May 31, 2020

12° C, Mainly clear

Full Forecast

Help us deliver reliable news during this pandemic.

We are working tirelessly to bring you trusted information about COVID-19. Support our efforts by subscribing today.

No Thanks Subscribe

Already a subscriber?


Advertise With Us

Premier’s consultation claim on flood outlets questioned

Some Indigenous leaders say they’re still waiting for meetings

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang</p><p>Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister has decried that Ottawa is “changing the yardsticks” to drag out the consultation process in the province's $1-billion Interlake flood outlets project.</p>


Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister has decried that Ottawa is “changing the yardsticks” to drag out the consultation process in the province's $1-billion Interlake flood outlets project.

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 14/11/2019 (198 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

OTTAWA — Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister has staked out the Interlake flood outlets as a $1-billion legacy project, yet his government seems to be its own worst enemy in getting it completed.

A week ago, Pallister told reporters he’d continue pushing Ottawa to get the Lake Manitoba-Lake St. Martin outlet channels approved, saying Manitoba has done ample consultation. He accused the federal government of "onerous" consultation requirements.

"Despite the fact we’ve had approaching 600 meetings with Indigenous groups over the last three years, the federal regulations and regulatory authority have come back and said that we need more consultations," the premier said Nov. 7.

Yet documents filed as recently as last week show communities Ottawa compelled Manitoba to consult in May 2018 still haven’t heard from the province.

"The engagement by Manitoba Infrastructure with Poplar River First Nation has consisted of three letters and one phone call in the last three years," the reserve’s project manager, Jared Whelan, wrote on Sept. 20.

Cross Lake Chief David Monias wrote that as of Oct. 21, Manitoba Infrastructure has "not held a single meeting... and has completely failed to seek out, understand and address our concerns."

Those two communities were part of a May 2018 list a federal agency (now called the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada) provided Manitoba Infrastructure, shortly after it filed notice of its intent to build the channel outlets.

The regulator listed 39 Indigenous groups potentially affected by the project that needed to be consulted.

Manitoba Infrastructure could not say Thursday which of those groups it has met, a detail similarly missing in the 2,300-page report it submitted last August.

In August 2018, the regulator broadened its list of 39 Indigenous groups, adding six more, including four reserves along the Nelson River, 500 kilometres downstream.

The premier and his allies have decried that move as Ottawa "changing the yardsticks" to "endlessly" drag out consultations.

But the agency itself says "multiple conference calls and phone conversations with Indigenous groups" brought across concerns along the Nelson River on "the project’s potential effects to water quality and quantity, fish and fish habitat, cumulative effects and potential impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights."

In particular, the communities are worried about the Nelson River rising and wreaking havoc on homes and fish stocks.

Ottawa explicitly asked Manitoba Infrastructure to look into these concerns and, in June, upgraded those communities from ones that need to be consulted to those most likely to be affected by the project.

That month, the regulator warned in a separate letter the province’s impact statement wouldn’t suffice if those groups aren’t consulted.

Yet, nine weeks later, Manitoba Infrastructure reported it had intentionally left out those communities from its massive filing "because it is assumed that Manitoba Hydro will continue to manage water levels and flows in the Nelson River."

In its own submission, Hydro said it crunched numbers the department provided, but "performed no studies or analysis on the impacts of the (project) on the environment generally."

By Oct. 22, Ottawa wrote that the province needs to go back to the drawing board, because it ignored the directives issued 17 months earlier.

Pallister has also falsely claimed on numerous occasions the project falls under Bill C-69, a controversial infrastructure-regulation law that beefed up scrutiny on expanding pipelines, dams and ports. He repeated this claim last week in a Globe and Mail opinion piece.

Yet, the channel outlets fall under the 2012 regime — as noted numerous times in Manitoba Infrastructure’s own submission to the regulator.

As for the premier’s claim of having almost 600 meetings, a provincial spokesman said this actually meant "633 phone or email discussions, 125 in-person meetings and 193 letters."

Corey Shefman, a lawyer commissioned by multiple Indigenous groups to assist with consultations on a range of projects, said Manitoba tends to be a laggard on meeting its constitutional duties on Indigenous issues.

He said Pallister’s claim of having the "gold standard" for consultation isn’t realistic, and he’s responsible for any costly delays in the process.

"Any delay in this project at this point falls entirely at the province’s feet," Shefman said. "The federal regulator warned the Manitoba government repeatedly."


Advertise With Us

Your support has enabled us to provide free access to stories about COVID-19 because we believe everyone deserves trusted and critical information during the pandemic.

Our readership has contributed additional funding to give Free Press online subscriptions to those that can’t afford one in these extraordinary times — giving new readers the opportunity to see beyond the headlines and connect with other stories about their community.

To those who have made donations, thank you.

To those able to give and share our journalism with others, please Pay it Forward.

The Free Press has shared COVID-19 stories free of charge because we believe everyone deserves access to trusted and critical information during the pandemic.

While we stand by this decision, it has undoubtedly affected our bottom line.

After nearly 150 years of reporting on our city, we don’t want to stop any time soon. With your support, we’ll be able to forge ahead with our journalistic mission.

If you believe in an independent, transparent, and democratic press, please consider subscribing today.

We understand that some readers cannot afford a subscription during these difficult times and invite them to apply for a free digital subscription through our Pay it Forward program.

The Free Press would like to thank our readers for their patience while comments were not available on our site. We're continuing to work with our commenting software provider on issues with the platform. In the meantime, if you're not able to see comments after logging in to our site, please try refreshing the page.

You can comment on most stories on The Winnipeg Free Press website. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or digital subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

Have Your Say

Comments are open to The Winnipeg Free Press print or digital subscribers only. why?

Have Your Say

Comments are open to The Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?

By submitting your comment, you agree to abide by our Community Standards and Moderation Policy. These guidelines were revised effective February 27, 2019. Have a question about our comment forum? Check our frequently asked questions.


Advertise With Us