02700 1 2 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION 3 4 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT 5 Volume 11 6 7 Including List of Participants 8 9 10 11 Hearing 12 13 Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Project 14 15 Presiding: 16 Gerard Lecuyer, Chair 17 Kathi Kinew 18 Harvey Nepinak 19 Robert Mayer 20 Terry Sargeant 21 22 Friday, March 19, 2004 23 Radisson Hotel 24 288 Portage Avenue 25 Winnipeg, Manitoba 02701 1 2 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 3 4 Clean Environment Commission: 5 Gerard Lecuyer Chairman 6 Terry Sargeant Member 7 Harvey Nepinak Member 8 Kathi Avery Kinew Member 9 Doug Abra Counsel to Commission 10 Rory Grewar Staff 11 CEC Advisors: 12 Mel Falk 13 Dave Farlinger 14 Jack Scriven 15 Jim Sandison 16 Jean McClellan 17 Brent McLean 18 Kyla Gibson 19 20 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation: 21 Chief Jerry Primrose 22 Elvis Thomas 23 Campbell MacInnes 24 Valerie Matthews Lemieux 25 02702 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 2 3 Manitoba Conservation: 4 Larry Strachan 5 6 Manitoba Hydro/NCN: 7 Doug Bedford, Counsel 8 Bob Adkins, Counsel 9 Marvin Shaffer 10 Ed Wojczynski 11 Ken Adams 12 Carolyn Wray 13 Ron Mazur 14 Lloyd Kuczek 15 Cam Osler 16 Stuart Davies 17 David Hicks 18 George Rempel 19 David Cormie 20 Alex Fleming 21 Marvin Shaffer 22 Blair McMahon 23 24 25 02703 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 2 3 Community Association of South Indian Lake: 4 Leslie Dysart 5 Merrell-Ann Phare 6 7 CAC/MSOS: 8 Byron Williams 9 10 Canadian Nature Federation/Manitoba Wildlands: 11 Eamon Murphy 12 Gaile Whelan Enns 13 Brian Hart 14 15 Time to Respect Earth's Ecosystems/Resource Conservation Man: 16 Peter Miller 17 Ralph Torrie 18 19 Trapline 18: 20 Greg McIvor 21 22 Displaced Residents of South Indian Lake: 23 Dennis Troniak 24 Joshua Flett 25 Frank Moore 02704 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 2 3 Justice Seekers of Nelson House: 4 Carol Kobliski 5 Kate Kempton 6 7 Environment Approvals (Manitoba Justice): 8 Stu Pierce 9 10 Presenters: 11 Billy Moore - Private 12 Bill Turner - MIPUG 13 Caroline Bruyere - Private 14 Grand Chief Margaret Swan - Southern Chiefs 15 Gordon Wapaskokimaw 16 Jim Nichols - Private 17 Erin Bayne - Private 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02705 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 3 Number Page 4 5 6 MH/NCN-1021: Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, 7 Guide Book to the Agreement 8 in Principle, Winter 2001 2803 9 MH/NCN-1022: Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation 10 Overview Agreement In Principle, 11 Winter 2001 2803 12 MH/NCN-1023: Community profile CD, 13 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation 2804 14 TREE/RCM-1002: Interrogatory responses 15 to Canadian Nature Federation, 16 TREE/RCM, NFAAT 1-5 2804 17 CNF-1012: Interrogatory 18 responses from Manitoba Wildlands 19 Canadian Nature Federation to 20 TREE/RCM 2893 21 MH/NCN-1024: Answer to undertaking 35, 22 36, 37 requested by CNF re 23 wind sensitivity analysis 2899 24 25 02706 1 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS 2 3 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE 4 MH-45: Advise of the compensation 5 savings, what effect would that have of the $35.6 6 million difference 2788 7 MH-46: Advise of the expected value of 8 delivered power, what the $311,000 per year 9 line loss comes out of, what's the total amount? 10 How does that increase in loss compare to the 11 total value of power if you use the same 12 multiplier 2789 13 MH-47: Advise of the difference in the 14 value of the power per year to be produced by 15 Wuskwatim as proposed between that amount and the 16 amount you would have expected to receive from a 17 high-head design 2791 18 MH-48: Advise if flushing rate is 19 faster than the rate in lake prior to CRD 2834 20 MH-49: Provide explanation 21 why predictions re average flow on Missi Falls is 22 less than historical monthly discharge 2848 23 24 25 02707 1 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS 2 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE 3 4 MH-50: Advise re discrepancy in 5 flow re condition 23 of licence on flows to 6 continue at Missi Falls)high-head design 2851 7 MH-51: Advise re Hydro receiving 8 letter from MMF re consultation on Wuskwatim 2887 9 MH-52: Produce larger map of location 10 of the switching station within the 11 footprint ofthe generating station 2892 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02708 1 FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 2004 2 Upon commencing at 10:06 a.m. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning, ladies and 5 gentlemen. We are ready to roll. Mr. Abra is going 6 to continue where he left off yesterday. 7 MR. ABRA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of 8 the Panel, there are a couple of questions that I'd 9 like to ask following up from yesterday, certain 10 areas that I want to get into briefly. 11 I'd like to go back to mitigation which I 12 recognize that we discussed at some length yesterday 13 and so on. But in the course of your EIS filings on 14 the issue of mitigation, you have used the expression 15 accepted standard professional standards and methods 16 and standard construction practices in particular 17 with respect to mitigation and where there's been 18 issues related to certain VECs that may be affected 19 by the construction of both the transmission lines 20 and the generation project. There have been 21 references to things that might have to be mitigated 22 and you said that you intend to mitigate them by 23 standard construction practices. What does that term 24 mean? 25 MR. REMPEL: I can make some comments on the 02709 1 generation side and Mr. Hicks will add some examples 2 on the transmission project. But on the generation 3 side, some of the standard construction practices 4 would be to have settling ponds for drainage from 5 some of the quarry areas, some of the working areas 6 of the contractor to settle out some of the sediment 7 before it was released to the streams. It's a 8 standard practice such as having a vegetation buffer 9 zone around the streams. It's adding crushed 10 limestone to some of the areas where there is a 11 crushing operation where there might be the potential 12 for acidic leachates from the rock. 13 There's all kinds of standard practices with 14 respect to trying to minimize erosion. There's 15 standard practices to make sure that there isn't a 16 release of oil spills from say the equipment that the 17 contractor uses. There is measures such as dust 18 suppression on the road if there is a dust issue. 19 There's a host of those kinds of measures. 20 I think we actually did describe a lot of them 21 in Volume 3, the project description on the 22 generation side. And I believe the same thing 23 happened with respect to transmission line that there 24 was a listing of the kind of standard practices. 25 As we submitted to EIS, there were additional 02710 1 measures that may be over and above the normal that 2 were considered in terms of showing every effort to 3 minimize sediment releases in the stream. These 4 included changes to the coffer-dam alignments that 5 were talked about yesterday. Some additional 6 measures that I also indicated changing the 7 orientation of the spillway tail race entrance. So 8 those are some of the measures that were done. 9 While Mr. Hicks responds, I will try to find 10 the listing in the generation station where perhaps 11 there was an even greater more comprehensive list. 12 MR. DAVIES: I can add a few additional ones. 13 Manitoba Hydro and NCN will adhere to the Manitoba 14 stream crossing guidelines. There's also blasting 15 guidelines that will be adhered to. Sewage treatment 16 will be conducted as per guidelines. And there's 17 also practices in regards to refuelling and 18 maintenance of equipment not occurring near water 19 bodies. 20 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chairman, in the case of the 21 transmission project, the design protocols, 22 construction standards, construction practices are 23 itemized in Section 3.7 of Volume 1 of the 24 transmission EIS. In respect of the construction 25 standards, these are essentially Manitoba Hydro 02711 1 standards. They have been arrived at and are in fact 2 a work-in-progress. They were adjusted on the basis 3 of experience with each new and additional project. 4 They reflect industry standards in some cases. They 5 reflect CSA standards in some cases. More 6 frequently, they are adjusted in response to comments 7 that we may receive in the field from people like the 8 natural resources officers who act for Manitoba 9 Conservation. 10 So it's constantly being upgraded and adjusted 11 to reflect concerns or issues that are identified in 12 the course of actual construction or standards that 13 are identified in the industry or by some of the 14 watchdogs of the industry. 15 MR. ABRA: When you use the term in your EIS 16 filings as well, such as standard environmental 17 protocol practices or accepted standard professional 18 standards and methods, are those used interchangeably 19 as well for the same purposes and the same idea that 20 related to the phrase standard construction 21 practices? Do you effectively mean the same thing? 22 MR. HICKS: Perhaps I can respond again in the 23 case of our expectations. And I think we are in the 24 case of transmission because the projects are so much 25 more frequent that the list of standards is rather 02712 1 longer and more regularly attended to because of the 2 frequency of transmission projects. 3 And I'm sorry, I've lost my train of thought. 4 The connection between environmental practice 5 and construction practice, right. The notion is that 6 we assume that the standard practices will be adhered 7 to and complied with by the contractor. And on that 8 basis, we would say that when we refer to a standard 9 level of environmental protection or a standard level 10 of assessment, it would be in that context. 11 Now we also of course look to the people 12 responsible for construction of the lines to assure 13 us that compliance is in fact achieved and we do do 14 compliance monitoring. 15 MR. ABRA: After the construction? 16 MR. HICKS: Yeah. Unfortunately, it can only 17 be done after the construction. 18 MR. ABRA: No, I understand. 19 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Abra, when you mentioned 20 professional standards, I was hesitant to answer that 21 they were the same thing or interchangeable as you 22 indicated. The standard construction methods are 23 really not a professional standard but certainly the 24 taking of measurements, for example, the sampling, 25 that those are all done under professional standards. 02713 1 MR. ABRA: Okay. So basically what you are 2 meaning by that then or recognized either 3 construction practices or professional standards 4 related to either construction or preparation or 5 monitoring and so on; am I correct in that? 6 MR. REMPEL: Well, many of the standards are 7 actually not professional standards. 8 MR. ABRA: Yes? 9 MR. REMPEL: They are standards that relate to 10 conforming to regulations. For example, there are 11 regulations that require you to report any spill 12 greater than "X" milliliters or litres of oil. Those 13 are all regulatory standards and the contractors 14 oblige to -- 15 MR. ABRA: Well, they are also the law. 16 MR. REMPEL: Yes, they are. 17 MR. ABRA: I take the word "standards" to mean 18 more than that -- not more than that, but to be 19 different from what regulations may provide or what 20 by-laws may provide or what statutes may provide. 21 MR. REMPEL: Yes. Well there are standards. 22 In many cases, they are, as Mr. Hicks indicated, 23 standards of the industry. I guess professional 24 standards I see is a bit different but we adhere to 25 professional standards in terms of where they apply 02714 1 such as monitoring and the techniques you use to 2 gather samples, do the analysis, et cetera. 3 MR. ABRA: Yesterday, you told us that with 4 respect to the mitigation measures that effectively 5 you were satisfied that you thought that you could 6 eliminate, reduce or control the adverse effects. 7 And as you said, effectively make them insignificant 8 with respect to most of the VECs that you have 9 identified. 10 I am informed that the usual practice amongst 11 professionals, such as you people, that you actually 12 put a percentage of confidence or what your 13 confidence levels are with respect to how successful 14 you will be in your mitigation. Now I recognize that 15 it applies differently for different VECs and I don't 16 want you to go through all of them, but can you give 17 us some idea as to what percentage of confidence you 18 have in the mitigation of the adverse environmental 19 effects that you've identified? 20 MR. REMPEL: It's very difficult to put a per 21 cent confidence. Firstly, you can't do it in 22 general. It's even very difficult to do it by 23 particular environmental component. But we can give 24 you some indication by issue, if you like, in terms 25 of our level of confidence. For example, on erosion, 02715 1 we have a very high level of confidence and it's 2 based on a number of factors. For one thing, there 3 is quite a good database to draw from. 4 On Wuskwatim Lake, for example, there's 10 to 5 12 years of erosion monitoring data at I believe it's 6 15 sites. At each of these sites, which some are on 7 high energy exposure, some on low energy exposure to 8 wave action, some are different types of shore lines, 9 each of these sites had three transects. So it's 10 essentially 45 different sites. So there was a fair 11 bit of data to draw on. 12 We also have very experienced professionals 13 looking at this who have experience in the north and 14 particularly Northern Manitoba and on this lake, on 15 this CRD system. And that includes Hydro engineers. 16 It includes Cam MacInnes, the technical expert for 17 NCN. It includes myself and a person, an engineer 18 working for me at the time. It also includes very 19 experienced outside consultants such as Mollard & 20 Associates who essentially specialize in erosional 21 processes. 22 So we have a very experienced collective group 23 of judgments to bring to bear. We also have good 24 weather data, wind data to draw on. We have 25 classified the shorelines based on good 02716 1 aerophotography, low level helicopter video. We've 2 had boat inspection. And we're fortunate enough to 3 have the year 2000 high water levels such that 4 Forebay elevation was actually at 234 which is the 5 actual Forebay elevation that will be held pretty 6 constant at that level once the project is in 7 operation. 8 So we're able to see firsthand the contact of 9 the shore line with -- or the water with the shore 10 line and check out where the bedrock exposure or 11 contact was with respect to potential erosion. So we 12 have good data, good experience to draw on. 13 And we have a very important advantage in that 14 the Forebay elevation that has been projected for 15 this proposal will be within the range of Forebay 16 levels that have -- or lake levels that have existed 17 periodically in the last dozen years or so. In other 18 words, we are not projecting a water level where we 19 have to extrapolate what experience might be with 20 respect to erosion. We have had water levels at that 21 level. We have observed it. So our level of 22 confidence in erosion predictions on average are very 23 high. 24 We can't be specific in terms of a particular 25 shore line location that the erosion rates will be 02717 1 precisely or even within 10 per cent, for example, of 2 our particular projection but we can have, on 3 average, a pretty good degree of confidence that we 4 have assessed the shore line erosion very well. 5 MR. ABRA: Well, what's a pretty good level of 6 confidence? 7 MR. REMPEL: I can't give you a percentage. 8 MR. ABRA: Can you give us a range? 9 MR. REMPEL: Well, what we did in terms of 10 checking this out is we looked at the habitat, the 11 shore line area that might be lost and took a 50 per 12 cent variance in terms of any particular area on the 13 shore line. Like, for example, if there was an area 14 that might be valuable for a shore line mammal, what 15 we did is said we will assume plus 50 per cent over 16 the average as a loss of habitat. It could be plus 17 or minus 50 per cent but that's based on the data, a 18 very conservative estimate of loss. So we took that 19 into account when the biologists were assessing loss 20 of habitat. 21 When we looked at the fate of the eroded 22 sediment, we took an estimate of what we thought 23 would happen. Then we actually adjusted that rate by 24 25 per cent and checked the sensitivity in terms of 25 what that would do with sediment in the water column. 02718 1 So we checked the sensitivity in various ways but I 2 can't give you a per cent confidence in total. What 3 I can give you is the reasons why we are very 4 confident that, on average, we are correct how we 5 took an account, potentials for underestimate of the 6 effect but we believe actually that we have been more 7 than generous in some of those sensitivity 8 allowances. 9 MR. ABRA: That you've been conservative in 10 your estimates? 11 MR. REMPEL: Yes, very conservative. 12 MR. ABRA: But you don't feel you can give us 13 a percentage with respect, for example, to the 14 erosion which you've spent some time on? 15 MR. DAVIES: I think it's more common rather 16 than to provide a per cent to indicate your degree of 17 certainty in terms of we have a low -- 18 MR. ABRA: High, moderate, low? 19 MR. DAVIES: High, moderate and low, yes. 20 MR. ABRA: Okay. 21 MR. DAVIES: And where there is a high degree 22 of uncertainty, there's normally two things that 23 occur. One, monitoring is added to make sure that 24 you can increase the certainty and react if in fact 25 the effect does occur. And in a lot of cases, we 02719 1 also use the precautionary principle where we looked 2 at a worst case scenario or, for example, a turbine 3 mortality we're stating a 10 to 20 per cent mortality 4 rate when we actually expect that it will be 5 substantially lower than that. The 10 to 20 per cent 6 is based on Francis turbines which have a much higher 7 mortality than fixed blade turbines. 8 Again, we can increase the certainty by 9 looking at a worst case scenario and then we further 10 increase the certainty by adding a monitoring program 11 where that uncertainty does exist. 12 MR. SARGEANT: Mr. Remple, you said that you 13 have data going back I think you said 10 or 12 years 14 on lake levels and that you will be operating post 15 Wuskwatim with a lake level that's no higher than 16 historical. How much of the time over the past eight 17 or 10 or 12 years or so has the lake been at the 18 level that it will be post Wuskwatim? 19 MR. REMPEL: I don't have that answer offhand. 20 Give me a minute, please. The 234 Forebay elevation 21 has been exceeded about 15 per cent of the time post 22 CRD. 23 MR. SARGEANT: Fifteen? 24 MR. REMPEL: Fifteen. One-five. The range is 25 232.6 to 234.3. I believe the average has been 233.7 02720 1 but I'll check that -- 233.6. And 15 per cent of the 2 time it's been above 234.0. 3 MR. SARGEANT: And it will be more or less 4 always at 234 post Wuskwatim except for wind of 5 course? 6 MR. REMPEL: Except for wind. We project 7 that -- I believe it's 97 and a half per cent of the 8 time it will be within 233.75 and 234.0. 9 MR. SARGEANT: Thank you. 10 MR. ABRA: Mr. Hicks, did you have anything to 11 add with respect to the transmission lines as far as 12 the level of confidence is concerned and mitigation 13 is concerned? 14 MR. HICKS: Yes, I think I can. Two examples. 15 In the case, for example, of prediction of electric 16 and magnetic field effects, those rely on models that 17 are used industry wide and that have been calibrated 18 on the basis of actual field experience. They are 19 also being calibrated routinely in Manitoba in one or 20 two instances of which I am aware. Those predictions 21 are being tested through ongoing monitoring. 22 I cannot, off the top of my head, offer you a 23 confidence interval for that particular calculation 24 or prediction but I'm confident that I could if I 25 were to go back and consult with the engineers 02721 1 responsible for running the model. That's one 2 example where I think we are comfortable. 3 In other cases, for example, the sort of the 4 edge effect condition that we're concerned about with 5 the transmission lines and which was referenced by 6 Dr. Bayne yesterday and has been studied extensively 7 by our Dr. Ehnes, we use a slightly different 8 approach. We try to be more conservative in our 9 assumption. 10 Dr. Ehnes assumed that the zone of influence 11 within which there might be some significant edge 12 effect or potentially some substantive edge effect 13 would extend perhaps 150 metres either side of the 14 right of way. And we modelled that as the zone of 15 influence and he looked at that very carefully. He 16 also established some threshold values for what he 17 considered would be a significant or a potentially 18 significant effect within that area and he based his 19 findings of no significant adverse effect on the 20 assumption that that entire 150 metre band on either 21 side of the right-of-way would have no habitat left 22 in it. 23 In point of fact, he's gone out in subsequent 24 field research and will be continuing field research 25 in the years leading up to the ultimate construction 02722 1 of the lines. And he's now suggesting to me that the 2 150 metres in terms of a substantive alteration of 3 the vegetation is very conservative. He's now 4 comfortable that the number is more like 20 metres. 5 So there again, I can't give you a precise 6 calculation of the confidence interval but I can 7 assure you that the initial assumption was very 8 conservative and the subsequent field research has 9 confirmed that it's been very conservative. 10 MR. ABRA: Okay. 11 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Abra, I'm informed that when 12 I said the level had been above 234 about 15 per 13 cent, I'm advised that it's actually closer to 20 per 14 cent of the time. Post CRD, it has been above 234. 15 So it's closer to 20 rather than 15. Thank you. 16 MR. DAVIES: I have a correction also. I 17 think I had stated that the 10 to 20 per cent was 18 based on Francis turbines, it was actually based on 19 Francis and I believe Kaplan turbines. 20 MR. ABRA: I was going to ask whether it was 21 Kaplan because we were talking about Kaplan with the 22 NFAAT panel at some length and we will be getting 23 into it further but it is the Kaplan turbine you are 24 referring to? 25 MR. DAVIES: No. Actually the majority were 02723 1 Francis turbines but there were, I believe, some 2 Kaplan and other turbine types included in that, all 3 of which are expected to have higher mortality rates 4 than fixed blade turbines. 5 MR. ABRA: Okay. Because Mr. Wojczynski had 6 testified at the time of the NFAAT Panel that one of 7 the reasons that the Kaplan turbine was not chosen, 8 or at least the turbines that had been chosen was on 9 the basis of them being more fish friendly which we 10 will get to further. And you're saying the Francis 11 turbine is basically in the same category as the 12 Kaplan turbine as far as the issue of environmental 13 impact is concerned? 14 MR. DAVIES: Francis turbines would generally 15 be expected to have a greater amount of mortality on 16 fish rather than Kaplan. And Kaplan more mortality 17 than the fixed blade which are what Wuskwatim would 18 have. 19 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Abra, I'd like to add 20 something further with regard to confidence limits. 21 I guess in general, when you have a fixed location of 22 something like an access road, you can get very 23 specific about the assessments. 24 In the case of the generating station, a lot 25 of the assessments flow from the certainty in the 02724 1 water regime. And I would like to simply say that we 2 have a great deal of confidence in the projections of 3 the water regime both open water and winter. And I 4 just want to add, it might have been inferred 5 yesterday that these were strictly Manitoba Hydro 6 estimates but actually they begin with a consultant 7 hired by Acres independent of the EIS, Acres 8 Consultants. And they work with Hydro's engineers. 9 And there's a lot of data. The models are 10 calibrated. The models are familiar to people like 11 myself and Cam MacInnes, a technical advisor for NCN. 12 Both of us have had experience directly with the 13 models, some of the models at least that Acres and 14 Hydro use. There's extensive data to calibrate the 15 models. So the information produced from these 16 analyses have been vetted very carefully. There's -- 17 we do not just simply accept them. 18 I am a water resources engineer with about 40 19 years experience in water and hydraulics. Cam 20 MacInnes probably is younger than me and probably has 21 maybe 35 years. But Cam has been an advisor to other 22 parties on water regime in those same areas, other 23 parties and NCN. And he is advising NCN now. So our 24 confidence in both open water and winter is very 25 high. 02725 1 We also have had recently, and I think Valerie 2 Matthews Lemieux read this into the record, Manitoba 3 Hydro did fund outside this process for Duncan & 4 Associates to review the EIS. And in particular, the 5 question about the hydraulics of early morning 6 rapids. Did the water, does the back water extend 7 over the falls or upstream of the falls. And we met 8 with Duncan & Associates on I believe it was March 9 6th. Cam MacInnes and I were present. And we 10 reviewed their confidence in the analyses. So there 11 was another check. 12 We got an affirmation that they believe the 13 analysis is sound and that Early Morning Rapids is 14 the limit. As Cam MacInnes -- that is the limit of 15 upstream propagation. Cam also yesterday indicated 16 that in terms of confidence in changes downstream, we 17 take a lot of comfort from the fact that Manitoba 18 Hydro and NCN have said they will constrain their 19 operation such that Birchtree Lake will not vary more 20 than I believe it's .1 metres in the open water 21 season. So that's excluding wind and wave effects. 22 So there are constraints that give us a lot of 23 comfort that the water regime firstly would have a 24 lot of comfort and analysis but there's also 25 constraints in the operation that those analyses will 02726 1 in fact hold true as the project is operated. 2 MR. ABRA: Okay. That leads me into something 3 else that I very briefly wanted to ask you. 4 Yesterday, at the end of the day, as part of the 5 questions related to scoping and baseline and so on, 6 Mr. Davies gave a very thorough answer related to 7 mercury in particular and the steps that historical 8 data that you had that you were able to review to 9 give you to be able to scope and arrive at your 10 baseline with respect to mercury over I think you 11 said 30 years of data that was studied and that you 12 felt confident as a result in your projections 13 because of what you knew the experience had been over 14 the last 30 years. Now, I don't intend again to have 15 you go through each of the VECs but can you assure 16 the Commission that in essence, if data was 17 available, that the same process was followed with 18 respect to all of the VECs that you have identified 19 in the manner that Mr. Davies gave, as I say, a very 20 thorough and excellent answer yesterday on mercury. 21 I was going to say unfortunately it's just one VEC I 22 recognize. 23 MR. REMPEL: Well, I'll turn to Mr. Davies in 24 a moment, but since we were talking about erosion, 25 I'll just -- 02727 1 MR. ABRA: You just gave a very good 2 description, for example, on erosion, Mr. Rempel. 3 Obviously it's very helpful. It's that kind of a 4 thing, as we said yesterday, that we want to satisfy 5 ourselves that it's been done. 6 MR. REMPEL: Yes. I think in general, we'd 7 say yes, we looked at the entire database and 8 sometimes the database is sporadic. It's not -- for 9 example, there may be data in 75 and next set of data 10 it may be 78. So there are some holes in the data. 11 But yes, we did look at data post CRD even pre CRD 12 where it was available in general. 13 Mr. Davies has some other examples. Since I 14 already covered erosion, I'll turn to him for some 15 other examples. 16 MR. DAVIES: I just wanted to provide an 17 example of the level of detail that was used in 18 determining the effects on some of the VECs. When we 19 met with NCN members, they had identified the 20 floating peat islands in Wuskwatim Lake as an 21 important environmental component. 22 MR. ABRA: Is that peat did you say? 23 MR. DAVIES: Peat islands. When CRD occurred, 24 a lot of the peat along the shorelines broke off. 25 MR. ABRA: P-E-A-T? 02728 1 MR. DAVIES: P-E-A-T. 2 MR. ABRA: It was a little bit unclear to me. 3 I wasn't sure the reporter could get it. Thank you. 4 MR. DAVIES: They broke off on the shore. 5 They are floating around on the lake and they are 6 important for muskrat and a number of bird species. 7 And the NCN resource harvesters did identify that as 8 a concern particularly as how it could affect some of 9 the VECs, again, such as muskrats. 10 So to give the Commission a bit of an idea of 11 the level of detail that we went through not only for 12 the VECs but some of the components that will affect 13 them, we did take aerial photographs and count 8,714 14 peat islands on the lake. We then took and measured 15 every one of those islands in order to come up with a 16 total area of peat islands that could be affected by 17 the project. We then went back and looked at 18 historical data and counted all of the islands that 19 were in the lake five or 10 years before that time 20 period and then measured all of the islands that were 21 on the lake five or 10 years before to see the rate 22 of disintegration of those islands. 23 So even for a component that wasn't a VEC but 24 could affect a VEC, a very high degree of effort was 25 put on making sure we understood those. 02729 1 MR. ABRA: Okay. We have your assurance that 2 where necessary, or not even where necessary, but for 3 virtually all of the VECs that were identified, that 4 same kind of care, if I can use the expression, was 5 used in your research and in your studies and for the 6 purposes of your projections? 7 MR. DAVIES: I believe that -- 8 MR. ABRA: I think each of you have to answer 9 for your own area of expertise. I didn't mean to cut 10 you off, Mr. Davies, I'm sorry. 11 MR. DAVIES: I believe that in all of the 12 areas that we looked at, we did use that same level 13 of -- we collected the same level of data. It did 14 vary depending on the component. Some areas you 15 don't need to collect that but we have the same level 16 of comfort for all of the VECs that we looked at. 17 MR. ABRA: Mr. Osler, did you want to say 18 something? I'm sorry. 19 MR. OSLER: I was thinking you wanted us all 20 to affirm for the record that we took this type of 21 care. Yes. The standard -- I mean we are working 22 for two sets of clients. We would do this 23 professionally anyway. But I can assure you when 24 you're dealing with the people who are going to be 25 directly affected as one of your clients, the 02730 1 questioning and the extent of -- I'm at the end of 2 the food chain. I deal with the people effects. And 3 every single one of these other things concern 4 people, concern NCN members. And they want to know 5 that we've looked at all the information that's 6 available, all the information that they can provide. 7 That we've analyzed it this way and that way. And 8 that we've taken the level of care that you've seen 9 in one or two examples here wherever we can within 10 the scope of the studies we're doing. We don't do 11 this analysis outside the scope. 12 And there may be some debate from people about 13 why didn't you go and look at the same level of 14 detail that was something outside of what you called 15 your scope. That's a fair question. But within the 16 scope of studies that was as we described them, 17 that's the approach we've taken in the socioeconomic 18 area and as part of the management team as far as I'm 19 concerned in all of the areas. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you continuing with 21 questions on mercury? 22 MR. ABRA: No, I was just going to ask Mr. 23 Hicks to go on the record, Mr. Chair, with respect to 24 the VECs that were identified to the transmission 25 lines as far as the degree of care that was concerned 02731 1 and the scoping and so on. 2 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chair, again, I pointed out 3 yesterday that we did not explicitly identify VECs in 4 the transmission analysis although -- 5 MR. ABRA: You testified to that yesterday. 6 MR. HICKS: Yes. But to the extent that we 7 did look at a wide variety of what might be 8 considered VECs and other species in the case of 9 wildlife and all of the effects that might be 10 associated with the lines, yes, we canvassed all of 11 the available data. We buttressed that with review 12 of literature and with field research. 13 MR. ABRA: Are there any particular VECs that 14 you can recall that there was a limit in data or 15 there were limitations in the data that made it more 16 difficult for you to scope it and come up with your 17 baseline? 18 MR. OSLER: Let me give you one in the 19 socioeconomic area which is it wouldn't be an 20 environmental effect under the federal rules but we 21 certainly treat it as an effect of the project. 22 That's to do with in migration that could flow from 23 the project being developed to NCN. 24 The numbers that I reported on the other day 25 that we came up with from looking at interviews, 02732 1 opinion surveys and everything else was a very wide 2 range. I think 30 to 400, 35 to 400. So obviously 3 we don't have a lot of confidence that we know which 4 specific number might emerge. 5 Our approach in that instance is to work with 6 NCN on what you might call adaptive management or 7 monitoring or impact management, however your 8 terminology may be, or follow-up measures, but 9 obviously the First Nation has to work to try and 10 monitor this and deal with it. It has to get 11 information out to the people so that they don't move 12 back in ignorance of the housing issues that would 13 flow from it or the expectation that they have to 14 move back in order to get the jobs. There are other 15 opportunities for them that wouldn't necessarily get 16 into the situation. They also have to deal with it 17 on reserve with the issues of managing it. 18 So there is a highly uncertain ability to 19 predict as a professional but a deal which you work 20 with the people affected to try and help them develop 21 the methods of managing it. So that's a 22 socioeconomic area. It's outside these federal rules 23 for environmental effect. But it's a direct high 24 level importance to the people of NCN. 25 So I give you that as probably the best 02733 1 example I can think of in the socioeconomic area of 2 where we really don't know to come up with a precise 3 number or even it's a pretty wide range, 35 to 400, 4 but how do you deal with it? How do you help the 5 people deal with it and how do you make sure that 6 everybody is aware of it as professional? There are 7 probably lots of other areas. 8 MR. ABRA: Were there any other areas that 9 each of you had to deal with where you were concerned 10 about limitations as far as data was concerned? 11 MR. HICKS: We are always concerned about 12 limitations as far as data is concerned. But again, 13 our conclusions were on the basis that we're 14 comfortable that the data is adequate to support 15 them. 16 I'll give you an example. There is not an 17 enormous amount of data on individual animals or 18 animal populations. There is a pretty decent 19 database in respect to their habitat through the 20 forest resource inventory. So there is, to a degree, 21 habitat is used as a surrogate because there is 22 reasonable data available whereas there is not a 23 surplus of data on an individual animal or a species. 24 In those cases, though, then we went to 25 literature search. I should say that I was 02734 1 disappointed yesterday that Professor Bayne had not 2 reviewed some of the material here. He provided the 3 Commission after the fact with a copy of a paper 4 which had he read technical Volume 4, he would have 5 realized had been cited. And in fact, the 6 gentleman's work -- I'll get you the reference in a 7 moment here. This was Mr. Belanger's work in 1995 8 with respect to grouse on transmission corridors. 9 That particular paper was cited and in fact, 10 subsequent papers written by Mr. Belanger are cited 11 in the report. 12 So I'm comfortable that our literature 13 research was very substantial. There were in fact 14 over 400 papers and articles cited in technical 15 volume 4 which again unfortunately was not viewed by 16 Dr. Bayne. 17 MS. AVERY KINEW: Do you know if Dr. Bayne had 18 received it? 19 MR. HICKS: I can't explain why he wouldn't 20 have. 21 MS. AVERY KINEW: We heard testimony he didn't 22 MR. HICKS: And then finally, over and above 23 the habitat surrogate that we were able to find good 24 data on and use as a basis for making some evaluation 25 of potential wildlife effects plus the literature 02735 1 research of wildlife effects in similar conditions 2 and under similar pressures from transmission 3 corridors or other types of linear disturbance, we 4 then added extensive field research and we're 5 continuing to do field research in each and every 6 research season up until construction of the lines. 7 MR. ABRA: Sorry, Mr. Chair, you had a 8 question related to mercury you said? 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Just referring to Mr. 10 Osler first. I heard you in the initial presentation 11 the first day, or second, whatever, when you were 12 talking about that issue. You made a comparison, you 13 said that a meal of fish, for instance, the amount of 14 mercury in a meal of fish would be the equivalent of 15 washing it down with 100,000 gallons of water? I 16 don't know who it was. Maybe it was you. Is that 17 correct what you said? 18 MR. DAVIES: Yes, it is. The amount of 19 mercury that is in water is very very low. It wasn't 20 until the late 1980s I believe, somewhere in that 21 time period, that you could actually measure the 22 amount of mercury in water. And it was first 23 measured by the people that I believe -- it was first 24 measured in this area by the people that were 25 studying the South Indian Lake and Churchill River 02736 1 Diversion through the federal and ecological 2 monitoring programs. And the information that was 3 generated from that was cited in the 1992 summary 4 report by the Federal Ecological Monitoring Program. 5 And I believe that the levels that were recorded at 6 that time were approximately one-thousandths of the 7 guidelines for drinking water. So they were very 8 very low. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: In the water? 10 MR. DAVIES: In water. They are often as low 11 as .0001 I believe or .0001 parts per billion in 12 water. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: How does the mercury get into 14 the fish? 15 MR. DAVIES: Mercury is bioaccumulated in 16 fish. When flooding occurs, two things happen. 17 There's a small amount of methyl mercury in soil 18 that's automatically released into the water but the 19 majority of mercury comes from conversion of 20 inorganic mercury or organic mercury or methyl 21 mercury and that happens through bacterial action 22 working on organic matter that's flooded. That 23 methyl mercury is taken up by the organisms in the 24 water. The benthic invertebrates that live on the 25 bottom will take up mercury. The smaller fish that 02737 1 eat the benthic invertebrates will have a higher 2 level of mercury than the benthic invertebrates or 3 the bugs that live on the bottom. 4 The smaller fish will have a higher level of 5 mercury until you reach a very large northern pike or 6 jackfish which will have very very high levels of, 7 you know, .5 or .6 parts per million. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: So the beginning of the chain 9 goes from the methyl mercury in the eroded soil which 10 the biota feed on and the smaller fish feed on that 11 and all the way up to the larger fish which feed on 12 the smaller fish and accumulate. Because in reading 13 in that EIS in regards to mercury, it states that 14 much of the fish is above the commercial level for 15 fish in terms of mercury. Like the limit is set at 16 .2 micrograms per gram. And you describe quite a few 17 of the fish in the chart that states that whitefish, 18 for instance, northern pike, walleye all have above 19 that limit. 20 And you have a chart which shows the years in 21 which monitoring was done. And you indicate, for 22 instance, that we can readily see that starting with 23 the CRD or the period starting after CRD, the mercury 24 level increases substantially and above that limit 25 especially, and way above that limit, especially for 02738 1 pike and walleye. And of course, you also indicate 2 that it will increase again. 3 First of all, why don't you show any results 4 after or was there no monitoring done after 2000? I 5 shouldn't say that because it does show going a 6 little bit beyond 2000 but that's the last year 7 that's shown here, 2000. I guess perhaps because it 8 was sort of at a stable level at that point. But you 9 recognize that it's going to increase substantially 10 with the additional flooding even though this is a 11 small area. Especially in the Forebay, there will be 12 substantial flooding. 13 You indicated that a 70 kilogram person/man 14 can safely eat one meal of whitefish but I don't know 15 what or you have no idea what effect that would have 16 on a child, for instance, half that weight. Would 17 you still say the same thing? 18 MR. DAVIES: I guess there's a number of 19 points. I guess, first of all, whitefish which is 20 one of the preferred fish species for domestic 21 consumption is at .1. So it is below the .2 parts 22 per billion and would be below the .2 parts per 23 million under the most likely scenario for mercury 24 increases and under the worse case scenario for 25 mercury increases. 02739 1 THE CHAIRMAN: You indicate that it may reach, 2 it may reach -- I'm sorry, that was in walleye. It 3 will be slightly above the .1? 4 MR. DAVIES: It will be, under worst case 5 scenario, about 1.4. And what we expect to occur, 6 somewhere around -- actually to stay around .1. The 7 commercial sales limit is actually much higher than 8 that, it's .5 and we don't expect under the most 9 likely scenario that it will exceed .5 for any of the 10 three species. And the commercial sales limit means 11 they can sell the fish to us in safe ways and they 12 are safe to eat at .5. 13 The domestic consumption limit is for a very 14 high level of consumption generally for people that 15 live near lakes and eat a very large amount of fish. 16 The reduction is expected to be somewhere 17 around 20 per cent but the mercury levels in fish in 18 Wuskwatim Lake after the flooding will actually still 19 be lower than the fish that are in Footprint and 20 Threepoint Lakes right now because the mercury levels 21 out there are higher. 22 And the fish that is most preferred from 23 Wuskwatim Lake by NCN members is actually the 24 whitefish so we don't expect that even under worst 25 case scenario, there will be a significant effect. 02740 1 THE CHAIRMAN: You have no monitoring data 2 that indicates what the effect, for instance, on 3 children is, do you? 4 MR. DAVIES: Two things. Firstly, in regards 5 to the amount of data that's been collected, there 6 were samples actually collected in 2002. And we plan 7 on collecting one additional year prior to water 8 level increases in the Forebay, in Wuskwatim Lake 9 itself. So we'll have an updated, very current 10 mercury levels in fish immediately prior to the 11 project. 12 In regards to levels in humans, one of the 13 things that NCN as I said was very concerned about 14 was mercury in fish. And as a result of that, we did 15 encourage and work with NCN to have the Government of 16 Canada test mercury levels in the people at Nelson 17 House to see whether or not there was actually a 18 problem. And I believe of all the tests that were 19 done, and they were fairly extensive, none of the 20 individuals that were tested were deemed to have a 21 problem or be at risk at Nelson House. And we would 22 expect that the same thing would happen after the 23 project. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: You indicate somewhere that 25 following the time the project starts in operation, 02741 1 there is two years that are mentioned. I am not sure 2 exactly which they were now. I believe perhaps it 3 was 2011 and 2017 where monitoring will be done for 4 fish. I'm surprised that only those two years are 5 mentioned as for monitoring that there wouldn't be 6 any further monitoring done after that. 7 MR. DAVIES: Are you referring to monitoring 8 for mercury? 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 10 MR. DAVIES: I believe, I'll have to check, 11 but I believe mercury would be conducted in the years 12 two and five. And in year seven of the project, we 13 would take a look at the data that's been collected 14 and reassessed the need for further monitoring. If 15 we find after year five when you would expect that 16 mercury levels would have peaked, that they are still 17 low and that we haven't been able to notice any 18 change, there may not be additional mercury 19 monitoring conducted for a number of years after 20 that. But I believe it is years two and five. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Following two and five of 22 operation? 23 MR. DAVIES: There's an assessment period in 24 year seven. Take a look at all of the information 25 that would have been collected during the first seven 02742 1 years of monitoring to make sure that all of the 2 results have been carefully looked at and the impacts 3 have been identified, mitigation has been applied and 4 that we can revise a monitoring program as required 5 at that time. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Perhaps the way you 7 explain it is more open for further monitoring if it 8 shows that there is than what I had heard. So if the 9 monitoring indicates that there's still high level, 10 there will be continued monitoring is what you're 11 saying? 12 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. And I've also 13 just been corrected. I believe it's year four and 14 six of the program that mercury would be monitored 15 and then reassessed in year seven. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Seeing the source of the 17 problem comes as a result of the erosion of mercury 18 from the shorelines and because the mercury level is 19 already significantly high as a result of CRD, since 20 there is a substantial amount of materials being 21 removed to do the construction, would it have been 22 possible to use some of the rock materials removed to 23 create the dam, for instance, to increase the 24 impermeability of the shore line to erosion in the 25 area that -- I'm referring to this map which shows 02743 1 the area that's going to be flooded as figure 4. 2 And since you already, as you indicated, Mr. 3 Remple, know very well where the level of flooding is 4 going to take place and that area is going to be 5 cleared of vegetation or trees, wouldn't it have been 6 possible to -- I know that on some areas of that, you 7 will be placing some of that rubble on this side. 8 Wouldn't it have been possible, for instance, to put 9 some of that rubble in this area here to give you the 10 enhanced basin without having to increase the shore 11 line flooding? 12 MR. DAVIES: I guess Mr. Remple will have some 13 something to add. But the flooded area is actually 14 the area that would generate the majority of the 15 mercury not the erosional areas. One because of size 16 and one because there is organics there. The area 17 will be cleared prior to flooding to reduce the 18 mercury. I'm under the impression -- 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, you're saying it's the 20 vegetation that's going to cause the problem? 21 MR. DAVIES: It's the organic material that 22 causes the problem not the actual soil itself. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the organic material in 24 the soil too. 25 MR. DAVIES: That's right. 02744 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah. 2 MR. DAVIES: The areas that are subject to 3 erosion often have very low organic content. They 4 are fine silts and clays. So we would expect that 5 the areas that would be eroded would have less of an 6 effect than the area that actually would be flooded. 7 And mitigation for the flooded areas is to clear the 8 vegetation from that. 9 And do you have something to add, George? 10 MR. REMPEL: Yes, I do. And you're talking 11 about the immediate forebay there, the area between 12 Taskinigup Falls and Wuskwatim Falls. And that area 13 that you indicated that would be used for deposition 14 of surplus excavation material is actually a 15 low-lying area. So that is the best use, best place 16 to put the excess material for a number of reasons. 17 It is a low-lying area which would otherwise have a 18 lot of flooding or more flooding. And on top of 19 that, it is the area of a shore line that is exposed 20 to the higher winds and, therefore, higher wave 21 energy. 22 The other area that you referred, the 23 south-westerly area where you thought perhaps there 24 might be a good place to put some excess material is 25 actually in a very low energy in terms of wave 02745 1 action. And we don't anticipate a lot of erosion in 2 that shore line area that you referred to. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, we'll get back to that 4 when we talk about total suspended solids because it 5 has to come from somewhere. 6 MR. REMPEL: Yes, it does. And actually, I 7 think, Mr. Chair, the erosion material that we're 8 talking about by far the greatest amount comes from 9 Wuskwatim Lake itself not from the immediate Forebay. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: What enables you to say that 11 with assurance and certainty? 12 MR. REMPEL: Well, we have indicated -- 13 quantified the amount of sediment that we believe 14 will be released from the shores of Wuskwatim and we 15 have indicated that an immediate Forebay for a number 16 of reasons, one is that we'll have that surplus 17 excavated material which will have protection against 18 it. It will have on the interface with the water, it 19 will be riprapped. So there won't be much erosion 20 there at all because it will be protected and that's 21 the area where the high energy waves will occur. 22 On the other side, we don't anticipate high 23 wave action or high levels of erosion. For all the 24 reasons we indicated, we have a classification of the 25 shore line, we have assessment of the wind direction, 02746 1 wind speeds. And for those reasons, we have made 2 that judgment. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Significant amounts of 4 materials, I don't know what word to use, if it's 5 rock or rubble, is going to be removed to create the 6 channel. 7 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Would that have been used as 9 part of the -- I think some of it is actually used to 10 protect the shore line in that area. But I am not 11 sure if that is the case because the channel is going 12 to be created here in this area. A lot of rubble, 13 where is that going? 14 MR. REMPEL: That material is both rock and 15 soil material. And the bulk of that material is 16 actually going into that disposal area that you 17 talked about. Much of the other rock is actually 18 going into the powerhouse and main dam. So much of 19 the material that you spotted in that disposal area 20 is actually coming off from the excavation of those 21 channels at the falls. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: So you're telling me that the 23 materials that excavated at the actual dam area plus 24 the materials excavated at the channel area is all 25 going in this particular area here? 02747 1 MR. REMPEL: Or the dam. Much of the rock in 2 the area that you -- in the vicinity of the 3 powerhouse is actually being used in the dam, 4 actually in the main dam as a core of the dam. Much 5 of the material, most of the material in that 6 disposal area actually has its origin from those 7 channels at Wuskwatim Falls to make the flow easier 8 into the immediate Forebay. 9 MR. DAVIES: We've also asked NCN and Manitoba 10 Hydro to leave some of the rubble actually in the 11 bottom of that area because we believe it can create 12 some fish habitat of high velocity fish habitat. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: It's going to be just spread on 14 the bottom? 15 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 17 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Abra, I didn't wade in on 18 that discussion of uncertainty that you had posed 19 earlier and I'd just like to make a couple of 20 comments. 21 MR. ABRA: Thank you. 22 MR. REMPEL: On the physical environment, we 23 did have a few areas of uncertainty, one of which was 24 addressed quite nicely and that related to the leach 25 ability of rock that will be used in the dam and the 02748 1 powerhouse. And that relates to the potential for 2 acid to be extracted from the broken rock as it comes 3 into contact with water and air. We weren't sure if 4 there was a concern with the leach ability of the 5 rock. 6 Manitoba Hydro and NCN authorized us to engage 7 a specialist in this field from Calgary, a Dr. 8 Stephen Day. And he took portions of the cores, 9 conducted special tests and that data confirmed the 10 suitability of that material. In other words, there 11 would not be a concern with leach ability. So that 12 uncertainty was addressed. And we have had questions 13 about uncertainty of sediment transport, particularly 14 to in-river construction. So it's a temporary 15 concern, that is, a concern during those intervals 16 when there's actual work in the river. And there are 17 some areas of the river that have fairly fine grained 18 material. And there was some concern about whether 19 that would settle out in the first few kilometers or 20 in Opegano Lake or would it go further down stream. 21 And those concerns, by the way, came from the 22 technical advisory committee particularly the 23 Department of Fisheries and Oceans. And as a result, 24 we've had a number of meetings with their technical 25 people. We have considered their concerns. Manitoba 02749 1 Hydro and NCN's engineers have looked at how that 2 could be responded to in terms of adapting the 3 construction methods. There has been a sediment 4 management plan filed which we think addresses the 5 uncertainty. It proposes monitoring be done during 6 construction. And there are techniques identified 7 that, if required, can be put in place to further 8 mitigate at the time, if it is necessary to do so, to 9 avoid excessive plumes of sediment being introduced 10 into the Burntwood River. 11 So the uncertainty where it exists I think we 12 have responded by providing effectively adaptive 13 measures to respond if our predictions are incorrect 14 and we also have another measure that's in the EIS. 15 We know that when the river gets shunted firstly to 16 the west side while the dam and powerhouse -- sorry, 17 while the powerhouse and spillway are constructed. 18 And then later on when the river is shunted to the 19 other side to run through the spillway, the river 20 will actually be going across a portion of the river 21 bed that has not normally experienced high velocity 22 flows. 23 We think the sheer strength of the erodibility 24 of that soil is pretty good. In other words, the 25 resistance to erosion is pretty strong. But there is 02750 1 uncertainty there. And we can't measure that sheer 2 strength at this time because it's under water. 3 There will be an opportunity in years one and 4 two, I believe it is, of construction to go out there 5 and take samples and we've indicated in the EIS on 6 the advice of Manitoba Hydro and NCN that if that 7 soil in that area that will experience these high 8 flows is highly erodible, there will be a layer of 9 rock put in place to armour it so there will not be 10 the introduction of excessive sediments into the 11 river. 12 So there are a few areas of uncertainty. We 13 believe we have mitigation strategies in place that 14 will adequately address those areas. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Osler. 16 MR. OSLER: Just to follow up on the 17 Chairman's issues to mercury and to give you a series 18 of references. Health Canada, in their comments to 19 us and our responses on August 8th, supplementary 20 information, Health Canada S1 through S5 deal with 21 mercury effects on people and how accurately it was 22 reflected or not reflected in our work. And a 23 follow-up question on S, I think it's 25, or in S-25 24 in the October 9th material specifically on the 25 advice of Health Canada. And some comments were 02751 1 given about the effects of mercury on children and 2 you can look at that to get the information you were 3 specifically looking at. It's much more -- a much 4 different type of standard when you're dealing with 5 children or pregnant women than it is for ordinary 6 adults. 7 The information in the EIS in volume 1, pages 8 967 and the existing studies to do with NCN and the 9 concerns of NCN to do with mercury and page 9-84, 85 10 on the effects assessment and the background volume 11 8, pages 8-255, 256 give more information on the 12 setting or the existing information of NCN and 8-295 13 gives more information on the effects. 14 So it's a subject that NCN and Health Canada 15 paid a lot of attention to. 16 MR. MAYER: Mr. Chair, if I may. Dealing with 17 this issue of mercury and monitoring. Could you tell 18 me where the monitoring takes place? How far down 19 the stream? 20 MR. DAVIES: We're reflecting samples for 21 mercury in Wuskwatim Lake, Opegano Lake and Birchtree 22 Lake. 23 MR. MAYER: You don't go beyond Birchtree 24 Lake? 25 MR. DAVIES: We don't expect to see any 02752 1 effects, actually, by the time in Opegano Lake. 2 Because the monitoring is in place, if we did pick up 3 any changes in Birchtree Lake then we could expand it 4 further downstream. But we don't actually expect to 5 see any changes even in Opegano Lake. 6 MR. MAYER: I have a couple of concerns about 7 that then. The fish don't necessarily stop at 8 Birchtree Lake. I realize that there is limited 9 migration over the falls but I don't see any real 10 indication that there is no downstream migration from 11 Birchtree or Opegano Lake. I recognize that Manasan 12 Falls are a pretty good size but I would tend to 13 suspect that a significant number of fish going over 14 them would survive, probably most of them. 15 You then get into the area that of course 16 deals with the intake to the Thompson water system. 17 Is that monitored there? 18 MR. DAVIES: I'm sorry -- 19 MR. MAYER: I take it there's no monitoring. 20 Once you get by Manasan Falls, I think you're about 21 four kilometres from the intake to Thompson's water 22 supply. 23 MR. DAVIES: That's right. We're actually 24 collecting water samples all the way down to an area 25 just upstream up Split Lake. 02753 1 MR. MAYER: So water is continued to be 2 sampled but fish aren't. Is that what you're saying? 3 MR. DAVIES: We do have programs to monitor 4 effects during the construction period on fish 5 further downstream. In regards to mercury, the 6 mercury levels in Birchtree Lake are actually higher 7 than the expected levels in Wuskwatim Lake right now. 8 So the chances of being able to pick them up would be 9 almost impossible. 10 We're also looking at the fact that even under 11 a worst case scenario in Wuskwatim Lake, the amount 12 of natural variation will probably mask the effects 13 in Wuskwatim Lake itself. So you may not even be 14 able to detect it in Wuskwatim Lake and we would 15 definitely not be able to detect it further down with 16 the exception, and it's identified in the EIS, there 17 are some peat areas where some resident fish, 18 particularly northern pike, might be located and they 19 may have some elevated levels. But it would be 20 really looking at individual fish rather than a 21 population. 22 MR. MAYER: Okay. Dealing with that issue 23 then. I noticed the fish species which you have 24 called valuable assets, or whatever the term is, and 25 the Burntwood must be the only river where people 02754 1 don't recognize the goldeye is a valuable species. 2 Were you aware there are significant goldeye in the 3 Burntwood River? 4 MR. DAVIES: It wasn't one of the abundant 5 fish species that was captured in either Wuskwatim or 6 Opegano Lake. 7 MR. MAYER: I understand that but I am 8 personally aware that there are significant, I 9 suppose technically they are mooneye. I've been told 10 by a biologist that he'd give me $1,000 for every 11 goldeye I actually found in the Winnipeg River. But 12 I understand they are in fact mooneye. But in fact 13 they are quite abundant in that reach that runs at 14 least from Manasan Falls to what we call 30 Mile 15 Rapids and I think you call Third Rapids. 16 MR. DAVIES: In the study area where we set 17 gill-nets, we haven't found any major numbers since 18 1996. So it's been quite a while. The levels are 19 fairly low and they are fairly stable. But we did 20 not find any large concentrations of mooneye or 21 goldeye in the study area. 22 MR. MAYER: The study area being the area 23 above where? 24 MR. DAVIES: The area going downstream from 25 Early Morning Rapids to Opegano Lake. 02755 1 MR. MAYER: You didn't go beyond that? 2 MR. DAVIES: We did do some sampling in 3 Birchtree Lake. 4 MR. MAYER: Okay. Thank you. 5 MR. SARGEANT: Mr. Davies, you talked about 6 doing sampling down to just above Split Lake I think 7 you said. How long has that been going on? 8 MR. DAVIES: I believe it's two years now. It 9 was identified -- originally we were collecting water 10 samples to an area just upstream of Thompson because 11 we felt that the effects of the project wouldn't be 12 transported actually further than Birchtree Lake but 13 we went further than that. Because of concerns 14 expressed by downstream communities, we extended that 15 to an area downstream of Thompson. And then when we 16 met with more communities through the PIP process, 17 there were additional concerns. So we extended it to 18 an area just upstream of Split Lake. 19 And then in Split Lake, there is another 20 monitoring program that's occurring which actually 21 goes right to the Hudson Bay estuary. 22 MR. SARGEANT: That sampling has just been 23 part of this study for the Wuskwatim project? 24 MR. DAVIES: The water chemistry sampling from 25 upstream of Early Morning Rapids to an area just 02756 1 upstream of Split Lake has been conducted 2 specifically for the Wuskwatim generation project. 3 MR. SARGEANT: And this will continue post 4 Wuskwatim for how long? 5 MR. DAVIES: I believe the total monitoring 6 program is around 21 years or in the 20 some years in 7 total including the construction period. It doesn't 8 mean that water chemistry would be sampled every year 9 but there will be periodic sampling to make sure that 10 the effects are known. 11 MR. SARGEANT: And who will do the sampling? 12 Will it be Hydro employees or will it be contractors 13 such as yourself or whoever you contract with? 14 MR. DAVIES: That would be up to NCN and 15 Manitoba Hydro to determine. 16 MR. SARGEANT: Thank you. 17 MR. ABRA: If I might just ask a last question 18 related to this issue of the baseline that we talked 19 about at some length yesterday and the scoping and I 20 expressed to you, as did Mr. Sargeant, the issue that 21 the Commission has to be satisfied on obviously. So 22 let me ask a general question and we'll follow up 23 from what the evidence that Mr. Davies gave yesterday 24 and Mr. Rempel has given today with respect to 25 mercury and erosion respectively. And Mr. Osler has 02757 1 given some evidence of the same nature. 2 Are you prepared to say that all historical 3 data that is available and relevant to all of the 4 VECs that you have identified for the purposes of the 5 two projects, that being the dam and the transmission 6 lines, has been reviewed and included in coming up 7 with your baseline and in your scoping? 8 MR. DAVIES: It's impossible to say that you 9 haven't missed anything. 10 MR. ABRA: No, I understand. Humanly 11 possible. 12 MR. DAVIES: Yeah. But I do feel comfortable 13 that there's been not only an acceptable level but a 14 very high level of effort put into making sure that 15 we have reviewed the appropriate literature. 16 MR. REMPEL: I think that's true in general, 17 that for all of the professionals and specialists 18 that were involved in this assessment, that they made 19 best efforts to have access to the relevant available 20 information, as Mr. Davies says is quite possible 21 that we missed some information. 22 But I think by a collective effort and also in 23 terms of the review by the Technical Advisory 24 Committee which again is a body of peers if you like, 25 who have access to information through the 02758 1 government, both Canada and Manitoba, that we 2 otherwise might not be aware of that I think we have 3 canvassed the literature and the available 4 information very thoroughly. 5 MR. OSLER: The answer is yes. And the 6 process that we are engaged in with both the 7 government technical committee and the public in this 8 Commission is designed, in my opinion, to test that. 9 They are knowledgeable people who are aware of what 10 we're doing. They are affected communities. We've 11 tried to provide the affected communities with their 12 own ability to be aware well in advance so that if 13 somebody thinks we're missing something, they will 14 draw it to our attention. And it has happened as 15 we've gone through the process today and it may 16 happen in the process of this hearing. 17 But professionally, of course, we have 18 attempted to review all of the relevant material and 19 knowledge that exists today both in written form and 20 in terms of NCN and in terms of our own professional 21 careers. 22 MR. REMPEL: I might also add that the 23 planning of this project has gone on for some many 24 years. And in the course of that planning, data, the 25 adequacy of data was reviewed and that's a big reason 02759 1 why there is such an extensive data and acquisition 2 program as part of this EIS program. 3 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chairman, I offer the same 4 response. I'm comfortable that the test that George 5 Remple has identified, the fact that there are a 6 number of specialists involved in both teams and 7 there's a lot of cross-checking and cross-reference 8 there and extensive cross-checking on the part of the 9 very many people who are part of the Technical 10 Advisory Committee with whom we've met periodically 11 over the course of the study that we're fully covered 12 here. 13 The one point that I would make is that the 14 filings were made in April of 2003. And of course, 15 again, there is an ongoing effort to identify new 16 material, new data as it comes out. So to the extent 17 that you are looking at material that was developed 18 in 2003, there may, from time to time, be subsequent 19 papers, but we would certainly have drawn those to 20 your attention or will over the course of these 21 proceedings. 22 MR. ABRA: Thank you. I'd like to turn to 23 significance. There was evidence given yesterday 24 related to your determination with respect to many of 25 the VECs that the residual effects were 02760 1 insignificant. Firstly, the term "significance" has 2 a specific meaning as far as environmental assessment 3 is concerned I understand. And what definition were 4 you people using as far as significance and 5 insignificance is concerned as for the purposes of 6 your environmental assessment? 7 MR. REMPEL: The term "significance" as 8 definition is significant all right. 9 MR. ABRA: Important. 10 MR. DAVIES: It's important because in the 11 federal process, the determination of an effect as 12 being significant does raise questions in terms of 13 the need for a joint panel for example. But what we 14 did from the outset is whenever there was an issue 15 that appeared to be perhaps marginal with respect to 16 significance, we would look at mitigation. And as a 17 result, we are not surprised that the determinations 18 are in general that the effects are insignificant. 19 As to the definition of insignificance, we 20 gave quite a discussion on that in Volume 1 in pages 21 215, actually section 2.4. It's called Determination 22 of Significance Environmental Effects. And there, we 23 indicated that there are a number of factors, 24 criteria that we used, the nature of the effect, 25 whether it's positive, neutral or negative or 02761 1 adverse. The magnitude of the effect, the duration 2 of the effect, the frequency, spatial boundaries, the 3 reversibility and the ecological context. And we 4 essentially described the duration, magnitude and 5 geographical extent, how it varied with the type of 6 VEC or VEC that we were looking at. And we did have 7 a matrix that we described in Figure 241 which 8 showed, I guess in graphic form, how we would judge a 9 significance of an effect. 10 For example, if it was large and regional and 11 either short-term or long-term, we would say it's 12 potentially a significant effect. And with that kind 13 of a screening matrix, we use that to come to the 14 conclusions that you have seen. 15 So, for example, if something was local and 16 moderate, we would say that is not significant in a 17 short-term impact. So that's essentially the 18 approach we use to assessing significance. 19 MR. ABRA: The actual EIS guidelines from 20 Manitoba Conservation had a list of criteria that 21 were to be followed. Most of them were the ones that 22 you've read from, Mr. Rempel, but there was a couple 23 you never mentioned. It may have been an oversight. 24 Just for the record, I would indicate that those 25 criteria were the nature of the effect, the magnitude 02762 1 of the effect, the duration of the effect, the 2 frequency of the effect, the reversibility of the 3 effect, temporal boundaries short or long term, 4 spatial boundaries, being project site, local area or 5 regional, and ecological context which related to 6 sensitivity of VEC to environmental disturbance. Am 7 I correct? 8 MR. OSLER: Yes, yes. And they are referenced 9 in page 215 of Volume 1 that he's looking at. So the 10 intent was to look at the issue of the criteria set 11 out in the guidelines and then to focus on a 12 methodology and an approach to deal with them. So 13 the approach focused on certain key variables, as Mr. 14 Remple explained in the matrix. We took the same 15 approach, the socioeconomic side. It was slightly 16 different terminology. And then to say that's a 17 potential effect. And then you have to look at the 18 effect still, if it sort of gets through that 19 screening if you like, and test it against some of 20 these other concepts you've noted, resilience, et 21 cetera. Because you could have an effect that looked 22 like it could be significant but on reflection of 23 some of these other factors, it would not be. 24 And in a few cases, rare plants or something 25 of very significant scarcity basis, whether it's 02763 1 small or local, may not be sufficient to say it is 2 not significant. So in principal, the variables set 3 out in the guidelines were all addressed. 4 And there's also a reference to the federal 5 guide document on significance so that there is 6 ongoing material being issued by people to reflect on 7 how you should do this type of analysis. It's not a 8 defined term in the statutes as I'm sure you're 9 familiar with. 10 MR. ABRA: I'm aware of that but it is 11 something that was mentioned in the guidelines for 12 you. 13 MR. OSLER: Yes. And effectively you have to 14 deal with it in order to do an assessment. I guess 15 the ultimate point is you are trying to come up with 16 whether there's a likely adverse significant effect. 17 That's what everybody is trying to find out. So you 18 have to define significance. 19 MR. ABRA: Were there any residual 20 environmental effects from either the generation 21 project or the transmission lines that you evaluated 22 to be significant? 23 MR. OSLER: There are some that are 24 significant positive but there's none that are 25 significant adverse. Some of the employment and 02764 1 long-term socioeconomic factors were judged to be 2 significant and positive. There were -- I don't 3 know. I'd have to let my colleagues discuss whether 4 there were some in the metaphysical area. But there 5 were no significant adverse effects determined 6 throughout the physical, biophysical, socioeconomic 7 transmission and generation studies. 8 MR. ABRA: There's no mention made in the 9 criteria from the environmental impact guidelines. 10 And one thing that members of the Commission have 11 noticed, as have we, is that there's been significant 12 discussion over the last couple of weeks about 13 traditional knowledge. Now, once you identified VECs 14 and made a determination as to whether they were 15 insignificant of the nature that you have described, 16 Mr. Osler, were those run by or discussed with 17 members of NCN and elders and so on for the purposes 18 of their input in traditional knowledge? 19 MR. OSLER: Yes. The process of finalizing 20 the EIS and coming to the conclusions that are 21 reported was reviewed by a joint NCN Hydro committee 22 that included the people that NCN thought should be 23 involved in the process including I think the 24 community consultant and some of your elder members 25 were involved in that process, Darcy Linklater, Terry 02765 1 Linklater. 2 MR. ABRA: I'm sorry, Mr. Osler, we can't hear 3 you. 4 MR. OSLER: I'm sorry. 5 MR. ABRA: It doesn't matter if I can't but 6 the reporter can't. 7 MR. OSLER: Councillor Thomas will elaborate 8 in a second on that. 9 MR. ABRA: Could you repeat what you said 10 because you turned away and we couldn't hear it at 11 all. 12 MR. OSLER: I was checking names of various 13 members of NCN who were involved in the review 14 process and Councillor Darcy Linklater, Terry 15 Linklater, Jimmy D. Spence among others, Henry Wood, 16 Norman Linklater and we had various resource users 17 available at various points in time. 18 So the process of discussing what we mean when 19 we are having to try and deal with significance as 20 environmental practitioners and what members of NCN 21 mean when they think of significance was certainly 22 discussed. And the need to try and come up with an 23 approach that would, as you said earlier, address the 24 intent and purpose of environmental review which is 25 to come up with something if it's significant and 02766 1 adverse that would clearly be very very material and 2 major and lead to, in this case, legally, to a need 3 for a panel separate from this one to review it, was 4 it was discussed. 5 So we were -- the answer to your question at 6 the beginning was yes. The meaning of these words is 7 very difficult when you're having that type of 8 discussion and the needs that we require for 9 environmental review and the meanings people have in 10 the community when talking about these things, this 11 is difficult language to discuss. 12 MR. DAVIES: When the impacts of the project 13 were known, an individual from Manitoba Hydro, Mr. 14 Glen Cook and myself went to Thompson and Nelson 15 House and worked with NCN's community consultants. 16 And we had prepared a presentation that outlined all 17 of the project effects on the biophysical side and on 18 the -- basically it describes the operating regime 19 and all of the biophysical effects and the 20 socioeconomic effects were dealt with in a slightly 21 different manner but just in as much detail. 22 Anyways, Mr. Cook and myself worked with the 23 community consultants to rewrite the entire 24 presentation so that it was clear and in a language 25 that could be translated and explained to NCN elders 02767 1 and resource harvesters, took several days, almost a 2 week to do it. We went through each page in extreme 3 detail to make sure that the community consultants 4 understood what the impacts were so that they could 5 discuss it with the elders in their own language. 6 When the presentation was finished, 600 copies 7 of the presentation were made and provided to each 8 household in Nelson House. The community consultants 9 then went house to house and discussed with each of 10 the families the effects of the project through that 11 presentation that was provided. 12 MR. ABRA: If I might just interrupt, is that 13 the document you referred to yesterday, Mr. Thomas? 14 MR. THOMAS: Which document are you talking 15 about? 16 MR. ABRA: Sorry. Mr. Davies was saying that 17 a document was prepared for the members of NCN for 18 each household and so on describing any residual 19 effects that there might be with respect to either 20 transmission lines or the generation project and that 21 it was distributed amongst the members of NCN. Have 22 I got that correct, Mr. Davies? 23 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. 24 MR. ABRA: And I'm just wondering if that's 25 the documents you identified for us yesterday? 02768 1 MR. THOMAS: No. The document that I 2 identified yesterday was the Agreement in Principle 3 overview. 4 MR. ABRA: I'm sorry, that went to the 5 members. Okay, I misunderstood, I'm sorry. 6 MR. THOMAS: It's a different document. 7 MR. ABRA: That was the one that went to the 8 NCN members? 9 MR. THOMAS: The Agreement in Principle, yes. 10 MR. ABRA: Yes, I'm sorry. 11 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chairman, if I might just 12 close the loop on the round of questioning with 13 respect to the determination of significance. This 14 was a matter that was discussed at length within the 15 environmental management team because it was 16 obviously so critical that we be consistent. And the 17 same description of that process is contained in the 18 transmission volume 1, section 2.5. 19 MR. ABRA: Thank you. 20 MR. THOMAS: If I may, Mr. Chairman. With 21 regard to the question that was posed as to how 22 traditional knowledge was incorporated, we did 23 identify a number of different people that played a 24 role. We've had all our community consultants be 25 involved in making use of our traditional knowledge. 02769 1 We've also had our elder that you know about, his 2 name is Sam Dysart, has been involved in trapping, 3 hunting, fishing for quite a long period of time and 4 he's quite knowledgeable about these kind of issues. 5 So we've made use of him when it was appropriate. 6 We have also used a number of resource users, 7 one of them happens to be Bill Yetman. He's another 8 very knowledgeable person. But if you recall, the 9 definition of traditional knowledge identified a 10 whole series of factors that are taken into 11 consideration as to what constitutes traditional 12 knowledge. 13 But you will recall also my statement that it 14 is not necessarily limited to what I have provided. 15 We have used various other expertise that is 16 not necessarily coming forward from our NCN members 17 but we made use of Cam MacInnes, for example, and 18 other experts in the area. We debate the issues and 19 talk about the relevance of things. So it's quite a 20 broad definition and we've made use of it throughout 21 our process. Thank you. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Just on that matter 23 of significance and the statement you made that found 24 that none of the value ecosystems you found any 25 significant adverse impacts. When you are making 02770 1 this kind of statement, you would have to agree I 2 believe that it's based on the grid that you have 3 established and it doesn't matter how many people and 4 for how long you were to discuss this, there is no 5 guarantee that in regards to everyone, you will never 6 be surprised to be proven wrong after the fact. 7 And if you disagree with that, I'd be very 8 surprised and probably would be very doubtful because 9 we are measuring on the base of space and time and 10 some of those were saying, well, yes it covers a 11 fairly large area and it's for a very lengthy period 12 of time but we don't consider it to be significant. 13 So where is the break-off where it becomes 14 significant and it's not significant contains an 15 element of a judgment call based on yes, maybe a 16 great deal of experience and expertise. But nature 17 doesn't always follow the same path all the time. 18 MR. REMPEL: No, it doesn't. At the same 19 time, we have made a collective judgment on the 20 effects and the significance of the effects in terms 21 of these two projects. We have put forward what we 22 believe to be extensive documentation of the 23 rationale. It's been extensively reviewed by peers 24 in both governments. There's been a lot of questions 25 raised by them but I don't believe so far that people 02771 1 have argued that there was a significant effect. 2 There's been lots of questions raised by the 3 regulators but, so far anyway, they have not said 4 they disagree with the judgments. They may still do 5 that but they haven't so far. 6 The point I'm making is that this is not just 7 the judgments of the consulting team. Those 8 judgments are put forward for review by professionals 9 in regulatory agencies and of course they are being 10 tested in this process. So eventually, there will be 11 a collective societal judgment as to the adequacy of 12 our judgments. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Some of the people from the NCN 14 community may find that difficult to grasp this type 15 of arriving at what's significant and insignificant, 16 in spite of the input from the Aboriginal leaders or 17 respected leaders that Mr. Thomas refers to. And 18 perhaps a lot of them find it difficult or even 19 state, you know, it's too much to give up or it's too 20 valuable compared to what is to be gained or varied 21 or find it difficult to seize what is how to compare. 22 Is there not a way to provide more readily 23 understandable EIS information in terms of the 24 impacts and their significance to the community 25 people who will be directly affected? 02772 1 MR. REMPEL: I think unprecedented efforts 2 have been made to translate, communicate the effects, 3 the judgments, the rationale of the effects. And 4 ultimately, there will be a vote as Councillor Thomas 5 has indicated. So I presume that a judgment will be 6 rendered by NCN. But as EIS or EMT, all we can do is 7 provide the information to the best of our knowledge 8 and let the process unfold. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I understand that. And 10 perhaps I am incorrect in interpreting this in the 11 way I am. But a vote on lack of understanding is not 12 really a valuable exercise of democracy or in fact it 13 may lead to various non logical or non sequitur 14 decisions. 15 So I guess my question is to Mr. Thomas here. 16 Does he feel, does he believe that the members of the 17 community, and I'm saying the members at large of the 18 community, fully understand the environmental 19 assessment impacts in regards to this project? I was 20 going to ask that much later because there is related 21 questions. 22 MR. THOMAS: I don't think anyone can say that 23 there will be 100 per cent understanding of 24 everything by all NCN members but we have done our 25 utmost to ensure that we have had very significant 02773 1 involvement with our community. 2 For me to be involved in this process, it is 3 one of the things that I hold near and dear to me, 4 that if I'm going to be involved in the process, it's 5 got to be very real and very meaningful in terms of 6 the way that we consult with our people. We have 7 embarked, as I indicated previously, in a 8 consultation process that I have not seen done 9 anywhere. We have made use of all the different 10 people that have identified. But it's not just us as 11 NCN leaders that have been involved in this exercise, 12 it's not just my people that work for me under the 13 future development portfolio, it is a number of 14 various members of my community that have been 15 involved, people who make use of the land and the 16 resources in a lot of different ways. 17 Some are people who hunt and some are people 18 who trap and some are people who go fishing. Some 19 are people who make use of our land in traditional 20 ways, not just in hunting ways but in ceremonial 21 ways. And we have people as well that make use of 22 the gifts provided by the Creator in terms of 23 medicines. So we have spoken to medicine people 24 during the course of our environmental impact 25 assessment. 02774 1 So we have conducted a consultation process 2 that requires the input of my people in a very 3 significant way. And although I can't guarantee 100 4 per cent understanding from all my members that are 5 going to be impacted, including those that don't -- 6 that won't be voting, we are pretty hard-pressed to 7 say yes, there will be 100 per cent understanding. 8 But in terms of the way that we have involved 9 ourselves in this process, I believe that we do have 10 a very good understanding of what kind of impacts are 11 going to be coming about as a result of the project. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: I hear what you're saying but 13 there is a distinction to be made between the 14 socioeconomic impacts and the environmental impacts 15 and I'm just basically asking what your degree of 16 comfort or what's your degree of understanding that 17 your people are fully knowledgeable of what those 18 impacts are as well? Consultation in terms of 19 informing the people in terms of what the project 20 consists of and what potential benefits or actual 21 benefits are going to be derived is one thing, but 22 that is providing information. 23 Now, providing consultation on the actual EIS 24 or those valued -- I know you've indicated that there 25 was consultation to establish what were the valued 02775 1 ecosystems and that part confirms some part of the 2 input of the community in terms of getting some 3 understanding. I gather those are valued ecosystems 4 established primarily in consultation with those who 5 are knowledgeable in the trapping and the elders, et 6 cetera. 7 I am just hearing input from NCN members. I 8 am not so sure they fully understand all of the 9 environmental impacts in this particular case. They 10 understand what the construction project is about. 11 They understand or maybe see what the economic 12 impacts are but do they fully understand or are they 13 reluctant because they do not understand what the 14 other impacts are? That's the question that comes to 15 my mind. 16 MR. THOMAS: We have been engaged, as I 17 indicated, in a consultation process that is not just 18 a matter of acquiring input from all the different 19 sources of information and all the different people 20 involved, we also provide and explain the information 21 as we are going along. And this process is an 22 ongoing process. We have not finished and we will 23 not finish until right up I suppose to the 24 ratification of the PDA itself. But we do have a 25 summary of our consultative efforts with the 02776 1 community and we've received a lot of positive 2 comments from our people that reflect that they are 3 quite satisfied with what we had done. 4 But of course, as you've seen for yourselves, 5 we do have some that are not necessarily happy with 6 the way things are and that's to be expected in any 7 democratic society. 8 But I as an individual leader and along with 9 the rest of my colleagues from what they've indicated 10 to me are quite comfortable with what has been done 11 and the consultative efforts that we are putting 12 forward to ensure that we can try to produce as much 13 understanding of all the different aspects of the 14 environmental impact assessment that's been done as 15 well as the total information for the total project 16 itself. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, thank you for that and I 18 appreciate the fact you're saying that it's an 19 ongoing process and it will carry forth. And perhaps 20 as you do so, more information will be shared and 21 more understanding will be derived. 22 MR. THOMAS: If it hasn't been done already, 23 Mr. Chairman, I do have a summary of our consultative 24 efforts including those that will be ongoing here in 25 this document. And I'll be more than happy to 02777 1 provide it to you and the rest of the Commission. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 3 MR. THOMAS: Thank you. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Avery Kinew. 5 MS. AVERY KINEW: Mr. Thomas, would that 6 include the document you were referring to where you 7 simplified the language and sent it around to people? 8 MR. THOMAS: We offered to provide that for 9 you and I've instructed our legal advisor to provide 10 copies to the Commission. 11 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you. 12 MR. ABRA: That's the document that Mr. Davies 13 referred to that was explaining the impact to the 14 community of the two projects, the environmental 15 impact? 16 MR. DAVIES: That document is contained in 17 volume 2 of the generation project EIS. 18 MR. ABRA: Volume 2? 19 MR. DAVIES: Volume 2. 20 MR. REMPEL: I might also add that there is a 21 disk in the EIS filing that has a Power Point 22 presentation of the summary of the EIS, the 23 integrated summary. And it has an audio track in 24 Cree as well that's on a disk that I believe was in 25 the jacket of each of the EISs. 02778 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Osler? 2 MR. OSLER: I'd like to deal with a couple of 3 different things that have come up in this 4 conversation. One of them is the matter of 5 understanding and the other one is the rules on 6 significance. I think it is hard to -- the 7 Commission can appreciate that it's very hard to get 8 an understanding of all this material. And it's 9 infinitely harder if you're trying to explain it to 10 people who are not scientifically oriented. I don't 11 care whether they are Cree in Nelson House or people 12 I know in Winnipeg. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Or members of the Panel. 14 MR. ABRA: I think we'll all vouch for that. 15 MR. OSLER: And the job that we have to do is 16 to try and do that. We'll see how well we survive. 17 But in dealing with Nelson House people, they have a 18 keen interest in the issue. They have a deep level 19 of suspicion given the history and they treat all of 20 their area, as I said on I think page 4 of the 21 summary, and they are very key words and they were 22 discussed at some length before they were put there, 23 "NCN elders consider the entire Nelson 24 House resource management area to be 25 sacred and many areas therein 02779 1 including the sensitive and important 2 Wuskwatim Lake area to still be 3 disrupted as a result of flooding in 4 the 1970s related to hydroelectric 5 development." 6 It's very hard to discuss things if there 7 isn't trust underlying it. A lot of effort is put in 8 to NCN by their leaders and their members and their 9 community consultants in disclosing information, 10 going house to house and having open meetings. And 11 it isn't just to tell them what the study is or what 12 Mr. Davies has done last week but to get their input 13 and get their reactions. And the meetings with 14 resource harvesters can be quite lively given their 15 history and involvement and their concerns. 16 I don't think you should assume that the 17 discussions about socioeconomic matters are any less 18 lively. It may seem down here that a job in a 19 construction project is a good thing. There are 20 people that worry about whether it will be a good 21 thing in reality for families in Nelson House and 22 they discuss it with you intensely. And they want to 23 know that somebody is going to pay attention to 24 dealing with the practical problems of what we would 25 technically call follow-up and impact management and 02780 1 interactive and adaptive management, but these don't 2 mean a thing to people there. They want to know who 3 is going to deal with it and how is it going to be 4 dealt with. 5 So things that you might assume in Winnipeg 6 are automatically attractive are attractive, jobs, 7 long-term economic benefits are attractive, but they 8 do not go undiscussed at a very intense level with 9 the wellness group, with the elders, with people who 10 fundamentally distrust that a new thing in their area 11 won't just be awful. 12 Everything we've done, as Councillor Thomas 13 says, and I can -- behind me is Janet Kinley who 14 spent the month of February going through small group 15 discussions on socioeconomics and follow-up 16 management, and it was intense. It was not 17 necessarily always friendly but it was respectful. 18 And a high level of questioning on just the 19 socioeconomic issues that we're talking about. 20 So whether this thing is supported by the NCN 21 members in the end or not is a matter for the future 22 to hear. But the fact that it's been discussed and 23 is being discussed and will be discussed intensely, 24 frankly, without trusting anyone, me, Councillor 25 Thomas, Manitoba Hydro, anyone, there's no basis for 02781 1 trust given in some people's opinion the histories of 2 what people have done in these communities. 3 And these are cumulative effects, if you want 4 to get technical, and they come way beyond just 5 Hydro. They come in the way in which people have 6 seen themselves be treated. And why should they 7 trust what the scientist says? Why should they trust 8 what a leader says? Why should they trust what a 9 panel says? So that's just on the question of 10 understanding. 11 On the more technical question. Councillor 12 Thomas just reminded me, and he can speak directly to 13 you, but their understanding will ultimately be 14 reflected through the collective will and the process 15 of the vote. I mean essentially, the ultimate test 16 here will be that, the people who will be directly 17 affected will they, after all this discussion, have 18 come to a considered view, a broadly-based view that 19 this is a good idea or will they have come to the 20 view, after listening to all this discussion, it's 21 something they don't want to do. 22 The one thing that is clear is that you are 23 going to build a dam, that you're in bed with 24 Manitoba Hydro and you're going to have some adverse 25 effect from their point of view on the environment 02782 1 that is sacred to them. Those things are clear. 2 There's no ambiguity to them about that. You're 3 going to build a road, you're going to build 4 transmission lines and you're going to do some 5 flooding. I don't care how much, some, and you are 6 going to change the environment. So those points are 7 clear. 8 The hard part is whether it is, from their 9 point of view, manageable, acceptable and all the 10 other things that are part of this exercise. Are 11 they certain? Will they happen, the jobs, the 12 training, the economics, will they happen? 13 So the Summary of Understandings type of issue 14 introduces a level of uncertainty and beyond the 15 socioeconomics leads to people -- this is hard 16 language. How do I understand what this is all 17 about? How do I know that I can trust anybody on 18 this? What does it mean? Those are why the 19 discussions get to be intense even on the 20 socioeconomics. 21 But I would like to deal briefly also with the 22 professional issue of significance. 23 What I'm saying to you is the professional 24 type of significance to an elder of NCN, in my 25 opinion, is we are just night and day apart. We are 02783 1 talking professional language, and to them everything 2 is significant. And we have to deal with this. And 3 the concept of significance is dealt with in a 4 reference guide that is put out under the Canadian 5 Environmental Assessment Act by the agency, the 6 Environmental Assessment Agency. And it's clear, if 7 you review that, that their focus is on what I would 8 call professionals technical scientific assessments, 9 okay. I am not using the word western science but I 10 am using numbers and qualitative judgments and are 11 these things likely to have an effect? 12 They very specifically want to make the point 13 in here as to where the public input comes in. And 14 they say public input into the determination of 15 significant adverse environmental effects must limit 16 itself to questions related to scientific analysis 17 and interpretation. The public, for example, could 18 provide new evidence, offer a different 19 interpretation of the facts or question the 20 credibility of the conclusions. Issues that are not 21 directly linked to scientific (including traditional 22 ecological knowledge) analysis of environmental 23 effects such as long-term unemployment in a community 24 or fundamental personal values cannot be introduced, 25 they say, into the determination at this step, which 02784 1 is the step of significance. And you can go on and 2 look at it. 3 Essentially, the regime in which we are asked 4 to work professionally is that you look at 5 significance this way. You record, through public 6 input, what people tell you. You put it in front of 7 the regulators and the decision makers. And if there 8 is a significant public concern that emerges 9 independent of all the scientific analysis, there are 10 steps in the environmental process under the federal 11 rules for that to lead to certain consequences 12 independently of whether these people make a judgment 13 of significant adverse. 14 But there is a differentiation between value 15 judgments and scientific judgments is what I'm 16 getting at. When we're dealing with NCN, their view 17 of traditional knowledge certainly includes value. 18 And so when they make their judgments, they will be 19 considering values to them. 20 We have tried to find a way to deal with this 21 professionally and to discuss it openly and to record 22 the views also of those who talk to us so that they 23 are fully part of the record, whether they agree with 24 the scientific judgments or not. 25 So I wanted to try and bridge two different 02785 1 things there but that's all I've got to say. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mayer? 3 MR. MAYER: I want to put something before the 4 Panel before we break for lunch simply because I'm 5 not sure that we have the people on the Panel right 6 now to respond. I got sort of blown away by the 7 documents you gave me yesterday comparing the base 8 plan with the highway option for the transmission 9 route. The numbers look pretty impressive. But 10 somewhat like Mr. Bedford, I spent last night 11 re-thinking those numbers. And I am not sure how 12 significant they are because I don't know what to 13 compare them to. 14 The numbers show a $35.6 million difference in 15 the capital cost between the base plan and the 16 highway option. And that has been developed, has 17 been dealt with by using a unit cost which is 18 basically the same for both options. And I have a 19 problem with that. 20 You have told us from day one that you have 21 built into your proposal a significant number for 22 compensation. That number we understand you cannot 23 disclose. But when you tell me that there is a $35.6 24 million difference between the two options, I tell 25 you you have not taken out the compensation money 02786 1 that you would have had to have in there in order to 2 compensate NCN for using that significant piece of 3 their resource area. And I suggest to you that if 4 you use the highway option, you will pay virtually 5 nothing by way of compensation because you have 6 already acquired a good portion of the land. And you 7 will be using rights of way, I suggest to you, that 8 would be either Hydro's or the Province of 9 Manitoba's. 10 So I'd like to know what the real comparison 11 is, and I know I'm putting you in a position that's 12 going to be difficult because you're going to have to 13 take a compensation number out, but you have to do 14 that if you are going to give me a real comparison of 15 the two routes. 16 And I have a second problem. You have 17 calculated the line loss at $311,000 per year at ad 18 infinitum. And I am assuming that is the line loss 19 because of the difference in the number of kilometres 20 you're using. 21 Well, I used my handy dandy little calculator 22 and that comes to $1,767 per kilometre per year. And 23 of course that would relate to $67,146 per year on 24 the difference between the straight line distances 25 and the proposed base plan route changes. All that 02787 1 aside, what I need to know in order to determine how 2 significant this number of $311,000 per year in line 3 loss is I need to know the value of the power 4 expected to be delivered from Wuskwatim to either, 5 well, I guess to both the Birchtree Station and the 6 Herblet Lake Station. Because if you can put a value 7 on the line loss, you've got to be able to have a 8 total value that you can tell me. And I'll know what 9 percentage this line loss is going to be. I'd like 10 to know that. 11 And then I'd like to know what the difference 12 in the value of power per year comes from your 13 selecting the low-head as opposed to the high-head 14 design of Wuskwatim dam. And the reason I want to 15 know these figures is so that we, as a Commission, 16 when we're talking about the transmission line 17 routes, I have to put in perspective how significant 18 these numbers really are that you've told me about. 19 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Mr. Mayer, could you repeat 20 your questions so we can write them down? 21 MR. MAYER: I'm going to try. I was sort of 22 hoping that we could play it back. 23 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We'll try and have an answer 24 for you even after lunch if that's possible. 25 MR. MAYER: I understand the problem. Okay, 02788 1 number one, I need to know the compensation savings, 2 what effect would that have of the $35.6 million 3 difference that I'm showing. And I know that that's 4 going to have to be a ballpark and I accept that. 5 6 (UNDERTAKING MH-45: Advise of the compensation 7 savings, what effect would that have of the $35.6 8 million difference) 9 10 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Mayer, 11 could you clarify for me now, you're talking 12 compensation. There is both the prospect of a 13 compensation payment and a development fund payment. 14 Are you referring to both or to one or -- 15 MR. MAYER: Well, if they somehow impact upon 16 the price difference between the base plan and the 17 highways option, then I need to know that number, 18 don't I. 19 MR. HICKS: Yes, you do. 20 MR. MAYER: So then I need to know both of 21 those. And I'd like to know the value of delivered 22 power, the expected value of delivered power. 23 MR. OSLER: You wanted the Birchtree as 24 distinct from -- 25 MR. MAYER: Well, I want to know what the 02789 1 $311,000 per year line loss comes out of. I mean 2 what's the total amount? 3 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: You wanted sort of a 4 percentage? 5 MR. MAYER: Well, I'd like to know the number 6 and the percentage. 7 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: As Mr. Mazur, I believe it 8 was, reported yesterday, that we use roughly 6 cents 9 a kilowatt hour which is the same number we used, for 10 instance, in the DSM evaluation and in the NFAAT 11 Panel. So we used the same value for power. But I 12 think I'm hearing you ask a different question. How 13 does that increase in loss compare to the total value 14 of power if you use the same multiplier? 15 MR. MAYER: Yes, I need to know that. 16 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We can certainly calculate on 17 that basis. 18 19 (UNDERTAKING MH-46: Advise of the expected value of 20 delivered power, what the $311,000 per year line loss 21 comes out of, what's the total amount? How does that 22 increase in loss compare to the total value of power 23 if you use the same multiplier) 24 25 MR. MAYER: And this 6 cents you're talking 02790 1 about, that's 6 cents per kilometre? 2 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Per kilowatt hour. 3 MR. MAYER: Per kilowatt hour, okay. Is that 4 the same for both AC -- no, it's got to be more for 5 AC than it is for DC, right? 6 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: First of all, the value of 7 the power is the same no matter what we're talking 8 about. 9 MR. MAYER: But your line losses -- 10 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: The line losses are unique to 11 the circumstances. You can't say that AC or DC will 12 have higher. You've got to know the whole set of 13 parameters. 14 MR. MAYER: Okay. I was of the impression 15 that the reason we needed high voltage DC lines was 16 because we couldn't do it with an AC line and get it 17 down there with any degree of efficiency. 18 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: You can use AC or DC in the 19 kind of circumstances we're talking about. The costs 20 start to be much different. 21 MR. MAYER: You understand what I need to know 22 in order to find out what that $311,000 per year 23 loss, line loss is. I asked you about the 24 compensation. And if the line loss figures in there, 25 then I think in order to make a fair comparison, that 02791 1 would have to be achieved. And then I'd ask the 2 difference in the value of the power per year to be 3 produced by Wuskwatim as proposed between that amount 4 and the amount you would have expected to receive 5 from a high-head design. 6 7 (UNDERTAKING MH-47: Advise of the difference in the 8 value of the power per year to be produced by 9 Wuskwatim as proposed between that amount and the 10 amount you would have expected to receive from a 11 high-head design) 12 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: That one actually we will 13 take that as an undertaking but we already have an 14 interrogatory that goes in that direction. But 15 you're asking for in a slightly different form. What 16 we can do is take that information with the 17 interrogatory and do a rough translation to give you 18 some context here. 19 MR. MAYER: Yes. And I certainly appreciate 20 that and I'm finding this document very interesting. 21 Thank you very much. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm just waiting to see if 23 there was anyone else that was going to speak from 24 your side here. 25 Just before we break for lunch, I understand 02792 1 Ms. Phare would like to raise a procedural matter. 2 MS. PHARE: Thank you. I'll be very brief. 3 Counsel is asking for just a clarification from the 4 Commission about how you intend to or if you intend 5 to deal with a suggestion that was made late 6 yesterday afternoon by Mr. Adams about that he 7 intends to introduce what seems to be possibly new 8 evidence refuting the presentation made the previous 9 day by the gentleman from Selkirk. I have a question 10 on procedural fairness about that that I just need a 11 clarification from you on. 12 Now I'll just go quickly through this so you 13 can get back to me on this I suppose. From my review 14 of the transcripts, I wasn't there Wednesday night so 15 I'm not even sure how to pronounce this gentleman's 16 name. 17 MR. MAYER: We don't know either. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Ciekiewicz. 19 MS. PHARE: Okay. I understand that he was an 20 unfunded participant. The issue that I have is there 21 was a subsequent characterization yesterday by both 22 the Commission and Manitoba Hydro that the evidence 23 presented by this man is either potentially or 24 actually untruthful. 25 And the transcript indicates that he was sworn 02793 1 in and I know that no questions were asked of either 2 by the Commission or Manitoba Hydro to challenge his 3 testimony. And so I don't really know if what he 4 says is true or not and that actually isn't my point. 5 But I do think that an unbiased process assumes the 6 truth of evidence that's presented before it. And 7 cross-exam is the method by which you expose bias or 8 inconsistency or lack of credibility. 9 So just very briefly, the issue as I see it 10 and the one that I'm asking you to clarify is it 11 seems that Manitoba Hydro is suggesting that they 12 want to present new evidence in response to the 13 accusations. I assume there were accusations made by 14 this gentleman. And I think they should have 15 explored that in cross-examination if they wanted to 16 expose those issues as being untrue or whatever. 17 If they are going to be presenting their own 18 evidence now to refute some of those accusations, I 19 think that, and I guess given that the transcripts 20 indicate that this man was under oath, I think the 21 Commission has to exercise extreme care in how you 22 deal with this. I think that you need to err on the 23 side of ensuring procedural fairness. And that if 24 you're going to allow this evidence to be introduced, 25 CASIL doesn't actually think that you should, but if 02794 1 you are, that you give the opportunity for this 2 gentleman to know ahead of time that it's going to 3 come in and he should have the opportunity to be 4 present and listen to it and respond and cross if 5 it's in fact new evidence on this, have an 6 opportunity to cross Manitoba Hydro particularly 7 because it appears to be his truthfulness or lack of 8 truthfulness that's being discussed without him being 9 present. 10 So I'm just raising this as an issue of 11 procedural fairness in the hopes that we can maintain 12 some standard of an objective process here. 13 MR. MAYER: If I may clarify? 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mayer. 15 MR. MAYER: I don't know which transcripts you 16 read. 17 MS. PHARE: Page 2690. 18 MR. MAYER: But you suggested that somehow 19 that the Commission had cast some aspersion on the 20 truthfulness of this witness. In fact, I think, if 21 my memory serves me correctly, the response from Mr. 22 Adams came as a result of my comment that the 23 Commission was concerned about what they had heard. 24 And in fact, the Commission, at least in making the 25 expression I did, I had assumed the truth of what was 02795 1 said under oath and in the presentation. 2 It was the expression of concern by the 3 Commission I think that drew Mr. Adams' attention. 4 So I don't think you will find anything in that 5 transcript whereby the Commission cast any aspersions 6 on any evidence at all. 7 MS. PHARE: And, Mr. Mayer, I happen to agree 8 with you. My interpretation of what you said 9 yesterday was exactly as you say. But in the 10 transcript, I think, and given that this gentleman 11 wasn't here to see that his evidence was being 12 discussed in this way, your quote doesn't read 13 exactly that way. And you say, 14 "I understand that," 15 and you're referring to the illegalities of what Mr. 16 Adams was talking about. You say, 17 "I understand that and I think we 18 would all be or at least I would feel 19 comforted by the fact that there was 20 little or no truth in the allegations 21 made last night." 22 MR. ABRA: That's not what Mr. Mayer said. 23 MS. PHARE: That is what Mr. Mayer said. 24 MR. ABRA: No, it's not. 25 MR. MAYER: Yeah, I was at the end. 02796 1 MS. PHARE: That's the direct quote. 2 MR. MAYER: I did say that there was going to 3 be some -- because we were concerned, if you will 4 recall correctly, I was concerned and I think we were 5 all concerned because I had asked for independent -- 6 and was discussing the question of independent 7 monitoring at the time. And I talked about 8 independent monitoring because the evidence from the 9 previous evening had raised the concern. 10 MS. PHARE: I -- 11 MR. MAYER: I'd like to clarify where I was 12 coming from in any event on that issue. And when 13 Hydro is accused, it has been accused of fairly -- 14 the accuracy, you should read the document, the 15 actual document itself. I'm sure there are a lot of 16 copies available. If true, it is fairly devastating. 17 MS. PHARE: I would agree with that. 18 MR. MAYER: I yield to the Chair for 19 discussion of the procedure. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: As Chair, all I can say is 21 we'll refer to the transcript but I was looking to 22 see if Mr. Bedford or Mr. Abra wanted to provide 23 advice to the Chair. 24 MR. ABRA: Well, I can tell you firstly, Mr. 25 Chair, there is a principle that Ms. Phare is 02797 1 effectively referring to and it's what we commonly 2 refer to as lawyers is the principle of Brown & Dunn. 3 And the rule is, although it's ultimately the 4 decision of the Panel as to how you will treat it, is 5 that if evidence intends upon being called to refute 6 an allegation made by a witness, then the party that 7 intends upon leading that evidence must cross-examine 8 on it before they lead the evidence. 9 So in other words, if Hydro intends to lead 10 evidence related to Mr. Ciekiewicz and his 11 relationship with Hydro, then Hydro, under the rule 12 of Brown & Dunn, was obliged to cross-examine him on 13 it. 14 Now it is a discretionary remedy. There's a 15 number of different ways it can be handled but that's 16 the general rule. Generally what judges and courts 17 will do is make either a ruling that they are 18 prepared to have the evidence that Hydro has 19 indicated they want to call. It can be led subject 20 to whatever weight the Panel decides they want to put 21 on it, or in the alternative, Mr. Ciekiewicz can be 22 invited back to make any comment he wishes to make at 23 the time. 24 But the basic rule, as Ms. Phare has stated, 25 it is correct, subject to modification as the Panel 02798 1 sees fit to apply it. And as I reiterate, that rule 2 is that there should be cross-examination of a 3 witness if there's an intent to call evidence to 4 contradict or refute the evidence that a person has 5 given. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Abra. 7 MR. ABRA: It's a principle that goes back a 8 couple of hundred years because Brown & Dunn was an 9 English case that was decided back in the 1800s if I 10 recall correctly. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bedford? 12 MR. BEDFORD: The five of you have heard me 13 more than once this week express my display about not 14 having written material in advance. I can certainly 15 cross-examine witnesses and I certainly expect that I 16 should be doing that where required when I have the 17 material in advance. But when people arrive whom 18 I've never heard of before frankly, Manitoba Hydro 19 had heard of him but its lawyer hadn't, he presents a 20 paper with a lot of information in it, if I am to be 21 expected as counsel to immediately begin 22 cross-examining him, I have to have the material 23 sufficiently in advance so I can review it with my 24 client, be informed by my client as to who this 25 individual is, what his history and issues with the 02799 1 company are and then I can cross-examine him. 2 I also made the comment earlier this week that 3 I do recognize that the procedures of this Commission 4 are such that you do not always and necessarily 5 adhere to rules of evidence and strict procedure. 6 You want open discussion. You want to encourage 7 members of the public to come forward. As Mr. Abra 8 and Ms. Phare and I and the other lawyers in this 9 room know, when we're in Her Majesty's Court of 10 Queen's Bench, we're much more strict about following 11 the rules and we do the work on behalf of our clients 12 to cross-examine. Sometimes that cross-examination 13 is extremely tough and vigorous. I wonder, and 14 that's all I'm doing is wondering, how many members 15 of the public are going to really want to come 16 forward and present information to you. 17 Some of it may or may not necessarily be 18 accurate. A lot of it is undoubtedly going to be 19 opinion when it's members of the public coming 20 forward. H