go 10 to a maximum discharge. 11 But, what is typically done and this 12 is normal practise through Hydro facilities all 13 over the world, is what we would do if we all of a 14 sudden have to go to a maximum release, according 15 to the license, we would check with the regulator. 16 For instance, if he had to go immediately to 17 maximum release, that could cause and often would 18 cause safety problems for people who are 19 downstream on the Churchill River. I am thinking 20 of down Missi, for example. So, you wouldn't want 21 to temporarily go to maximum out releases out of 22 Missi for a week -- or whatever it is -- and then 23 go back down to a lower release because you get 24 this big slug of water coming and it will disrupt 25 people and be a risk, a hazard, to trappers or 6566 1 anybody on the river. 2 So, what we would do is communicate 3 with the regulator -- and this is the Water 4 Resources Branch -- and explain the situation. We 5 would then be under their direction. In effect 6 then, the Minister tells Manitoba Hydro what to do 7 at that point. It is not exactly the same as the 8 Lake Winnipeg situation, but there is a lot of 9 similarities in that regard. 10 MR. MAYER: Now, you say when they say 11 maximum discharge, you mentioned Missi. The other 12 opportunity to discharge, of course, is through 13 Notigi. 14 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: That's the other 15 opportunity, but you would be at maximum 16 discharge -- sorry. I was picking an example 17 where there is many different possible situations. 18 So, in the example I gave, you might be at maximum 19 discharge at Notigi and now you have an additional 20 slug of water on the lake. The only way to get 21 the lake level down faster than you are already 22 doing is to increase the discharges immediately 23 out of Missi. That was the example I was trying 24 to use. 25 MR. MAYER: The my other concern -- or 6567 1 actually it was the other end of the scale that I 2 was more concerned about. We had two years of 3 drought. We have been hearing about that for a 4 long time. 5 You have a minimum requirement to 6 discharge out of Missi. If I recall correctly, it 7 is 1000 CFS in summer and 1500 CFS in the winter. 8 If you get no water in -- what do you do when you 9 get below what is, in fact, the minimum? I mean, 10 is there some flexibility there? I mean, I can 11 see without -- nobody has yet suggested that you 12 have the ability to produce rain. So, I don't 13 know what you do when you -- when, in fact, you 14 don't get that snowstorm; in fact, you don't have 15 anything in the Rockies and you have got damn 16 little coming down the Churchill River, how can 17 you possibly prevent the water falling below? 18 MR. ADAMS: All we can do in those 19 circumstances is back off the discharge of Notigi. 20 MR. MAYER: So, you would -- but, as 21 long as you have to continue to discharge, 22 especially, say, in winter time 1500 CFS -- and I 23 am assuming that has some priority or does it? 24 What happens when the issue becomes one of too low 25 water in South Indian Lake and yet you still have 6568 1 to discharge 1500 CFS down the lower Churchill to 2 keep it from freezing at the bottom. What do you 3 do in that situation? 4 MR. ADAMS: I am not aware of a 5 circumstance where the inflow into Southern Indian 6 Lake has ever been less than the 1500 required 7 discharge from Missi Falls. So, there is always 8 more water coming in than the minimum discharge 9 requirement at Missi. 10 So, under those circumstances, most of 11 the water would be going down through Notigi and 12 as we approach the bottom elevation on Southern 13 Indian Lake, we have to back off Notigi. 14 MR. MAYER: So, you can't foresee any 15 time where there would be a possibility that you 16 wouldn't be getting enough water in through the 17 Churchill River to supply your minimum to 18 Notigi -- sorry, to the lower Churchill where you 19 couldn't -- by cutting off Notigi completely and 20 backing the water right up into South Bay that you 21 could maintain the minimum levels? 22 MR. ADAMS: It is possible to conceive 23 of a possibility, but under those circumstances, 24 if you cut of Notigi, then it has impacts at 25 Footprint Lake, Three Point Lake, Burntwood River 6569 1 and all the way down. Under those sorts of 2 circumstances, which of course are somewhat 3 hypothetical, but I expect what we would do is go 4 talk to the regulator and ask under this 5 particular circumstance, what is the best way to 6 manage the limited water we have in the Churchill 7 River to satisfy the requirements at South Indian 8 Lake, on the Churchill River, on the Burntwood 9 River and other interests. 10 MR. MAYER: Because once you cut off 11 Notigi, all you have left is what used to be the 12 natural flow of the Burntwood River -- 13 MR. ADAMS: Yes. 14 MR. MAYER: -- along with the ordinary 15 tributaries, the Footprint and one or two other 16 little suckers coming down. Okay, thank you. 17 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: If I can make one 18 small addition to that. We are talking major 19 drops below the minimum level. YOu can get some 20 short-term events where we are expecting the level 21 to be for the next week or next month a certain 22 amount and it turns out that there was a wind 23 going, let's say, unexpectedly strong and from the 24 south, and all of a sudden, the releases out of 25 Missi have been higher than we expected and we 6570 1 don't have someone there stationed. It is not 2 automated. So, you may get a temporary blip down 3 or a temporary blip up. Those kind of events are 4 separate from what we are talking about. Here we 5 are talking about major deviations, but we do get 6 minor deviations down that can cause 7 perturbations, but the regulators are familiar 8 with that kind of operation and we deal with that. 9 If something like that happened, that wouldn't be 10 considered a deviation from the license. 11 MR. MAYER: Am I correct in the 12 assumption that is what happened on that graph 13 where they showed the six points, the -- CASIL 14 showed the six points of water below level for 15 relatively shorts periods of time? I had assumed 16 that nobody got to Missi quick enough to shut the 17 water off? 18 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yeah, I think that 19 one, what we were going to ask Mr. Cormie to 20 address as part of his undertaking and to provide 21 additional information to the hearing to deal with 22 that issue. He was going to do that on the Friday 23 before the break. We had that one week. But, as 24 you will recall, we had the MMF cross that went 25 into overtime, and so then we provided the 6571 1 information we had to CASIL that day just to make 2 sure they had it in time to prepare their 3 evidence. He couldn't be here today, so he will 4 be available to do that tomorrow. It will be 5 addressing that issue. There is his undertaking 6 and then there will be some other information he 7 will provide. I think it will be probably better 8 for him to comment on that particular issue. 9 MR. MAYER: Thank you. I am going to 10 ask it: I don't suppose any of you people have 11 found that route between Three Point Lake and 12 Ferguson Creek, eh? I didn't think so. 13 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Our information is 14 that there is no such connection. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I will pursue 16 that same question. Have you found a tunnel? 17 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: A tunnel? 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 19 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We are familiar -- 20 have been familiar for some time about the 21 suggestion that there be an underground river of 22 some kind that could influence that. Our 23 hydrology people have considered the possibility 24 of that in having that kind of influence and they 25 can't find any evidence that could be anything 6572 1 remotely like that. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: So, that's a remote 3 possibility that still needs to be determined? 4 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I don't think it is 5 considered even a reasonably remote possibility, 6 no. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. 8 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I think it has been 9 ruled out with any kind of reasonable possibility 10 of anything happening like that. It is an 11 infinitesimal possibility that there could be any 12 such thing. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: So, we will await for 14 proof otherwise to come forth and then we will let 15 you hang by the hook. 16 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We don't have a 17 greater possibility of lightening striking the 18 building down today either. 19 MR. ADAMS: If I might suggest, 20 Mr. Chairman, if we find an underground river, we 21 would probably want to put a dam on it. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Manitoba Hydro says 23 that there are no direct physical effects on the 24 hydrological regime upstream past Early Morning 25 Rapids and downstream past Birchtree Lake. But, 6573 1 are there other direct or indirect biophysical, 2 socioeconomic cultural effects of the project? Is 3 there more information that can be provided in 4 that regard other than the hydrology side? 5 MR. REMPEL: I believe we did respond 6 to a similar question, I believe, in one of the 7 IRs, and I can't recall -- 8 MR. OSLER: It is a CEC question that 9 may have been in round 1 and again in round 2. It 10 was only going upstream. The question, 11 effectively, took one part of your question 12 about -- although, there is no water effects 13 upstream of Early Morning Rapids -- and I am 14 paraphrasing -- were there indeed any other types 15 of environmental or other effects upstream. 16 Didn't ask the question downstream below Birchtree 17 Lake. 18 The basic point that we made in the 19 answer was that if "X" pathways exist through the 20 socioeconomic area to people living at Nelson 21 House, which is upstream of Early Morning Rapids, 22 through jobs or through the socioeconomic factors 23 we have talked about. But, none of the 24 biophysical pathways extend upstream of Early 25 Morning Rapids on the land or on the water. So 6574 1 that's that point. 2 In terms of the thought process going 3 downstream -- I will give a basic point and if 4 anybody else on this team wants to add to it, 5 please feel free. It is not quite the same when 6 we say there are no biophysical effects downstream 7 at Birchtree Lake. There is not a hydraulic 8 break, if I can use Mr. Rempel's phrase, when 9 water is flowing downstream. The assessment is 10 that there is no detectable effects on water 11 regime changes or in other parameters that Mr. 12 Davies is looking at to the best of our ability to 13 predict them. 14 There is also a commitment in the 15 application, in the environmental submission, that 16 the so-called Birchtree Lake constraints will be 17 an operating constraint on how the system is 18 operated. That they will not have daily water 19 level changes in excess of 0.1 metres, underwater 20 conditions at Birchtree Lake. That's a material 21 constraint in the sense that it provides an 22 operating rule that they are using that goes 23 beyond whatever we are predicting. 24 So, from the point of view of 25 assessment, one is looking to see whether or not 6575 1 there is any reasonable basis for detectable 2 effects in the area downstream from there due to 3 water quality or anything else. We have looked at 4 that and come to the conclusion that there is no 5 basis for us to predict that. 6 In terms of socioeconomic effects, the 7 same type of linkage is beyond this area that I 8 described earlier apply in what we call the north. 9 Job and business activities may produce linkages 10 to Tataskweyak Cree Nation, for example, who was 11 here downstream of Birchtree Lake because of the 12 opportunities for jobs and training with respect 13 to Wuskwatim project, as they would for York, Fox 14 Lake, Cross Lake and other parties. 15 In summary, that is it, sir. Is there 16 any additions from either George or Stuart? 17 MR. REMPEL: I would just like to add, 18 with respect to water quality downstream, 19 including potentially past Birchtree Lake, I 20 believe Stuart Davies did speak to that issue in 21 some earlier days and perhaps Stuart should just 22 comment on them and remind people what he said at 23 that time. 24 MR. DAVIES: Actually, I just wanted 25 to remind the Commission that there has been some 6576 1 statements made in regards to ongoing monitoring 2 that will strengthen the base log to assess future 3 predictions. Two examples of that are the ongoing 4 water quality data collection that will be 5 conducted this year. Some is being conducted 6 right now. 7 There is also some additional work 8 that is being done on tracking of radio-collared 9 caribou, and that will continue for a couple of 10 years. So, again, we will have a better data base 11 to assess future impacts against. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I know that 13 we touched upon this already during the EIS, but 14 if I recall, you indicated that at one point, and 15 it is in regard to the total suspended solids, 16 that situation was returning to prior to CRD 17 conditions. I find it difficult to understand how 18 you could say that because the river itself is not 19 the same river as was there before. I suspect 20 that the Burntwood at that point must have been 21 barely flowing or of a very different flow. So, 22 it must be difficult to get pre-CRD total 23 suspended solid conditions and compare today to 24 that point. So, I am not sure if that is a valid 25 comparison or if it is really a comparison? 6577 1 MR. REMPEL: Okay. I will respond to 2 that. Before we do, perhaps Stuart would like to 3 perhaps comment on construction activities and 4 potential total suspended solids being increased 5 somewhat downstream of Birchtree Lake, and then I 6 will come back to your question, Mr. Chair. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: That first part I 8 recall hearing quite well, you are talking about 9 the conditions, conditions under construction, so 10 I am not necessarily referring to that. 11 MR. REMPEL: No. Okay. With regard 12 to our statements that total suspended solids, as 13 measured by Manitoba Environment, I believe we 14 referred to the Dwight Williamson and Wendy Ralley 15 report, and I think there are two of them, where 16 they compare suspended solids data measured 17 upstream of Thompson for pre-CRD, and then various 18 times post-CRD. They showed that, I believe the 19 numbers were something like 12 to 14 average 20 milligrams per litre of suspended solids. That 21 was pre-CRD. 22 The data now is showing, and has shown 23 for the last I believe five years or so, that 24 those concentrations right now in the Burntwood 25 River in that area are approaching and perhaps are 6578 1 already very similar to the pre-CRD 2 concentrations. 3 I understand -- I think I understand 4 your point, Mr. Chair, that how is it that the 5 river now, having so much more flow, is carrying 6 the same amount of suspended solids? But what we 7 are measuring is the concentration in the water 8 column of suspended solids, and that concentration 9 is in fact similar to what occurred pre-CRD. 10 The amount of solids being carried, 11 because there is so much more flow, probably about 12 7, perhaps 8 times the average flow, so the amount 13 of sediment being carried in the river in total, 14 in mass, is much higher. But the concentration of 15 the suspended matter in the water column is 16 actually very similar now to what existed pre-CRD. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. 18 MR. DAVIES: One additional point, if 19 you take a look at water quality record in the 20 City of Thompson, you can see in the last ten 21 years the total suspended solids levels are not 22 significantly going either in an upward or 23 downward direction. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Following up on a 25 comment that you, or explanation that you might be 6579 1 wanting to provide Mr. Davies, in regards to 2 sediment management during construction, you 3 indicated that a separate document has to be filed 4 with DFO in that regard. And I was wanting to 5 pursue that and just ask, that document has been 6 filed, I understand? 7 MR. REMPEL: Yes, it has. It is 1017 8 my colleague advises me. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: DFO has indicated 10 acceptance and satisfaction with that report? 11 MR. REMPEL: No, they have just in the 12 last few days provided some technical comment on 13 the sediment management plan, the Fisheries 14 compensation plan. I believe there are four or 15 five documents provided to DFO, and we have their 16 technical comments. I know personally, I have 17 just glanced at the sediment management plan 18 comments. There are some misunderstandings in the 19 document that I think we would like to clarify 20 with DFO, but we will be responding to those 21 comments. The DFO comments on not only the 22 sediment management plan, but these other 23 documents, were I believe placed in the public 24 registry. I will check on that -- they have been 25 placed on the Federal public registry, but there 6580 1 has not been an opportunity yet to dialogue with 2 DFO on their comments. 3 They are also on the Manitoba Hydro 4 website, I am advised. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Your EIS 6 also refers to a fish compensation plan. Has that 7 been completed? 8 MR. DAVIES: That document has been 9 prepared and submitted to the Department of 10 Fisheries and Oceans, and they have provided 11 comments on that document, along with comments on 12 the aquatic monitoring program, in the same letter 13 that Mr. Rempel was referring to. 14 The comments on both of those 15 documents are generally positive. There are some 16 additional areas, however, that we need to 17 continue working with them, but, as I said, the 18 comments are generally fairly positive. 19 MR. REMPEL: I would like to add that 20 that document, in fact, all of the four or five 21 passages I mentioned are all part of the exhibit I 22 referred to, Manitoba Hydro 1017. They are all in 23 that same package, five distinct packages, I 24 believe, in one exhibit. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I might be 6581 1 wanting to come back. Mr. Sargeant. 2 MR. SARGEANT: Thank you, Mr. 3 Chairman. I am going to change the subject a 4 little bit, and this may be the last or almost the 5 last chance we get to ask questions of this 6 particular panel. 7 I am hoping somebody could help me 8 out, I am still have a little trouble wrapping my 9 head around cumulative effects assessment. 10 Now, when I read the EIS guideline, it 11 says that the assessment shall include examination 12 of cumulative environmental effects of the 13 Wuskwatim Generation Project that are likely to 14 result from the project, in combination with other 15 projects or activities that have been or will be 16 carried out. 17 Now, my reading of that is that that 18 means you would go back to, not the beginning of 19 time, but probably the beginning of the Hydro 20 projects in that area, so pre-CRD, and that would 21 be the base line. You would add up CRD, 22 Wuskwatim, and then consider what effects Keeyask 23 and others might have on this. 24 I mean, am I incorrect in that 25 understanding? Because the way I read the EIS, 6582 1 what you have taken as a cumulative effects 2 assessment, or what you have taken as a baseline 3 is post-CRD, and that you are just sort of adding 4 on -- you are just considering what in addition to 5 CRD impacts there will be. Am I incorrect in my 6 understanding, or can somebody help me out here? 7 MR. OSLER: You are correct in your 8 understanding of what we have done. The 9 interpretation -- well, the practice that we are 10 following and the interpretation of the guide is 11 that we look at the environment as it exists 12 today, which by definition includes all the 13 projects that are in place today. We look at -- 14 the definition of an effect is the definition of 15 what difference this project will make compared to 16 that environment. 17 The material I quoted at various times 18 from the practitioner's guide and the other 19 references that have been before this hearing of 20 standard best practice -- 21 MR. SARGEANT: The practitioner's 22 guide is the SEIA? 23 MR. OSLER: SEIA, yes. I have 24 frequently observed that before we got into the 25 evolution of cumulative effects, it was good 6583 1 practice to do what I just said, to take the 2 environment that is there, take into account all 3 the projects that are there, and that to many 4 respects the focal thrust that was brought to the 5 table from modern cumulative effects assessment 6 was to also put your mind on things that are not 7 there yet, such as projects that will occur. 8 I think it also asks us to put our 9 mind on a separate issue to do with the projects 10 that exist today. It says -- and I will take 11 standard biophysical approach -- you go out and do 12 field work of what is there today, and you say 13 that's where the environment is today. Without 14 care, you could end up saying, if what I saw when 15 I did my field work today is different ten years 16 from now and there is no other new project around, 17 then presumably, subject to the natural variation 18 of that environment, that is due to this project. 19 I think what the cumulative effects assessment is 20 asking you to do, as well as what I have just 21 said, is to look at that environment that is there 22 today, and understand whether there is any 23 reasonable basis for predicting changes, without 24 even thinking about future projects due to what 25 has already happened. 6584 1 If we were to do this assessment 20 2 years ago, that would mean that to carry out the 3 practice that we are describing to you, we would 4 look at the environment that is there today and 5 the projects that are there today and we take that 6 as our baseline, but the analyst would have to 7 know that the baseline is changing as we go 8 forward because of the erosion effects and the 9 sedimentation effects and the mercury effects that 10 have been described to you in some detail. And 11 they would have to say, therefore, that the 12 effects of this project have got to be measured 13 against that changing, or we use the word evolving 14 baseline. 15 So, we feel we have done that where it 16 matters to be done, in the case of the variables 17 that I have talked about, or anything else we can 18 get our mind around. So we have not been -- the 19 words of practitioners -- we have fully 20 considering what the guidelines ask us to 21 consider, which is, is that existing baseline 22 changing because of factors already in place, or 23 is it going to change because of some new projects 24 that will occur, meet the test, will be carried 25 out? We have very consciously done that. 6585 1 Technically, we have carried out the 2 first -- generally, throughout the analysis we 3 have carried out the consideration of what is 4 already there as part of the pre "separate 5 analysis" called cumulative effects, and we have 6 dealt with the future projects under sections in 7 the EIS called cumulative. Our submission is that 8 we fully put our minds to what the guidelines told 9 us to put our minds to and followed our best 10 practice. 11 MR. SARGEANT: Are there other 12 guidelines or other schools that would do 13 cumulative effects assessment differently? 14 MR. OSLER: I think the Canadian 15 practitioner's guide points out that in how you 16 present, there could be quite variety of ranges, 17 all the way from the way we have done it, as 18 integral part of the analysis, to extend a 19 separate volume that purports to look entirely and 20 exclusively at cumulative effects. 21 So, there are different practices that 22 people follow that would be consistent with good 23 practice, but differ in terms of how they present 24 it. I think -- well, I think that answers your 25 question. 6586 1 MR. MAYER: Can I follow up just a bit 2 on that? Quite frankly, Mr. Osler, the 3 explanation you give, I was going to say sounds 4 absurd to me, but that's probably a little too 5 strong. But if you don't take pre-CRD, but you 6 call the existing conditions, the existing 7 additions and the baseline, then if you build 8 Wuskwatim and do the same thing, and then if you 9 build Keeyask and do the same thing, the whole 10 concept of past, present, and future effects on 11 the cumulative becomes absurd and meaningless. As 12 long as you can keep moving that baseline, there 13 is no such thing of past effects, because you have 14 already taken it into account your baseline. So, 15 how do you account -- how do you then add, as 16 minimal as the effects may be from Wuskwatim, and 17 at this point in time all the evidence is that you 18 are correct, that the minimum effect, there will 19 be minimum effect from the generation project. 20 But with all due respect, to call the existing 21 regime the baseline ignores the whole issue of 22 cumulative. I can't get my mind around that and I 23 am not sure -- I am not sure the explanation you 24 gave Mr. Sargeant solves my problem. 25 MR. OSLER: Let me try to interpret 6587 1 the problems, I have got a question, and then try 2 and address it. 3 I think the question that you are 4 putting to me is, does the type of approach I am 5 describing allow proponents avoid coming to grips 6 with what is a reasonable threshold at which point 7 these projects create a problem? 8 MR. MAYER: That's a good question. I 9 wish I had thought of that. 10 MR. OSLER: Is that a fair way of 11 putting what you are trying to get from me? 12 MR. MAYER: I think so, I think this 13 gets to where we are going. 14 MR. OSLER: I don't usually do this, 15 and somebody will shoot me later, but I think our 16 job here is try and help get to the thrust of what 17 everybody is concerned about. 18 First of all, I think the evidence is, 19 and the practitioner's guide amply talk about, it 20 is very, very hard in practice to define 21 thresholds for many of the things we are talking 22 about. In some cases it is easy, when there is 23 health involved, when there is water quality 24 standards of certain types involved, but in many 25 of the other things that we are talking about, it 6588 1 isn't as easy. 2 I gave an example one day, when Mr. 3 Abra was crossing me, a long, long time ago, 4 implicitly when we thinking of threshold -- it is 5 like the diagram he gave me that he asked me some 6 questions about with a wavy line, there was an 7 exhibit number for it. If we are all thinking 8 that take project number 1, take project number 2, 9 at some point you get into a zone where you are 10 starting to affect something, and then at some 11 point you get beyond that and you have certainly 12 caused a significant effect. That's the concept, 13 that is the image we have in our minds, I think, 14 all of us. We are doing this for each 15 environmental component we are looking at, in 16 principle. 17 In practice, if you can answer the 18 question about when this environmental component 19 crosses that threshold, if you understand how to 20 define that transparently, scientifically, 21 objectively, all the right words, then whether we 22 approach the problem by measuring where the 23 environment is today and then look at the effect 24 of this project, in theory, the fact that the 25 change we are introducing is small will be 6589 1 irrelevant. The question is, how close are we 2 getting to that threshold if we can objectively 3 measure it? 4 Then you and I would be sitting here 5 saying, well, 20 years ago you had CRD and you 6 clearly were above the threshold and came back 7 down again. We are adding this project, it isn't 8 getting close, but look what happens when somebody 9 comes back to you or your equivalent panel in the 10 future, they would look at the baseline the way it 11 is there today with this project on top of it, are 12 we getting close enough that the regulator should 13 have concern, the public should have concern? 14 The issue that we are grappling with 15 is not how to do this part of cumulative effects, 16 it is how to define these thresholds, I submit to 17 you, in a clear, objective way that is not 18 dependent on an individual project, but is 19 dependent on an assessment of the environment 20 status today, in this area, any area, independent 21 of the project under review. 22 And I will go one step further. In 23 theory, people looking at this type of a problem, 24 let's say in the Arctic under the CARC type of 25 guides and comments, started to say, well, perhaps 6590 1 we should be looking at this region where all the 2 projects are occurring and trying to find 3 standards, so that when different projects come 4 along we can measure whether they are taking our 5 environment in this area or that area beyond some 6 standard. That way we take regional charge, if 7 you like, of this process and free ourselves of 8 project by project increment, incremental type 9 analysis. 10 There is no way that that by itself is 11 a panacea. It is much easier in a virgin 12 environment where you haven't yet had a bunch of 13 projects. But in practical terms, we have been 14 looking at the environments that we have been 15 discussing, trying to come to grips to help 16 ourselves, our clients, and the public, and the 17 regulators, where we can to understand where these 18 thresholds might exist. And if it is not 19 transparent, if it is not clear to you, frankly, 20 it isn't always clear to us. It is an evolving 21 area, it is hard to deal with, but the objective 22 and the challenge to us is the type of thing I am 23 describing, independent of any one project. 24 And we are keeping very much in mind 25 that in this case people are contemplating not 6591 1 only history of projects in this area, but the 2 possibility of other projects in the future. And 3 this analysis has got to stand the test of not 4 just the Wuskwatim hearing, but if these other 5 projects proceed, the test of consistency, 6 transparently, intelligibility for any other 7 project that comes forward in the next few years. 8 There may be observed elements to it 9 in the sense that they are very hard to grasp, I 10 am fully sympathetic with it. My colleagues may 11 well in terms of the biophysical environment, sir, 12 which is probably in the area where most of these 13 things are most -- I am speaking from a broad 14 methodology point of view, but I am fundamentally 15 thinking more as a socioeconomist. Mr. Davies and 16 Rempel deal more with the physical, biophysical 17 environments, where the practicalities of coming 18 up with these thresholds confront them. 19 MR. SARGEANT: Is it a realistic 20 concern that, by piling tiny increments on top of 21 each other, that at some point, and this will 22 probably apply more to the biophysical, or the 23 land and the water environment, is there a danger 24 that we might finally put that one straw too many 25 on and break the camel's back? Is that a 6592 1 realistic concern, or would that ... 2 MR. OSLER: I will let my colleagues 3 go at it, but I would say that in the 4 socioeconomic environment, and I would emphasize 5 this in certain ways, people have their own 6 thresholds of tolerance. And I think this 7 Commission has seen the legacy of people's 8 residual cumulative effects in terms of trust, 9 confidence, concern. So, I will come back to 10 that, if you like. It is a concern to me, as a 11 human being, as to how we deal with it. But let's 12 go over to the physical, biophysical for a while. 13 Mr. Rempel? 14 MR. REMPEL: I will start. 15 Mr. Sargeant, the notion of a series 16 of developments ultimately having a significant 17 environmental effect is certainly valid. For 18 example, if there is a series of irrigation 19 withdrawals from a river, eventually you might get 20 to what Mr. Osler said, a threshold, where during 21 low flow conditions there would be stream 22 conditions that would be too low to sustain a 23 healthy river, for example, for recreation, 24 aquatic use, or whatever. 25 We are conscience of that concept, and 6593 1 I believe we have tried to put perspective on the 2 issues such as suspended solids and water quality 3 guidelines. We have also tried to put perspective 4 on shoreline recession, for example, where we said 5 after 25 years in erodible shorelines, we expect 6 there will be a recession of, I believe it was 32 7 metres in the most highly erodible shorelines, 8 compared to -- and I am going by memory -- 23 9 metres without the project. 10 So, there is a perspective of this 11 project will have that kind of an effect. Then 12 the consequence of that change was assessed in 13 terms of fish habitat effects, water quality, 14 sedimentation, et cetera. To the extent that 15 thresholds were applicable, we put that into that 16 perspective. We don't think that, having done 17 that, that there will be another increment, 18 another slice on top of that that would change our 19 assessments. If, for example, these other 20 developments that we did consider in cumulative 21 effects proceed, like Keeyask, or Conawapa, they 22 will not add another slice of effect on this reach 23 of the river. 24 So that's a perspective how we handle 25 it on at least some part of biophysical, and Mr. 6594 1 Davies will probably add some additional comment. 2 MR. DAVIES: Just two things. One, in 3 regards to the existing environment, our position 4 has been that you really have to assess what is 5 currently there. The existing environment, for 6 example, at Wuskwatim contains flooded vegetation 7 and into floating peat islands. Those are two 8 things that only occur in an affected environment. 9 You wouldn't be looking on the effects on flooded 10 vegetation and floating peat islands in a 11 non-impacted environment. So, we really have to 12 do the assessment based on what is currently there 13 now. 14 The other thing in regards to 15 thresholds, as Mr. Osler was saying, for some 16 things there are thresholds, for others there is 17 not, and to a large extent you have to use 18 professional judgment, which is appropriate and 19 stated in the guidelines, in the SEIA 20 practitioners guide, sorry. 21 A good example again is mercury, and 22 we have discussed that before, that when you are 23 looking at the potential effect Wuskwatim project 24 on mercury levels, you ask yourself first, did the 25 Churchill River Diversion, or other projects 6595 1 affect mercury levels in fish in Wuskwatim Lake? 2 The answer is yes. The next question you ask 3 yourself, are the mercury levels that are there 4 today increasing, still increasing because of the 5 Churchill River Diversion, or are they decreasing 6 or are they stable? 7 In our case the mercury levels were 8 stable, so we did our assessment based on stable 9 levels. If the mercury levels were still 10 increasing as a result of Churchill River 11 Diversion, and we were adding a very small slice 12 to that increasing mercury level, you may have 13 gotten into an area where you were going to have 14 an affect, and your level may have gone over 0.2, 15 which is the domestic consumption limit. 16 So, we did look at the slices that 17 were added by other projects in components like 18 mercury, and as George said before, we did look at 19 it in terms of erosion and water quality and other 20 items. 21 MR. SARGEANT: Thank you. All of your 22 answers have been very helpful to me in this 23 regard. 24 MR. HICKS: I have a remark that 25 doesn't go entirely to the question of the pre-CRD 6596 1 or post-CRD situation. I think a lot of the 2 reason -- and I speak from many years of 3 experience in the field -- I think a lot of reason 4 for wanting to back cast, for wanting to look at 5 what went before the project that is under 6 consideration has to do with making sure that the 7 perspective of the people doing the assessment, 8 and the perspective people like yourself who are 9 evaluating the assessment, is to make sure that 10 they understand that we are on a moving sidewalk 11 here. That the environment out there is dynamic, 12 and that we are adding something to that. If you 13 don't do that, and historically we didn't do it 14 very well, you are likely to treat the environment 15 as static, and look at the new impact on the basis 16 of a snapshot of what is there now. And that's 17 not what we have done. We are looking at what is 18 being added to an already dynamic environment. I 19 think that's the safety you are looking for, and I 20 think that is the safety that is undertaken to be 21 provided through a more formalized approach to 22 cumulative effects assessment. 23 MR. MAYER: Just to follow up, I read, 24 I think it was book 10, which is the cumulative 25 effects book, if I recall correctly. And quite 6597 1 frankly, after reading it, I recommended to my 2 colleagues they ought not to waste their time. I 3 quite frankly didn't see a cumulative effects 4 analysis there. There was some discussion about 5 what it should be, but I didn't in fact see that 6 analysis. 7 When you say you don't have floating 8 peat islands except in an already affected 9 environment, isn't that the whole point, that you 10 have floating peat islands because we have put a 11 lot more water through there and did some damage 12 previously. We may be putting some more floating 13 peat islands in there, and at some time we may 14 have too many floating peat islands in there. It 15 seems to me that that ought to be addressed. I 16 think Mr. Osler dealt with that, or at least 17 explained it is the best the way it is going to 18 be. But, you know, I didn't see any of that 19 either when I looked at the transmission line. 20 We heard, and the only evidence we 21 have on this is Dr. Bayne, but the whole issue of 22 edging. And I am back to my old bug-a-boo about 23 using a brand new corridor when some of us think 24 you may not have to. But did anybody do an 25 analysis of what yet another corridor will do, an 6598 1 in addition to the already existing corridors, and 2 did anybody go back beyond those existing 3 corridors to see what in fact, for example, the 4 caribou used to do before we put the road and 5 several transmission lines, the railroad, and a 6 few other things in the way? I didn't see that 7 that analysis in the transmission line EIS. I 8 didn't see that cumulative effect. Was that in 9 fact done? What did you find? 10 MR. HICKS: Let me speak first to the 11 testimony provided by Professor Bayne. I want to 12 reassure you, I have tried to do this earlier, but 13 Professor Bayne made a lot of references to 14 research elsewhere to the scientific literature, 15 and we have no trouble with any of that. In point 16 in fact, all of the references that he made are 17 cited and were part and parcel of our work. In 18 fact, in a number of cases he cited as old 19 references material that we had cited, and in fact 20 had cited more recent references by the same 21 author. There are over 50 references to edge 22 effect cited in technical volume 4 on wildlife, 23 those have all been studied. We, again, have no 24 difficulty with Professor Bayne's take on this. 25 We share the view and understand that. To the 6599 1 extent there is data available, to the extent that 2 we will be able to incorporate traditional 3 knowledge, which goes back for many thousands of 4 years, we have attempted to incorporate that in 5 our route selection process. It has been a factor 6 in the entire process from the get go. 7 When you come to the question of 8 thresholds, I will concede there is a problem. We 9 have talked about that. We do not in every case, 10 particularly in the terrestrial field, have 11 specific scientific thresholds that have either a 12 regulatory quality to them, or a tested scientific 13 quality to them, or for that matter, consensus 14 associated with them. 15 What we have is a collection of 16 scientific literature, experience, and 17 professional judgment. It is the view of our 18 specialists, which we believe to be consistent 19 with the consultation results and the traditional 20 knowledge input that we have on the projects, that 21 what we are proposing will have a residual effect 22 but will not a significant adverse effect on the 23 environment. 24 Quite frankly, Commissioner Mayer, 25 that is about as far as I think anyone can go in 6600 1 the situation, other than to remind that the work 2 we have done is not exclusively based on a review 3 of the academic literature. It is based on work 4 in the field, at this location, based on the work 5 of other peers in other areas in the past, based 6 on the advice of local people, and based on the 7 advice of traditional elders with respect to their 8 knowledge of the area. 9 MR. MAYER: But isn't the whole idea 10 of cumulative effects to deal with just what you 11 said? It is insignificant in its own, but what 12 has it done? What has putting a new power line 13 through the boreal forest going to do to any of 14 the other VECs when taken in addition to the 15 already existing corridors, some created by Hydro, 16 some not created by Hydro, but the facts is they 17 are already existing human made corridors. Isn't 18 that what cumulative effects is all about? 19 MR. HICKS: I understand your point. 20 Let me use your example of caribou. Were we in a 21 situation regionally where we felt that the 22 caribou population was seriously at threat, the 23 situation that was described, for example, by 24 Professor Schaefer, or rather Dr. Schaefer in 25 respect of Ontario. 6601 1 MR. MAYER: And by Conservation 2 calling the Wabowden caribou herd threatened in 3 their report in 2000. 4 MR. HICKS: Yes. But at the same 5 time, in respect of the extent of that threat, we 6 heard in the course of Dr. Schaefer's testimony 7 and questioning of him that the Wabowden herd is 8 growing and that was based on work by Kim Brown. 9 MR. MAYER: That was to be expected. 10 MR. HICKS: We heard that the Wapisu 11 herd, the herd that is associated with Partridge 12 Crop Hill in particular, is probably growing, 13 based on remarks that were made to the Commission 14 by Darcy Linklater, who has got a long history in 15 this particular area and substantial knowledge of 16 the traditional circumstances. And we heard as 17 well in cross-examination by Soprovich of Dr. 18 Schaefer that Metsaranta has described the 19 circumstances of the caribou population in the 20 Clearwater Yawning Stone, which is the west of 21 us, to be also stable. That is three of the four 22 herds whose range we appear to overlap. The 23 fourth, we have no specific evidence on. 24 All I am suggesting is that in view of 25 our specialist and in view of at least some of the 6602 1 research that is being done and reported on 2 currently, contrary to the view of Dr. Schaefer, 3 the circumstances in Manitoba seem to be 4 reasonably good. On that basis, the very, very 5 tiny impact that we are proposing to have by the 6 creation of these new lines is not considered to 7 be a significant effect. 8 MR. MAYER: Okay, we are still having 9 trouble getting my mind -- my head around it. It 10 is not a significant effect. But what minimal 11 affect does it have when added to the other stuff 12 that went before, and which it might have to do in 13 future, and I didn't see that addressed. 14 MR. HICKS: In the case of the 15 transmission lines, we looked at what other 16 projects might conceivably have an overlap 17 physically and spatially with these transmission 18 lines. And our considered opinion was that there 19 were none from a transmission line perspective. 20 There are some existing linear disturbances in the 21 area. Had we been able, or had we felt it was 22 feasible to accept in excess of a 50 percent cost 23 penalty, as proposed by yourself, to use and 24 consolidate along the existing transmission lines 25 in the area, had we felt that would produce a 6603 1 substantial benefit, we might have looked at that 2 more seriously. 3 Again, we have not precisely 4 quantified what that effect will be. We have 5 simply said we don't expect to see any cumulative 6 effect in the area as a result of this project or 7 other projects that we see coming along. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: We will take a break at 9 this time. Just before we do, I will state a 10 little bit what will transpire afterwards. There 11 is a presentation, I understand, to be made, but 12 we will pursue with a few of the remaining 13 questions we have with the EIS. 14 If there are some members here, or 15 people here who haven't had an opportunity, and I 16 repeat who haven't had an opportunity to do 17 questions on the EIS, they will be given that 18 opportunity. But we are told that Mr. McIvor of 19 Trapline 18 did indicate to us that he did not 20 want to pursue with questioning on the EIS. So, 21 we will -- 22 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Davies has one point 23 of clarification on the peatlands before you 24 adjourn, if that is all right? 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 6604 1 MR. DAVIES: I thought it was a very 2 good question and it provides a good example in 3 regards to how the assessment was done. 4 We did ask ourselves, first of all, 5 does the existing environment include peat 6 islands? And obviously it did. The next thing we 7 did is try to determine are the peat islands 8 increasing or decreasing over time? Will this 9 project add or take away from those peat islands? 10 We did the count and there was 8,714 islands. We 11 measured them, we went back in time, and through 12 photography determined that they were in fact 13 decreasing, but they were decreasing very, very 14 slowly, at less than half a percent per year, a 15 very low decrease. 16 The analysis then determined that the 17 project would not add additional peat islands to 18 it, but in fact may result in some of the peat 19 islands becoming attached to the shoreline, and 20 over a very long period of time reverting to a 21 condition that would be more similar to the state 22 of nature, where the peatlands were growing from 23 the shore rather than floating in the lake. 24 That, however, did create some 25 different problems for us. We, through 6605 1 traditional knowledge, we then found out that the 2 floating peat islands in fact for some things 3 provided a positive effect. They were being 4 heavily used by muskrat, they were being used by 5 birds. And the negative effects of a condition 6 that was created by Manitoba Hydro, and through 7 regulation of these peat islands floating and now 8 attaching to shore was included in the assessment. 9 So, we did have to take a look at muskrat, is that 10 going to be a negative effect on muskrat 11 populations? And that was discussed in the EIS. 12 So that entire process was followed through. 13 As I said, I think it is a good 14 example of the process that was undertaken. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: The good with the bad. 16 MR. DAVIES: Pardon me? 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Some of the good with 18 the bad. 19 MR. DAVIES: That's right. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: We will reconvene at 21 quarter after 3:00. 22 23 24 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 2:54 AND 25 RECONVENED AT 3:15 P.M.) 6606 1 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We will 2 proceed, Mrs. Avery Kinew. 3 MS. AVERY KINEW: Mr. Wojczynski, I 4 guess, I understand that in preparing the EIS that 5 Hydro had very useful sessions regularly with 6 environmental groups over a couple of years. And 7 I wondered if they did contribute to planning how 8 you did the EIS or -- 9 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, I participated 10 in some of those sessions earlier, as a matter of 11 fact, and I was involved in the establishment of 12 that. And Mr. Adams was part of the internal 13 discussions in the establishment of it as well. 14 And one of the objectives of those series, and 15 they went on for a number of years, one of the 16 objectives of those discussions was obviously for 17 us to communicate what our plans are and what our 18 possible options in the future were, and how we 19 were looking at them with the environmental 20 groups. Because they had said that they want to 21 be involved at an early stage and have better 22 information. So that was one of the objectives. 23 Another objective, equally important, 24 was upon the groups having that kind of 25 information and having more background than they 6607 1 would just from the normal course of events, 2 giving their thoughts and concerns and ideas. We 3 were both very clear, this was not what you call 4 collaborative planning, it was not that. It was a 5 two-way communication exercise, and through those 6 we became more aware of what were the concerns, 7 the priorities, the issues. And so that did help 8 influence and shape what we thought about in our 9 planning and how we did our planning. 10 There were no -- it would be very 11 difficult to point to the decision or the 12 decisions we did differently because of that, 13 because our thinking and our analysis is shaped by 14 our whole understanding of the world around us, 15 and that was one part of that. 16 So, a couple of areas, though, where 17 there were very specific interactions that were a 18 bit more direct, one was on the DSM side, and Mr. 19 Kuczek actually -- this was on the needs and 20 alternatives, but I think it is still pertinent in 21 terms of process issue. We had discussions with a 22 number of the environmental, the non-government 23 organizations, and some of them expressed an 24 interest in being involved in the design of how we 25 did the DSM update study. Again, it wasn't a 6608 1 collaboration in the sense that we jointly 2 approved things and jointly did things, unlike 3 with NCN -- that was a collaboration -- but with 4 them it was heavily influenced, they got to see 5 the terms of reference, they got to comment on it, 6 we incorporated thoughts from them, and also in 7 terms of the study. So that did influence what we 8 did, and what we did with the terms of reference. 9 Similarly, when we were looking at 10 externalities of the projects, we did an analysis 11 ultimately with the Pembina Institute, and we had 12 talked to the environmental organizations about 13 what we might do or not do. And those discussions 14 helped encourage us, or helped us to go in the 15 direction of getting somebody like the Pembina 16 Institute to undertake sort of an independent 17 study of the various factors on the options, and 18 that was included in our submission. 19 So I think those are two examples 20 where there was a market influence from those, 21 aside from the more general influence that we had 22 just from the overall picture. 23 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you. I don't 24 know if this is a fair question, but were you 25 surprised by the extent of interrogatories when 6609 1 you had entered into that? 2 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I think we were 3 surprised at the extent, yes. 4 MS. AVERY KINEW: Okay, we won't take 5 that farther. 6 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I mean, I don't want 7 to be critical here so that is why -- but I will 8 say that I think there were probably more 9 questions than were warranted. 10 MS. AVERY KINEW: I thought you went 11 into that, not only -- you went in to share 12 information with environmental groups and do 13 things differently, so I just wonder if you 14 thought that you had gone more -- 15 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Let me just speak 16 very generally here. We weren't going into the 17 sessions, the informal sessions with the 18 environmental groups because we thought that it 19 would significantly reduce, or greatly reduce the 20 questions we get in the interrogatories. We 21 thought it would have some reduction, I must say, 22 but what we thought it would really do is make the 23 whole process somewhat more effective by the other 24 people participating, in this case the 25 environmental organizations. They would have a 6610 1 better understanding of the overall picture, so 2 that when they asked questions that they would be 3 starting from a better common understanding of the 4 situation, so that the questions they asked would 5 be more effective, and we wouldn't, as a big 6 process, be wasting our time, well, getting to the 7 first baseline of understanding. And I think some 8 of that was achieved. So I think that part was 9 achieved. 10 I'm not sure that having those 11 discussions ultimately, though, was a major 12 influence on the questions that we got asked and 13 the process that we went through, except that 14 there was a better fundamental understanding at 15 the outset. So it wasn't a major determinative of 16 how this process ended up going. 17 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you. 18 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: But it was useful to 19 have. In case -- with all of that rambling around 20 in my answer -- if there was any uncertainty, I 21 think we as a corporation felt that those 22 discussions ultimately were still useful to have 23 and were worthwhile to have gone through, and 24 appreciated being able to do them. 25 MS. AVERY KINEW: I guess that is an 6611 1 extra issue that was raised throughout the 2 hearings, the element of trust and the credibility 3 of the corporation. It seems to be a big issue in 4 the Federal election campaign as well. 5 It came up in a couple of issues, but 6 I think definitely in terms of objective 7 monitoring, remediation efforts, problems with 8 what may come out to be environmental protection 9 plans. In particular I remember you undertaking 10 specific environmental protection plans during 11 construction of both the transmission line and the 12 generating station, if artifacts are found or 13 sacred sites are found, you had specific 14 recommendations with fish, you had specific 15 recommendations -- I think there was a lot of 16 questions about independent monitoring, what kind 17 of reports will go to governments, both First 18 Nations and Provincial, Federal, and how are 19 people to trust your commitment, how can you be 20 called to account? 21 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I can make some 22 general comments, and I think others are probably 23 in a better position to make some more specific 24 comments. But your comment about monitoring, 25 independent monitoring, there is a concept that we 6612 1 were trying to explain and talk about earlier in 2 the process, including in some cross-examination, 3 and that was, if we were talking about the water 4 levels, that is the easiest example, the most 5 straightforward one. It is very typical and 6 normal in many jurisdictions for the entity who 7 has an in-depth involvement with the water regime 8 to be the one taking the measurements, one of the 9 reasons being they need more information than just 10 about anybody else because they are planning the 11 operation, the detailed operation, and they need 12 the information quickly and they needs lots of 13 detailed information. And they are the ones 14 probably paying for it. So they needs lots of 15 information for their operation and their 16 planning. 17 Now, there are others who would want 18 to know, well, is that entity -- and let's say it 19 is Manitoba Hydro in this case -- is it following 20 the licenses, is it -- what is it doing with the 21 system? So they will want to see the data. But 22 then the detailed entity, in this case Hydro, can 23 collect the data and then periodically report it. 24 There is information available through various 25 means. And somebody else can occasionally come in 6613 1 and effectively, I will use the word audit, you 2 know, check, is this reasonable? Is it being done 3 the right way? So you can have as an independent 4 check that the measurements will be done the right 5 way, that there is an accurate engineer report, an 6 accurate interpretation, accurate, meaningful 7 reporting. And we had something like that happen 8 on Lake Winnipeg as to the way we were reporting 9 the water levels of Lake Winnipeg. So there was 10 an independent check, that we were reporting that, 11 measuring and reporting that in an appropriate 12 manner. And that seems to be a good means to have 13 that checking done, rather than just pure and 14 simple trust. So, that seems to be a very 15 effective and efficient way to do that. 16 So, there are protection plans that we 17 are proposing, we are working with DFO, working 18 with others, environmental protection plans, and 19 there will be certain mechanisms in place to make 20 sure they will be done, and there will be certain 21 reporting. I'm not in a position to speak in 22 detail on those, but I think others could if that 23 was of interest. 24 MS. AVERY KINEW: One of the 25 suggestions in the hearings has been to have joint 6614 1 committees that would meet periodically, not just 2 receive reports, but review reports together? 3 MR. ADAMS: Committee -- a joint 4 committee sounds like an awful formal mechanism 5 and I don't know that it necessarily adds value to 6 the process, but -- 7 MS. AVERY KINEW: I'm just talking 8 about trust here. 9 MR. ADAMS: I want to, let me come 10 back to the trust issue. We certainly have people 11 available on a continuing basis to share the 12 information with the various communities, we share 13 it with them, and we are certainly prepared to sit 14 down and review it with them. In some cases we do 15 have regular semi-annual or quarterly processes, 16 in some cases it is less formal. 17 Trust is a weird thing, and you 18 mentioned the Federal election. I'm not aware of 19 a single instance that Manitoba Hydro has not 20 lived up to a commitment that it has made. 21 Now, that is not to say that everybody 22 else believes the same thing. And there are 23 sometimes different expectations of what those 24 commitments were. But to my knowledge, there is 25 no single case where we have not met the 6615 1 obligations of a license, we have not met our 2 obligations with respect to mitigation or remedial 3 work, or for that matter, communications with the 4 various communities. I don't know what more we 5 can do. 6 MS. AVERY KINEW: Well -- 7 MR. ADAMS: Simply, other than keep 8 trying and keep trying and keep trying. As you 9 can see by Councillor Elvis at the end of the 10 table, I'm pretty sure if you would ask NCN if 11 they would be prepared to sit with us at a table 12 like this ten years ago, they would have laughed 13 you out of the room. But I think you can see that 14 in the case of NCN we have worked diligently, and 15 several of our staff members especially have 16 worked very diligently to the point where there is 17 a high level of trust, at least as between the 18 senior members, leaders of NCN and Manitoba Hydro. 19 I was unfortunately not able to be 20 here this morning, but I gather that Victor Spence 21 from TCN was here -- just after lunch. Again, we 22 are working very, very hard with TCN, and I have 23 to tell you it is not always as easy as it sounds, 24 but, again, trying to develop a level of trust 25 with that community, where we can sit down and 6616 1 share opinions and differences of opinions. 2 MS. AVERY KINEW: I appreciate that. 3 I understand there is a risk for both sides, and I 4 know why NCN and TCN, in particular, and some of 5 the other First Nations want to pursue this. And 6 they are on a different level, I would say, than 7 for instance, South Indian Lake or the 8 environmental groups, because they are 9 co-proponents, they are potential partners, they 10 are co-owners. But some of these other groups 11 have interests in the environment, or in the 12 future. It was on the news last night that Hudson 13 Bay, in 20 years polar bears won't even be able to 14 live there because of climate change. And climate 15 change is one of the issues that was brought up in 16 the EIS that perhaps didn't have enough attention. 17 I just wondered if Manitoba Hydro, in 18 order to build this credibility and trust, is 19 willing to meet on a regular basis with certain 20 groups who might be concerned about these? 21 Perhaps you think you already are, I'm not sure. 22 MR. ADAMS: The short answer is yes, 23 we are willing to meet with anybody and discuss 24 it. One of the issues, of course, with the 25 environmental groups is that there are a wide 6617 1 variety of them and they tend to be somewhat 2 informal. And even the groups -- when Mr. 3 Wojczynski was talking about the meetings that we 4 have had over the last few years, most of the 5 people attending those meetings would go to great 6 pains to say that they weren't representing the 7 environmental group per se, they were there on 8 their own, out of their own interest. But 9 certainly we would love to be able to sit down and 10 have an intelligent conversation with somebody 11 like the Sierra Club. If they promise to park 12 their baggage at the door, we will park ours, but 13 it has to be mutual. 14 We do have a good, functional working 15 relationship with the Institute of Sustainable 16 Development here in Winnipeg. We work well with 17 the Pembina Institute in Alberta. And we are 18 certainly prepared to put in the effort with 19 anybody else who is equally prepared to come to 20 the table and consult and discuss in a rational, 21 intelligent manner. 22 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you. Just a 23 change of pace, in the undertaking that the 24 Manitoba Hydro gave to the CEC yesterday, the 25 comparison of the Quebec project and the Wuskwatim 6618 1 dam. I don't know who would answer, Mr. 2 Wojczynski, I suppose? 3 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Pardon me, Ms. Kinew, 4 could we still follow up a little bit on the 5 monitoring answer? I just wanted to give an 6 example -- actually, if I could ask Mr. Davies to 7 give an example of how, when we do have a project 8 we do some monitoring and evaluation and we don't 9 just keep it hidden in a box underneath a desk. 10 MR. DAVIES: The monitoring program 11 that has taken place for the Churchill weir is a 12 good example of the way things have been handled 13 in the past. There has been -- there was a seven 14 year monitoring program that was put in place, and 15 the monitoring program was designed with input 16 from the Depaerment of Fisheries and Oceans, and 17 Manitoba Conservation, and there was a series of 18 meetings to make sure that all of the requirements 19 that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans felt 20 should be met in regards to monitoring, everything 21 from the design of the programs, to the 22 methodology that was used, to the statistical 23 analysis of the data collected, were met. 24 The studies have been conducted. As a 25 result of the studies, reports have been produced, 6619 1 they have been provided to both Manitoba 2 Conservation and the Department of Fisheries and 3 Oceans. Manitoba Conservation has a policy that 4 if you are collecting fish in Manitoba, that you 5 need to provide a report to them that they make 6 public. Because the Department of Fisheries and 7 Oceans was involved, they also required the 8 reports. And when they do receive the reports, 9 they become part of the public record so that the 10 entire public has the ability to look at that. In 11 a division to that there has been very close 12 communication with the town of Churchill. There 13 has been a number of regular workshops in the 14 community where the monitoring studies have been 15 presented to anyone interested in those results. 16 We received input from the community, and in some 17 cases have modified the design of some of the 18 monitoring programs based on that input. There 19 was also some individuals that had specific 20 concerns, such as the people that run whale 21 watching tours, and there has been special 22 meetings with them to make sure that they have all 23 of the results in regards to the Beluga whale 24 studies. 25 And there has been a very, very 6620 1 comprehensive consultation program to make sure 2 that the results of all of the monitoring studies 3 had been provided to the community, and both the 4 Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Manitoba 5 Conservation have received a copy of the reports 6 and have provided critical evaluation of the 7 information collected; and where they felt it was 8 inadequate, they were required to collect 9 additional information. 10 In addition to the Beluga whale study, 11 there were also bird studies and water fowl 12 studies that were of concern to specific members 13 of the community because there is a large bird 14 watching industry up there. And those results 15 have also been provided to the community, and 16 again to the specific individuals that are 17 involved in that industry. 18 MR. OSLER: Just while we are on the 19 subject and before we go to the next one, the 20 subject has arisen during the hearings a lot, so 21 we also did some looking at practices elsewhere 22 such as the Northwest Territories, Voisey Bay, and 23 confirmed that they don't create new people that 24 actually do the monitoring, they create what Mr. 25 Wojczynski was referring to -- or what I refer to 6621 1 as a watchdog agency. The monitoring is still 2 done by the proponent, the diamond mine or the 3 other mine. The regulators of the jurisdiction 4 still do what they do. But because of the 5 discussions that took place in those processes, 6 they created an agency with a bunch of people on 7 it, by agreement, of the affected communities, the 8 Governments, and the proponent, to have an 9 independent monitoring, what they call agency, but 10 it is not doing the monitoring, it may generate 11 the wrong image, it is sitting there and reviewing 12 what they are doing on an annual basis and 13 discussing it, so that the people have a sense 14 that it is continually being watched. 15 Now, these processes emerged, I would 16 argue, in a context where we didn't have a history 17 like we do here. One thing that has happened here 18 is there was some Hydro development -- in case 19 anybody in the room doesn't know that -- already 20 there, and there has been residue from it, 21 including agreements. So when we are dealing with 22 Nelson House, it is no mean feat that we are all 23 here discussing this today. It is no mean feat 24 that Mr. Victor Spence was here earlier discussing 25 his process. Five years ago or so, it would have 6622 1 been probably something that nobody would believe. 2 And it may not still happen, just to be quite 3 blunt. I mean, there still has to be a vote. 4 So there will be, there are agreements 5 as to monitoring between NCN and Manitoba Hydro, 6 and there will be, I'm sure in terms of their 7 development, agreements as to monitoring, so the 8 interests of NCN and their people in terms of 9 regular reporting, annual meetings, and 10 discussions, and everything else will be there. I 11 think that is something that wasn't understood in 12 some other jurisdictions. It is absolutely for 13 certain a prerequisite here. 14 I just think we have to be very 15 mindful of our own history and our own situation 16 as we evolve this, as well as the lessons from 17 elsewhere. We have got 20 or 30 years of lessons. 18 The harder part may be to involve some of the 19 people outside of the region in the process, in a 20 way that is respectful and productive. But the 21 people in the region who are doing new 22 developments, be it Churchill weir or these new 23 projects, will look after their interests, I 24 suggest, you can test them. 25 People who haven't got a development 6623 1 in their back yard, but have issues there, such as 2 South Indian, people are trying to have steering 3 committees and trying to get together with all the 4 various forms of leadership and trying to find a 5 way to do this. So far you can gauge your own as 6 to where we have got to on that. It is not as 7 though nobody is not trying on either side of the 8 table. How we involve other people outside of 9 these regions is another issue, I suggest. We 10 have tried, people have tried, and you can gauge 11 the successfulness today. 12 In the forestry industry in this 13 province, in the east side -- I'm aware of some of 14 the same people actively involved in a more 15 cooperative way, not only with model forests but 16 with other activities. 17 So it is not impossible at all. 18 MS. AVERY KINEW: I appreciate that. 19 MR. OSLER: But incrementally, we are 20 not dead in the water either in this Province, we 21 are moving in a better way. 22 MS. AVERY KINEW: We just have heard 23 regularly about the credibility gap, especially 24 when long term ecological monitoring was 25 recommended in the '70s by the Lake Winnipeg 6624 1 Churchill River/Nelson River study board, yet we 2 are still talking about a moving baseline or 3 evolving baseline. So there is a lot that still 4 has to be done. I appreciate all of your 5 comments, it is really useful. 6 The undertaking about Quebec, two 7 questions that I had. I thought it was very 8 useful that you didn't just give us the table that 9 we requested, but you explained some background 10 and how different the two agreements are in a much 11 larger project in Quebec, which we know. But in 12 the table, when we talk about the terms of the 13 cash flow in Quebec, it is for 50 years, and 14 Wuskwatim it is for the life of the project. But 15 I thought it would be useful if you were more 16 explicit in stating the life of the project. And 17 I think that testimony has been 50 to 100 years, 18 you know, just to be more specific. 19 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I was just asking 20 someone for a copy of the table. I don't have 21 everything here. 22 Yes. So, the life of the project, 23 what we are thinking of typically here is 67 years 24 for the life of a project. As we explained at 25 some point in the last couple of months, 67 years 6625 1 is the average of all of the major components. 2 What we expect will happen is that we will have 3 reinvestment, and the big structures, the big dam 4 structures, the main powerhouse, for example, last 5 100 years. 6 So the agreement we have with NCN on 7 Wuskwatim would be the full 100 years, for 8 example. If we choose, at the 100 year point, 9 that we could do some reconstruction and get 10 another 10, 30, 40, 50 years, but with massive 11 refurbishment, but it is still essentially 12 Wuskwatim, it would be carrying on. So we are 13 talking about more than 67 years, probably -- 14 let's say 100 years, but an exact amount isn't 15 known. 16 MS. AVERY KINEW: Two more pages on, 17 in the second page you are referring to the number 18 of the bands' capacity, and then the next page you 19 are doing the number of jobs. And because you are 20 speaking of the Government of Quebec Grand Council 21 of the Crees Agreement, you say this agreement 22 does not provide a guarantee of jobs. But then if 23 you go on the next page, in the footnote under 24 footnote 5 it says, 25 "The 2002 agreement does not 6626 1 specifically deal with any of the 2 criteria listed in this section which 3 is economic and community 4 development." 5 And then you had to go to other sources. So you 6 did speak with Hydro Quebec, and they said that 7 there were separate agreements, not in the public 8 domain, but these agreements included remedial 9 works for the Cree, employment for Cree, contracts 10 for the Cree, Cree enterprises, and various other 11 matters including Eastman 1 and 2. 12 So I take that to mean that there are 13 a number of specific jobs and development 14 agreements. So I think it would be more 15 appropriate to change that particular box to make 16 it clearer. 17 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We were dealing in 18 here with two agreements, so we were trying to 19 delineate these two and the comparison of them. 20 There are all kinds of other agreements, both in 21 Manitoba and Quebec, that provide other terms and 22 conditions, other benefits, other relationships. 23 And so there are, for instance, in the Quebec side 24 there are some other agreements, as it says in the 25 footnote, that deal with remedial works or with 6627 1 jobs. But our understanding is those aren't 2 guarantees either. They have terms and conditions 3 on job readiness and other elements. So in that 4 sense, they are not guarantees either. If the 5 people aren't job ready, they don't get a job, so 6 you don't have a guarantee. To that extent, they 7 are not guarantees either. So there is two 8 additional elements to think about there. 9 MS. AVERY KINEW: I think it could be 10 clarified, because when you say jobs for Cree 11 employment, for Cree contracts, for Cree 12 enterprises, that seems to be more than saying the 13 agreement does not provide a guarantee of jobs. 14 It seems to be saying there is -- 15 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, so your concern 16 is that -- 17 MS. AVERY KINEW: I just think it 18 should be clear on both of those points that I'm 19 raising, in order for it to be useful as a 20 document that people can refer to. 21 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: If we could expand 22 this and try and make that clearer -- one of the 23 difficulties are, they are not in the public 24 domain as that does say in here, but we have some 25 indirect understanding that there is terms and 6628 1 conditions, like the job readiness one, and we 2 could, with the limited information that is 3 available, we could expand this and make that 4 clearer, if that was -- it sounds like you were 5 feeling that is a difficulty with this, so we 6 could do that if you would like. 7 MS. AVERY KINEW: It is quite clear in 8 the next box that there is no specific terms in 9 the Quebec agreement guaranteeing a training 10 centre, whereas NCN has secured access to funds to 11 construct a training centre. That is a very clear 12 comparison. I think it could be clearer. 13 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We will add that in, 14 or modify, rather than putting in the footnote, 15 putting something more into the main table, we 16 could do that. 17 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you very much. 18 That is all, Mr. Chair. 19 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Just to reiterate, 20 and I don't think that I explained it as well as I 21 could -- the difficulty we were having with that 22 is that this table was meant to describe the Peace 23 of the Braves compared to our agreement. One of 24 the difficulties is that we were going to start 25 bringing in some things in other agreements, but 6629 1 that is true on both sides in Quebec and Manitoba 2 too. For example, aside from the NCN/Manitoba 3 Hydro agreement in Wuskwatim, we have got other 4 agreements with NCN that provide other benefits, 5 and they are not listed here either. But having 6 said that, we could still make that information in 7 the footnote clearer in the table itself. We 8 could redo it from that point of view. 9 MS. AVERY KINEW: I think you are 10 already doing it in some places, because on the 11 second page you are talking about the 12 hydroelectric projects and comparing their 13 capacities and their flooding area, et cetera. 14 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I think the reason we 15 did that, in that case, we were specifically asked 16 by yourselves to do that. That wasn't particular 17 to the NCN/Hydro agreement, or the SOU, that was 18 information that we had been specifically asked by 19 CEC, so we included it for that reason. 20 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Nepinak. 22 MR. NEPINAK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 23 My question is about the -- I don't 24 know which one will answer -- but fish habitat and 25 fish movements, mercury levels. You have a very 6630 1 good summary here with the effects of the fishing 2 industry. I'm going to start from the mercury in 3 fish. You know, you state that the mercury levels 4 in fish have returned similar to those prior to 5 CRD. Could you tell us, did the fish stock come 6 back about the same level? 7 MR. DAVIES: The fish stock in 8 Wuskwatim Lake? 9 MR. NEPINAK: No, the fish stock in 10 South Indian and all of the affected water areas? 11 MR. DAVIES: The level of recovery is 12 different for each system. In using South Indian 13 Lake as an example, it wasn't something that I 14 specifically studied as part of this Environmental 15 Impact Assessment, but I can provide some 16 information based on the knowledge that I have. 17 There is other people here, some of the fishermen 18 that may have more knowledge on it than I do. 19 In regards to South Indian Lake, again 20 using it as an example, the fish population in 21 South Indian Lake is incredibly complicated. It 22 is one of the most complicated that I have seen in 23 the north. They have a mix, for example, of white 24 fish, light white fish and dark white fish, and 25 historically the South Indian Lake fishermen 6631 1 fished for the light white-white fish, which were 2 preferred because they had lower CIS counts and 3 had a higher price. Most of the fishing occurred 4 in area five, which was the north end of the lake. 5 Following Churchill River Diversion, 6 what happened was the light and the dark fish 7 seemed to mix up, and where the fishermen used to, 8 or the fishers used to be able to harvest the 9 fish, the light white fish were no longer there. 10 So because the movements of the fish changed and 11 the populations changed, the historic fishing 12 grounds that the fishers would go to before no 13 longer existed. So a lot of the traditional 14 knowledge that the people had was no longer 15 useful. 16 In addition to that, because they were 17 catching a higher percent of dark white fish, 18 there was a thought that the CIS counts would be 19 higher, and because of that the grade of fish 20 lowered. And they were receiving prices for what 21 they called cutter white fish instead of export 22 grade white fish. Manitoba Hydro responded to 23 that by providing the difference in cost, they 24 supplemented the income of the fishermen by 25 providing export grade prices for cutter grade 6632 1 fish. 2 In addition to the mixing of grades, 3 two other things that occurred, one was the very 4 large decrease in catch per unit effort, which is 5 documented in a lot of the work that was done by 6 the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and also 7 in a practicum that was provided by Carl Hrenchuk 8 from the Natural Resource Institute in 1991. 9 There was a very significant decline in the 10 population. And because of that, the position 11 that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans took 12 when the settlement took place was that the 13 population was not going to recover. 14 And the settlement did provide, as I 15 believe is on the record, compensation for 16 100 percent of the net value in perpetuity for the 17 fishery, because at that point in time it was felt 18 that the population would not recover. 19 By around the mid 1990s there was a 20 number of additional studies that were conducted, 21 and one of them was by a fellow named Peristy, and 22 he found I believe, I don't have the exact date, 23 but somewhere probably in the late 1980s or early 24 1990s, that in fact the fishery was recovering. 25 And he felt that although it would not reach 6633 1 pre-project conditions, that it would start to 2 approximate some of the pre-project conditions in 3 terms of the quantity of fish, not necessarily the 4 quality of the fish. 5 What happened following that is we did 6 see, by 1991, 1992, 1993, the fish population 7 recovering. When I say the fish population 8 recovering, I'm gauging that by the catch of the 9 commercial fishers in South Indian Lake. There 10 was in excess of 500,000 kilograms harvested in 11 the early to mid 1990s, which was close to the 12 maximum amount that was harvested pre-project by 13 the South Indian Lake fishers. That continued for 14 about three or four years with relatively high 15 levels, showing again a recovery of the stock at 16 around 400, 450,000 kilograms per year. 17 By 1997, 1998, there was an indication 18 that the stock, which appeared to have recovered 19 at fairly high levels, was starting to decline. 20 And over the last four or five years, there has 21 been -- not necessarily a small, but a moderate 22 decline each year for the last four or five years, 23 which to some extent was one of the factors that 24 caused the South Indian Lake fishers to approach 25 Manitoba Hydro to provide some additional 6634 1 monitoring in regards to the fish population in 2 South Indian Lake, because they had noticed that 3 the fish populations had been declining for the 4 last four or five years and wanted some additional 5 information. And because of that the steering 6 committee that was mentioned before has been set 7 up. 8 So, again, it has recovered to some 9 extent. In the last few years it has been 10 declining. There is some work done on that. 11 If we look at other fish populations 12 throughout the system, each one is different, and 13 it depends on the nature of the impact, the 14 duration of the impact, and also whether or not 15 the area is being heavily fished commercially and 16 domestically. 17 MR. NEPINAK: I think you may have 18 answered the second part of my question. In 19 Wuskwatim, you know, the blasting that is going to 20 occur, and the minimal flooding as compared to 21 CRD, do you see the recovery, same period, 22 shorter, or longer, you know, because of the 23 extended activity, which is the blasting of the 24 dam area? 25 MR. DAVIES: I believe at Wuskwatim 6635 1 Lake we will have either no increase or a slight 2 increase during the first five years of the 3 project in terms of fish productivity. Whether 4 you actually see an increase in fish, the number 5 of fish in the lake, will to some extent depend on 6 the number of people that are taking them out of 7 the lake. If we see an increase in commercial and 8 domestic fishing, there may be more fish taken out 9 than the beneficial effects of the stabilization 10 of the water will produce. So it depends a bit on 11 how many you are taking out. But the project 12 itself upstream of Wuskwatim should have a small 13 positive effect during the first five years, and a 14 slightly larger positive effect, not significant, 15 but larger, following that five years. So we will 16 see a slight increase in fish productivity, but it 17 won't be significant. 18 MR. NEPINAK: And you go on to state 19 that the monitoring will be conducted at the 20 station. Does that include mercury count or 21 mercury -- 22 MR. DAVIES: There is an additional 23 year of mercury data that will be collected prior 24 to construction, again just to strengthen the data 25 base. There has been a number of years already 6636 1 collected, but it is good to have a strong data 2 base, because there is some natural variation that 3 occurs in the samples. 4 Following construction, when the water 5 levels are increasing, there will be additional 6 monitoring of mercury levels. Not necessarily 7 because we feel that there will be a significant 8 increase because of the small amount of flooding, 9 but to provide a better understanding of the 10 increase of mercury level in fish, and also just 11 to make sure that our prediction was correct. 12 MR. NEPINAK: One last question -- 13 maybe you answered this already -- I have a 14 difficulty with jobs, and I think you are, as you 15 presented, I think the training and a lot of that 16 is good, you know, to be able to achieve that for 17 First Nations. And I know I raised this already. 18 But I hear, you know, my colleague's last question 19 here regarding the commitment, and I still go back 20 to, you know, the guarantee of jobs, whereas in 21 the past, as I already stated that in the Grand 22 Rapids situation, for example, Canada Manpower was 23 responsible for the employment of those in the 24 projects, where now, you know, you have given it 25 to, or handed it over to the unions, to the unions 6637 1 to hire our people. I understand what you are 2 saying, that you know they have to be qualified, 3 they have to meet the job requirements. I 4 understand all of that. But I guess one thing I 5 would like to see, like, other Provincial agencies 6 such as hospitals, for example, have -- and the 7 Canadian Employment Equity Act guarantees a 8 certain amount of Aboriginals be on the job list 9 or -- I know Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs signed 10 specific agreements such as CPR, Greyhound, Air 11 Canada, I believe. That is two -- maybe you 12 answered it, I didn't quite understand the answer 13 that you gave, but, you know, is it possible for 14 something that you might want to reconsider, or 15 are you considering it already? My question is to 16 maybe Ken or Mr. Wojczynski. 17 MR. ADAMS: The question is, are we 18 considering quotas? 19 MR. NEPINAK: I guess, you know, if 20 there is 600 jobs, you know, is it fair to say 21 that 150 of those or 200 be set aside for 22 Aboriginal people, you know, whether that is quota 23 or not -- 24 MR. ADAMS: That is what I would 25 interpret as a quota. And no, we are not 6638 1 re-considering it. I think we have tried to make 2 it very clear that, subject to the availability 3 and the qualifications, that Aboriginals will get 4 first crack at every job on the project. 5 And that is not, we haven't handed 6 over the hiring practice to the unions. The 7 referral agency will be the Provincial Government, 8 more specifically the Department of -- what do 9 they call it -- education and training, advance, 10 yes. So we will have an arrangement where all of 11 the job orders will go to the Provincial 12 Government agency, and then the Provincial 13 Government agency will refer potential candidates 14 to the contractors for employment. 15 Our intention is that the priority 16 will be very clear, that the first priority will 17 go to Aboriginals living in Northern Manitoba, 18 period. And as long as there are ready, willing 19 and able Aboriginals in Northern Manitoba 20 available to go to that job, it may well be that 21 in certain job classifications we get 100 percent. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wojczynski. 23 MR. ADAMS: It is getting late and my 24 memory is failing me. I should mention that the 25 Federal Government finally came through last 6639 1 Friday in Thompson. 2 MR. MAYER: Some of us read about 3 that, yes. 4 MR. ADAMS: We don't care who takes 5 credit for it as long as the money is there. 6 So we now have approximately 7 $60 million in the kitty that is available to make 8 sure that people who are prepared to put in the 9 effort and make themselves available should be in 10 a good position to get employment on these 11 projects. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Abra, 13 have you got a question? 14 MR. ABRA: No, I have no questions. 15 Ms. Avery Kinew asked the questions that I had. 16 Thank you. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: There is a presentation 18 slated. 19 MR. ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, if I may, 20 there is one undertaking that I made yesterday, 21 and this might be a good time. 22 This is in response, or in reference 23 to an excerpt from the Hansard transcript that Mr. 24 Troniak distributed yesterday afternoon. He was 25 referring to an exchange between Mr. Gerrard and 6640 1 Premier Doer in the House about a week and a half 2 ago. 3 In a perverse way, I would suggest 4 that you start at the second page from the back. 5 And what that is, it is a related exchange between 6 Mr. Gerrard and Minister Sale on the 20th of May, 7 and I commend it to your pleasure of reading at 8 some point. But I think the key item here, 9 Mr. Sale's response is on the last sentence in the 10 third paragraph on the second page, where he said 11 that there is no commitment, no contradiction 12 whatsoever between what we said in Minneapolis or 13 in hearings at the Clean Environment Commission. 14 I think I need to give you a little bit of 15 background on this. The origin of this exchange 16 was a bill that was being introduced in the 17 Minnesota Senate, in the Jobs, Energy and 18 Community Development Committee by a Senator 19 Kubly. This bill was clearly designed and 20 intended to discriminate against import into 21 Minnesota of electricity from Manitoba. 22 Our counsel in Minnesota arranged for 23 us to have the opportunity to address the 24 committee. 25 The fifth and sixth pages in this, 6641 1 maybe fifth, sixth and seventh, but starting at 2 the third page in this package is a letter written 3 to Senator Ellen Anderson, who is the chair of 4 that particular committee, signed by the 5 Honourable Mr. Robinson and the Honourable 6 Mr. Sale. 7 And my role at the hearing was in part 8 to read this into testimony and deliver it to the 9 various Senators, and in part to respond to issues 10 raised in the hearing. As it turned out, we 11 started -- the hearing was getting compressed in 12 time, and I'm sure you appreciate that, so the 13 final ten minutes was a bit of a scramble. I did 14 try to read into the record, to the extent that I 15 could, this particular letter, and also tried to 16 respond to some of the issues that had been raised 17 during the hearing. 18 At the end of the hearing the proposed 19 bill was defeated by the committee. And normally 20 one would have expected that to have been the end 21 of it. There is no transcript of these 22 proceedings. They do have a tape recording 23 hearing, and I have never listened to it to be 24 quite honest. But I was quite shocked about three 25 or four days later to receive a copy of a letter 6642 1 that Senator Kubly had sent to pretty well the 2 whole Senate in Minnesota, without the courtesy of 3 sending a copy to me, accusing me of lying either 4 here or there. And as you can imagine, I took 5 some offence to that. And so, and I don't have a 6 copy of his letter in the package, but his letter 7 was essentially the same as the comments that Mr. 8 Gerrard was making in the house, there was no 9 substantive difference. So the top copy of this 10 package is the response that I sent to Senator 11 Kubly on the 22nd of April. And again I have had 12 no response from anybody in Minnesota. Thank you. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. 14 Wojczynski. 15 MR. GREWAR: Before Mr. Wojczynski 16 speaks, with reference to the video or the CD that 17 we received yesterday, which apparently contains 18 the testimony at this particular hearing, we have 19 been unable to open it to read it, so we are yet 20 to verify its contents. We will continue to try 21 that and hopefully we will have something to 22 report back to you. We don't really have anything 23 on the CD yet. 24 MR. MAYER: Maybe we should ask Mr. 25 Troniak to have it transcribed. 6643 1 MR. GREWAR: We can't get it to play. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you file the last 3 exhibit? 4 MR. GREWAR: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we 5 would assign exhibit number -- it is 6 correspondence and attached transcript, I will 7 refer to it as that, MH/NCN 1043. 8 9 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN 1043: Letter, April 10 22, 2004 from Ken Adams to Gary Kubly, 11 letter, March 12, 2004, from Tim Sale 12 and Eric Robinson to Ellen Anderson, 13 Minnesota Senate, with Excerpt from 14 Hansard) 15 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wojczynski. 17 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, Mr. Chairman, at 18 the indulgence of the CEC, we had questions as 19 part of this session on cumulative effects, and we 20 welcome those questions and welcome the 21 opportunity to try and clarify that issue which is 22 a significant component of the EIS. And we had a 23 talk at the break, a number of the panel members, 24 and we felt that we probably haven't communicated 25 in our responses as sufficiently as might be 6644 1 useful, and we were wondering if we could just 2 continue to answer the question that we have been 3 answering earlier, a little bit more explanation, 4 if we could have permission to do that? 5 THE CHAIRMAN: We will assume that 6 that question has not completely been answered and 7 therefore you will complete the answer. 8 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, that is what we 9 are asking for, yes, please, right now while we 10 thought it is fresh in everybody's mind. I don't 11 think it is very long. 12 MR. OSLER: It will be brief. I just 13 want to -- I will make them as four points. The 14 first point I think is to understand that 15 cumulative effects assessment can be done in a 16 variety of different ways. There is no one way to 17 do it in terms of how to lay it out. And people 18 who get acquainted with it, it takes a while to 19 get used to. The point is do you consider the 20 things that you are required to consider. And so 21 the second point is -- and effectively as I have 22 said many times and is in the practitioners' 23 guide, we are viewing it as an environmental 24 impact assessment done well, it is not something 25 done magical by itself on a different track. 6645 1 The second point that was put to me by 2 Mr. Sargeant, looking at the exact lines in the 3 guidelines that are repeated in the Canadian 4 Environmental Assessment Act, looking at this 5 project, what are the effects likely to result 6 when they are anticipated to occur in combination 7 with other projects or activities that have been, 8 was the point that you were focusing on, or have 9 been carried out. We take that to mean that we 10 have to consider the projects that have been 11 carried out and we tried to demonstrate to you 12 that we have. Another way of putting it is this, 13 we are looking at historic effects, such as 14 mercury or sediment, TTSS or erosion, where 15 applicable, to understand trends. And I said the 16 word the baseline is evolving. If the component 17 appears to stablize, you would notice that, and if 18 it hasn't, you have to pay attention to it, you 19 have to consider it. The thing that we are not 20 doing is what they call a post project impact 21 assessment, for individual past projects. We are 22 not trying to isolate which past project caused 23 which effect that we are seeing today. We are 24 trying to look at the trend for that variable, 25 Mercury, TSS, whatever, reflecting all of the 6646 1 factors that are currently affecting it. All of 2 these projects and activities that have been 3 occurring to date that are affecting its trend 4 line to the best of our ability, if that helps. 5 We are not trying to get into the debate as to who 6 caused what in that trend line, we are trying to 7 understand where it is going. 8 When we are looking at the river, it 9 is apparent that we are looking at CRD effects to 10 a large extent, but in some types of environmental 11 assessments you might be looking at what 12 pollutants are going into that river from all 13 sorts of different people upstream. And it 14 wouldn't necessarily matter who was causing what, 15 it would just matter where the trend was and how 16 it was going. 17 Third, the Volume 10 is not really 18 meant to be a separate environmental impact 19 assessment volume. It is a backgrounder. I 20 understand fully your comment in that context. It 21 was a backgrounder as to method. The one thing 22 that it has in it in terms of information content, 23 aside from practice and references, is it does 24 reference there the Inco monitoring as an example 25 for cumulative effects, what is happening in this 6647 1 area due to Inco, and would it have any 2 overlapping effects with this project, and it also 3 looks at climate change, which is not really 4 technically a project or activity under the Act, 5 but we treated it for purposes of assessment 6 because we wanted to understand what was going on. 7 My fourth point is that I thought the 8 conversation that we had helped underline a point. 9 When we are getting at the issue that Mr. Mayer 10 raised, which is one that fundamentally as 11 practitioners we are concerned about, I suggest to 12 you one way to think of it is we are not so 13 focused ourselves on the baseline debate, we are 14 focused on the threshold, if that helps. The 15 baseline may be doing whatever it is doing, the 16 question is where are we relative to whatever is a 17 good threshold which causes concern. Trying to 18 define what that should be is the challenge for 19 all of us. It is quite easy in some cases and it 20 is much more difficult in other cases, such as 21 transmission issues you were talking about. 22 Four separate points to try and 23 crystallize for the record some of the thoughts 24 that we were all throwing around rather quickly. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We have 6648 1 basically ten minutes before we get to that 2 presentation that is left. If there are others 3 that were wanting to ask questions, first of all, 4 any that didn't get the opportunity to do so? Mr. 5 Dysart, you said you had two brief questions. And 6 I said if nobody else showed, you would get the 7 opportunity. 8 MR. DYSART: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 9 And I did promise to be nice. Two brief questions 10 and I hope the answers are brief. I think they 11 will be. Actually the last comments made by Mr. 12 Osler actually gave relevancy to my two questions. 13 My questions are focused on the cumulative effects 14 assessment that was conducted, and we had a lot of 15 discussion with the past, present and future, and 16 a lot focused on the past and some on the present. 17 But one area that we only briefly touch on in my 18 opinion is the future projects. In regards to 19 cumulative effects assessment for the environment, 20 knowing that Manitoba Hydro has at least ten more 21 generating stations let's say on the drawing board 22 for the Burntwood and Nelson River systems, have 23 these future projects been included in the 24 environmental -- well the cumulative effects 25 assessment, and has a threshold been identified 6649 1 when the environment of the system can handle no 2 more? 3 MR. OSLER: First of all, the first 4 part, our assessment dealt with the words "will be 5 carried out" in the guidelines by focusing on 6 projects that are listed in the EIS, in the 7 section 2, for example, of volume 1 of the 8 generation. If you want to go and look at that 9 later, they are actually listed. The rationale, 10 the test that we used for the hydro projects that 11 you are talking about was projects that could have 12 a possibility, reasonable possibility of being 13 licensed and starting construction within the next 14 ten years. And that test brought in Gull and 15 Conawapa but no other projects. Just to give you 16 a straight answer to that question. The rationale 17 for that we have explained on the record in 18 response to a PCN question in the second round, I 19 think number 4, if I'm not mistaken. Based on 20 going beyond what we think to be the minimum 21 standard, which would be projects that are 22 licensed but are not yet in place, some have gone 23 one step further as a minimum standard, I think 24 DFO may well be going to do this, in looking at 25 projects that have already got an EIS done, even 6650 1 if they are not licensed. We didn't use either 2 one of those tests, but we did put a time 3 parameter on it so we would have some degree of 4 not being hypothetical, you shouldn't bother 5 wasting your time looking at hypotheticals, and 6 any other project beyond that time period in our 7 view would be too hypothetical to be useful. You 8 do keep in mind as practitioners that projects, 9 the type that you are talking about, hydro 10 projects, all have to be licensed and all have to 11 go through the same process in their time. So it 12 is not as though there is not a check how they 13 evolved. 14 The second part of your question about 15 the threshholds, the thresholds we used for 16 looking at this project dealt with the issues to 17 the best of our ability. We didn't have some 18 separate thought process as to how you would look 19 at the other projects, but generally speaking 20 their effects are not overlapping in terms of the 21 river areas, generally speaking. 22 MR. DYSART: Your answer raises some 23 questions, but I did promise to be brief. My next 24 question, my second question, is very similar but 25 this is in regards to the people. Has a threshold 6651 1 been identified when stress levels begin to affect 2 things such as health on people who have to live 3 with the impacts of Hydro developments, not just 4 Wuskwatim itself, but the past projects, the 5 current project, and the ten or so I mentioned. 6 Like, this does cause stress. Has part of the 7 cumulative effects assessment, has that been 8 analyzed or included in the assessment? 9 MR. OSLER: In short, we have looked, 10 commented on it fairly often in this hearing about 11 stress, and all sorts of people affected with the 12 thought of a Hydro project in the area. We have 13 not identified any specific threshold as to, or 14 even how to measure it, as to when or how this 15 would get exceeded for any one group of people. 16 And in general it probably doesn't suit itself to 17 that type of analysis, more what it seems to be 18 required is the hard work of building the 19 communication, building the trust and having the 20 patience to wait for results so that people have a 21 chance to see the world unfold this time 22 differently than they saw last time. It is 23 unrealistic to expect instantaneous or quick 24 change from people who have had 20 years to think 25 about these things. 6652 1 MR. DYSART: Thank you, thank you, 2 Mr. Chairman. 3 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I have one small 4 addition, a thought just to help address that 5 issue. And that is that a number of the things, 6 many of the things that we are doing with 7 Wuskwatim are things which, if you are thinking of 8 people, would be helpful to offset or go in a 9 positive direction. And what Mr. Adams just 10 referred to, $60 million pre-project training 11 program that people, Aboriginal people in the 12 north and including particularly the people of 13 South Indian Lake, would have access to and would 14 be -- that that sort of is a positive thing to 15 help in that arena. It doesn't answer your whole 16 question, but it is an element of an answer. 17 MR. DYSART: It is an opinion. Thank 18 you. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: I thought it was 20 presented as a stress reliever. At this point in 21 time we will invite the members of the Manitoba 22 Hydro/NCN panel to leave the head table and we 23 will take a 2 minute stretch for absolute 24 necessities and then we have a presentation. 25 (RECESS TAKEN) 6653 1 MR. GREWAR: Good afternoon. Could 2 you please state your name for the record? 3 MR. SPENCE: My name is Wellington 4 Spence, a member of NCN. 5 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Spence, are you aware 6 that in Manitoba it is an offence to knowingly 7 mislead this Commission? 8 MR. SPENCE: Yes. 9 MR. GREWAR: Do you promise to tell 10 just the truth in proceedings before this 11 Commission? 12 MR. SPENCE: Yes. 13 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, sir. 14 (REMINGTON SPENCE: SWORN) 15 MR. SPENCE: (Speaking Cree) And that 16 is my first language. Sorry to you that don't 17 understand. Now, I'm going to go back to the 18 beginning of time, maybe it will take me about 15 19 minutes for my presentation, maybe less. But I'm 20 going to go back down to 1492, maybe a year before 21 1492. 22 In our relationship to the land we 23 understood the land as our mother earth. We 24 understood it that way, and we respected that, and 25 its resources that provide for us the food at that 6654 1 time. And in 1492 a man named Columbus came 2 across the ocean and put a flag and claimed the 3 land for his Queen, and he called it the discovery 4 of Canada. And I always had that problem, how did 5 one man discover a country when it is already 6 occupied with the Innuit, the Dene, the Cree, the 7 Sioux, were the bigger nations at the time. Where 8 did he get the concept of discovering a country 9 when it was already occupied? 10 And ever since then, you always 11 claimed our territories as Crown land. We as a 12 nation, the First Nations, Nelson House nation, we 13 have never given up the land in our treaties, we 14 have never given up the land. And if somebody has 15 that copy here in this room, and the signing of 16 the treaty, there is two paragraphs, and if I find 17 another one that has more than two paragraphs, I 18 know I'm getting the wrong paper. And in these 19 paragraphs it mentioned the land. It did not 20 mention to take over the territory of NCN. And 21 down through the history here -- you are all 22 highly educated people, I'm here, I haven't got 23 any education, all I know is the oral history 24 passed down from generation to generation from our 25 elders to the younger generation. 6655 1 And those of you that read the 2 history, they know it was a rich land at one time, 3 very rich in its resources. And someone wanted 4 this. And you know, a lot of you understand that 5 there has been a lot of blood shed to take this 6 country. And they know there was a time when they 7 had the epidemic, a germ war that gave the First 8 Nation people in the country the epidemic, a lot 9 of us read about that. And there was the killing 10 of the buffalo, the back bone of the nations, both 11 the prairie and the bush land buffalo, the 12 slaughter of the back bone of the nations. 13 And through the years, I'm an elder 14 now, I went to residential school but I never 15 learned nothing. When I left there and I looked 16 back in 1945, the cruelty I went through there, if 17 this is what they call civilization, I want no 18 part of it I said that day. And prior to 1930s, 19 the depression, we did not feel that depression in 20 the north. Our land was still rich in 1930s in 21 its resources. The food, the fish, the muskrat, 22 the beavers, they were still rich, the caribou and 23 the moose. 24 And in 1973 Hydro destruction, I will 25 call it a very destructive dam we had there, the 6656 1 land. And in that -- one promise I always 2 remember, they promise the muskrats would be more 3 plentiful than they are now. In the last 30 years 4 I think I killed four muskrats in 30 years. 5 Before the flood, me and my stepdad used to get 6 anywhere from 7,000, 4,000 a year of muskrats. 7 And after the flood in the last 30 years I have 8 only had four muskrats. 9 And the promises that was made by 10 Hydro, like the free Hydro we were supposed to get 11 at Nelson House, I was there, many of us was 12 there, and they say that we are liars to say that, 13 to repeat that, and they can't find it in records, 14 they can not find that. And many of our claims, 15 our trapline claims, they can't find them in the 16 record, so therefore, many of us never got no 17 compensation for our traplines. And the worst 18 thing that Hydro did to us was taking, you know, 19 there was seven of us in our trapline in Manarski, 20 and they picked one head trapper, my stepdad, and 21 they paid him the compensation. And all of us, 22 the seven of us, we paid the licenses. We never 23 got no compensation, and that was trying to get 24 away, get the land as cheap as they can, through 25 my understanding. 6657 1 And I wrote a little pie here, just a 2 little pie. And you know, before our dealings 3 with governments, our dealing with the 4 governments, the pie, the piece of pie was always 5 small, a very small piece of pie we were getting 6 out of this whatever deal we were making with the 7 Government. Now I know this new deal with Hydro, 8 this is my piece of pie here, looks a little 9 healthier with 33 percent of the profits. And 10 what I would like to see, I like to see a law put 11 in place that this agreement does not get lost, 30 12 years down the line they can not find it in the 13 record. Like our treaty money, $5, we still get 14 $5, it never has gone up with inflation. We don't 15 want to see this happen that way. If the Hydro 16 bills go up, we still want the 33 percent of the 17 profits. And I like to see this written in law in 18 the form of law, that they do not break this 19 promise. With that, ladies and gentlemen, I would 20 like to thank you. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 22 MR. SPENCE: Please don't ask me any 23 questions. If you don't understand what I was 24 saying, please sleep on it. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mayer would like to 6658 1 ask you a question. 2 MR. MAYER: I don't want to ask you a 3 question. I want to give you some assurance, sir, 4 with the amount of paper and records that we have 5 produced in the last several months, there is no 6 possibility that anybody is going to lose this 7 stuff. 8 MR. SPENCE: Thank you. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: We are about ready to 10 adjourn for today. Mr. Grewar might go over the 11 agenda for tomorrow, for day 28, we have 12 presentations. 13 MR. GREWAR: Yes, Mr. Chairman. For 14 tomorrow, just so that everyone is clear on the 15 order of things. We begin at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow 16 with a presentation from Mosakahiken Cree Nation, 17 followed by questioning, of course, that will be 18 followed by a presentation by the Fox Lake Cree 19 Nation, to be followed by a presentation by the 20 Allied Hydro Council of Manitoba. That should 21 take us to the lunch hour. After lunch we will 22 hear from MKO. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Just a minute, Mr. 24 Grewar. 25 MR. GREWAR: After lunch we will have 6659 1 a presentation by MKO, to be followed by the 2 Mathias Colomb band, and the final presentation in 3 the afternoon will be the O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree 4 Nation, OPCN, and that will be the conclusion of 5 tomorrow. 6 For Friday there will be a opportunity 7 for Hydro to re-examine its witnesses first thing 8 in the morning, and then we will have two short 9 presentations before the noon hour, one by the 10 Swampy Cree Tribal Council and one by the Manitoba 11 Chamber of Commerce. And just before lunch, any 12 final re-examination by the Commission of Manitoba 13 Hydro NCN, although I suspect that has for the 14 most part been concluded now. And then finally we 15 will have one closing statement on Friday 16 afternoon which will be by special arrangement of 17 Pimicikamak Cree Nation, and that will conclude 18 the hearing prior to closing statements. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Grewar. 20 So we will reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:00 21 o'clock. 22 (Adjourned at 4:45 p.m.) 23 24 25