You are on page 1of 831

Tom A.

Loski
Chief Regulatory Officer
Phone: 604-623-4046
Fax:
604-623-4407
bchydroregulatorygroup@bchydro.com

May 6, 2016
Ms. Laurel Ross
Acting Commission Secretary
British Columbia Utilities Commission
Sixth Floor 900 Howe Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 2N3
Dear Ms. Ross:
RE:

Project No. 3698854


British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC or Commission)
British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro)
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project (the Project)
Final Written Argument

BC Hydro writes in compliance with Commission Order No. G-54-16 to provide its Final
Written Argument.
Yours sincerely,

Tom Loski
Chief Regulatory Officer
gh/ma

Enclosure
Copy to: BCUC Project No. 3698854 (W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project)
Registered Intervener Distribution List.

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, 333 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver BC V6B 5R3
www.bchydro.com

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Counsels Final Written Argument


on behalf of
British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

May 6, 2016

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

Table of Contents
1
2

3
4

6
7

Introduction......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Description .................................................................................... 1
Utilities Commission Act ..................................................................................... 2
2.1 BCUC Jurisdiction ..................................................................................... 2
2.2 Rejection of the Project Expenditure Schedule ......................................... 4
Project Justification ............................................................................................ 4
Cost Effectiveness.............................................................................................. 5
4.1 Cost Certainty ........................................................................................... 5
4.2 Expenditures Oversight ............................................................................. 7
First Nations Consultation .................................................................................. 7
5.1 Identification of First Nations Potentially Impacted by the Project ............. 9
5.2 Saulteau First Nations ............................................................................... 9
5.2.1
Scope of the Duty to Consult .................................................... 10
5.2.2
Consultation Process ................................................................ 20
5.2.3
Saulteau First Nations Concerns ............................................. 22
5.2.4
Assessment of Adequacy of Consultation ................................ 31
5.3 McLeod Lake Indian Band ...................................................................... 35
5.3.1
Scope of the Duty to Consult .................................................... 35
5.3.2
Consultation Process ................................................................ 35
5.3.3
Assessment of Adequacy of Consultation ................................ 37
5.4 Other First Nations .................................................................................. 37
Public Engagement .......................................................................................... 38
Summary and Order Sought............................................................................. 39

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page i

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

Introduction

On November 13, 2015, BC Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) filed a

Schedule of Expenditures (the Expenditures) with the British Columbia Utilities

Commission (BCUC or the Commission) in connection with the expenditures it

anticipates making for the W.A.C. Bennett Dam (the Dam) Riprap Upgrade Project

(the Project). BC Hydro seeks the following Order from the BCUC in connection with

the Filing:

(a) It is in the public interest for BC Hydro pursuant to section 44.2(3)(a) of the
Utilities Commission Act 1 (UCA) to expend up to $171.4 million to implement

the Project;

10
11

(b) BC Hydro shall file semi-annual progress reports on the Project schedule, costs

12

and any variances from the updated Project cost estimates following

13

procurement activities and approved by the Board prior to implementation, and

14

any difficulties the Project may be encountering; and

15

(c)

BC Hydro shall file with the Commission a final report within six months of

16

substantial completion of the Project, including reclamation of the Sand Flat

17

Quarry (SFQ), comparing Project costs, and to provide variance explanations

18

for any material variance in costs or schedule.

19

Based on the evidence in this proceeding, BC Hydro submits that the Expenditures

20

for the Project are in the public interest and should be approved by the BCUC as

21

such.

22

1.1

23

The Project involves replacing failed riprap on approximately 1.3 km of the length of

24

the Dam and approximately 25 meters of the upper portion of the Dam crest to

25

improve Dam integrity and safety. The existing riprap has been in place since Dam
1

Project Description

R.S.B.C. 1996, c 473.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 1

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

construction was completed in 1967, and has become deficient after long-term

exposure to wind, wave and freeze-thaw action. The risk of significant damage to the

Dam in a high storm or wind event increases should the riprap deterioration

continue. BC Hydro would be in a reactive response position, which could involve

emergency reservoir drawdown should failure of the upstream face of the Dam occur

during a high wind event.

The Project involves short-term operation of the SFQ to source rock material for use

as the replacement riprap and filter layer, transportation of the excavated rock

material from the SFQ to a stockpile at the Dam, excavating existing areas of failed

10

riprap at the Dam, and placement of the new riprap at the Dam. Transportation will

11

be predominantly along existing forest service roads, with some road repairs and

12

upgrades made as needed to facilitate safe transit. Depressions in Zone 5 of the

13

Dam will be filled, and a new filter layer will be placed on top of Zone 5 and beneath

14

the riprap layer for added protection. The SFQ will be reclaimed after use. The

15

existing sandstone riprap will be replaced with limestone, a more durable and

16

weather resistant material. The new limestone riprap is expected to meet

17

performance expectations for 75 to 100 years, or longer. The Project Cost Range is

18

$171.4 million and $109.7 million. BC Hydro will seek approval to proceed with the

19

Project Implementation Phase from its Board of Directors on May 30, 2016.

20

BC Hydro anticipates the Project will be complete July 2021.

21

Utilities Commission Act

22

2.1

BCUC Jurisdiction

23

BC Hydro filed the Application for acceptance of the Expenditures pursuant to

24

section 44.2(1)(b) of the UCA. Section 44.2(3) of the UCA requires the BCUC to

25

accept the Expenditures if the BCUC considers that making the Expenditures would

26

be in the public interest, or to reject the Expenditures. Section 44.2(4) enables the

27

commission to accept or reject the Expenditures in whole or in part.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 2

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

Section 44.2(5.1) provides that in deciding whether to accept the Expenditures, the

Commission, in addition to considering the interests of persons in British Columbia

who receive or may receive service from BC Hydro, must consider and be guided

by:

(a) British Columbias applicable energy objectives;

(b) an applicable integrated resource plan (IRP) approved under section 4 of the
Clean Energy Act 2 (CEA);

7
8

(c)

requirements of section 19 of the CEA; and

9
10

the extent to which the expenditure schedule is consistent with the

(d) if the schedule includes expenditures on demand-side measures, the extent to

11

which the demand-side measures are cost-effective within the meaning

12

prescribed by regulation, if any.

13

Of relevance to this Application are the interest of persons in British Columbia who

14

receive or may receive service from BC Hydro, B.C. energy objectives and the

15

approved 2013 IRP.

16

As set out in detail in sections 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 of the Application, the Project is

17

clearly in the interest of persons in British Columbia who receive or may receive

18

service from BC Hydro. The Dam is a critical part of BC Hydros largest generating

19

facility and the Project will extend the life of the Dam, a key, cost-effective Heritage

20

Asset.

21

The Project is also consistent with and advances several of B.C.s energy objectives.

22

The Project will facilitate the development and continued use of BC Hydros Gordon

23

Meritt Shrum Facility (the GMS Facility), one of BC Hydros Heritage Assets. In

24

extending the life of the Dam, the Project will help ensure an ongoing contribution of

25

approximately 13,500 GWh/year to the electrical grid, which is equivalent to


2

S.B.C. 2010, c. 22.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 3

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

approximately a quarter of BC Hydros overall integrated electric system load. The

ongoing safe operation of this Dam is critical for BC Hydro to achieve CEAs energy

objective of electrical self-sufficiency. The electricity produced is clean, renewable,

and cost-effective. The Project will create jobs and provide economic development

opportunities for people in the area, including First Nations. Finally, the approved

2013 IRP relied on the continued operation of the GMS Facility as an existing

resource for both energy and capacity through its twenty year planning period (2014

to 2033).

2.2

Rejection of the Project Expenditure Schedule

10

BC Hydro submits that the BCUC has the power under section 44.2(3) of the UCA to

11

accept or reject the Project expenditure schedule. While in some cases rejection of a

12

part of a capital expenditure schedule may be appropriate, such is not the case

13

where the capital expenditure schedule consists of a single project as in this case.

14

Partial acceptance of the Expenditures would materially alter the scope, schedule,

15

and cost of the Project. These decisions properly rest with BC Hydro and are not

16

appropriate for a section 44.2 determination.

17

18

Ensuring the safety of the largest dam in the province is not only justified, but is a

19

legal obligation and social responsibility.

20

The Dam is a fundamental and required component of the GMS Facility. The GMS

21

Facility is BC Hydros largest generating facility, providing energy to about a quarter

22

of BC Hydros overall integrated electric system load. Williston Reservoir is the

23

second largest reservoir in North America.

24

The riprap layer of the Dam protects the underlying Dam zones from erosion. Since

25

construction, wind generated waves, ice loading, and freeze thaw action have

26

eroded the existing riprap protection and some of the underlying Dam fill, resulting in

Project Justification

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 4

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

inadequate long-term erosion protection on the upstream face of the Dam. Exposure

of the Dam fill allows erosion of the Dam under wave action. If no intervention is

taken, the erosion could eventually reach through the Dam fill to underlying zones,

and could ultimately reach the Dam core. A breach of the Dam core could in turn

lead to Dam failure, overtopping and uncontrolled release of the Reservoir.

The Dam is categorized as an Extreme Consequence dam under B.C.s Dam

Safety Regulation 3. The downstream impacts of a breach could include extremely

high economic losses affecting critical infrastructure, public transportation, services

or commercial facilities, some to severe damage to residential areas, significant

10

environmental impacts, and loss of life. While BC Hydro considers the risk of Dam

11

failure as low at this stage, the consequences of failure are extreme.

12

The Project is an important dam safety project that stops the risks associated with

13

continued erosion from increasing. Further, in 2012, an expert engineering panel

14

advised BC Hydro that it considers the riprap a serious deficiency that should be

15

remedied as soon as possible. BC Hydros legal duty under the Dam Safety

16

Regulations requires it, as owner of the Dam, to properly inspect, maintain and

17

repair the Dam and related works in a manner that keeps the Dam and works in

18

good operating condition. In meeting these duties BC Hydro must exercise

19

reasonable care to avoid the risk of significant harm resulting from a defect,

20

insufficiency or failure of the Dam. 4 Given this, BC Hydro submits that the evidence

21

clearly supports the need for the Project at this time.

22

Cost Effectiveness

23

4.1

Cost Certainty

24

The Project has a cost range of $171.4 million and $109.7 million (the Project Cost

25

Range). The estimates have been developed through BC Hydros rigorous project
3
4

B.C. Reg. 40/2016, at section 2 of Schedule 1.


Supra note 3 at s. 5.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 5

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

cost estimating practices. 5 Further, a third party expert reviewed BC Hydros cost

estimate, Project schedule and construction methodology and confirmed that the

Project Cost Range is appropriate and consistent with a Class 3 degree of accuracy

in the AACE International Recommended Practices (refer to Appendix E-3 of the

Application)

The Project Cost Range has an estimating accuracy range of

+25 per cent/-20 per cent. This level of cost uncertainty is consistent with the Project

risk and complexity. These complexities include the geotechnical nature of the

Project, the technical design and quality requirements for construction activities, the

10

requirement for the Dam to remain operational during construction, the geographical

11

location of the Dam and the SFQ, and that construction activities could be impacted

12

by a number of uncontrollable variables such as reservoir elevations, subsurface

13

conditions and weather. 6

14

BC Hydro has also included the appropriate contingencies in the Project Cost Range

15

as a mitigation measure due to the complexity of the Project. The contingencies

16

provide funding for schedule delays or for loss of up to two full construction seasons

17

due to reservoir elevations and site conditions at the SFQ being different than

18

expected.

19

To further improve the overall cost certainty, BC Hydro has engaged in an Early

20

Contractor Involvement (ECI) process. The ECI process is designed to result in

21

improved scope, schedule, and cost certainty by enabling the joint development of

22

the contract terms and conditions, pricing schedule, detailed construction planning

23

and appropriate mechanisms for risk allocation between BC Hydro and the

24

contractor. To date, the ECI process has not resulted in a variance from the Project

5
6

Please refer to Exhibit B-1, Appendix B.


Please refer to Exhibit B-1, section 5.3 for further discussion of the key implementation phase risks that
could impact Project costs.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 6

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

Cost Estimate. 7 No escalation factor has been applied to the Project beyond the

B.C. Consumer Price Index.

Given the above, BC Hydro is confident that its cost estimates for the Project, which

include the cost risk management strategies discussed, provide a reasonable level

of cost certainty for the acceptance of the Expenditures.

4.2

In light of the above, and in consideration of BC Hydros project estimating practices,

BC Hydros proposes that filing semi-annual progress reports with the BCUC on the

Project schedule, costs and material variances is the appropriate means of ensuring

Expenditures Oversight

10

the BCUC has adequate oversight over Expenditures. BC Hydro recommends

11

semi-annual reporting rather than more frequent reporting due to the short duration

12

of the Project schedule, and the nature of its seasonal construction. The form and

13

content will be consistent with other project reports 8 filed with the BCUC, and

14

BC Hydro will file a final report within six months of substantial completion of the

15

Project. The BCUC has the jurisdiction under section 43 of the UCA to order such

16

reporting, which strikes the appropriate balance between the BCUCs oversight of

17

the Expenditures and recognition that pursuant to the Hydro and Power Authority

18

Act, 9 it is BC Hydro that is responsible for the ongoing management of the Project.

19

20

The Expenditures support a critical dam safety project at a dam that has been

21

designated as an Extreme Consequence facility. The potential consequences of a

22

dam breach are extremely high economic losses affecting critical infrastructure,

23

public transportation, or services or commercial facilities, or some destruction of or

24

sever damage to residential areas, significant environmental impacts, and loss of


7
8

First Nations Consultation

The ECI process is described in further detail in Exhibit B-1, section 3.6.2.1.
See for instance the reports filed by BC Hydro in respect of the John Hart Generating Station Replacement
Project.
R.S.B.C. 1996, c.212, sections 3 and 12(1).

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 7

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

life. 10 All parties with an interest in the lands and environment located around and

downstream of the Dam, including potentially affected First Nations, directly benefit

from the Project because of the resultant decrease in safety related risks, including

environmental risks. The First Nations Independent Technical Review (FNITR)

recognizes the importance of the Project, and none of the interveners, including

Saulteau First Nations (Saulteau), oppose the Project. 11

BC Hydro submits that it has engaged in adequate consultation, and where

appropriate accommodation, with First Nations potentially affected by the Project.

Further, BC Hydro has maintained the honour of the Crown by informing the

10

decision-making process in respect of the Project with feedback received through

11

the consultation process. The BCUCs acceptance of the Expenditures is but one of

12

several stages in the Projects development. Consultation on the Project has already

13

advanced through several stages including the Ministry of Forests, Lands and

14

Natural Resources Operations (FLNRO) and the Ministry of Energy and Mines

15

(MEM) permitting processes. Ministry representatives undertook Crown consultation

16

on the Project. Consultation on the Project was found to be adequate for the

17

purposes of those regulatory processes and the requisite permits and authorizations

18

were issued. Those permits and authorizations remain valid and unchallenged.

19

Before the BCUC can decide whether the Expenditures are in the public interest, it

20

must assess the adequacy of consultation in respect of the Project to the point of its

21

decision. 12 In this case, the consultation process has included direct engagement

22

with BC Hydro and the opportunity to intervene in the BCUC process. These

23

complementary venues have provided First Nations including Saulteau, the only

24

First Nation that is challenging the approval of the Expenditures, a reasonable

10
11
12

Exhibit B-1, at section 1.1.2.


See Exhibit C5-10, FNITR, page 100.
Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, [2010] 2 SCR 650, 2010 SCC 43 (CanLII),
paragraph 70. [Rio Tinto]

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 8

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

consultation process. The honour of the Crown has been maintained and the

Expenditures can be approved as being in the public interest.

5.1

Identification of First Nations Potentially Impacted by the


Project

4
5

BC Hydros consultation process with Treaty 8 First Nations on the Project started

when the Project was still in its infancy. BC Hydro identified and commenced

consultation on the Project with all Treaty 8 First Nations in or about

December 2011. BC Hydro also contacted the Treaty 8 Tribal Association, an

association that supports and provides advisory services to B.C.s Treaty 8 First
13

10

Nations.

11

government public sources to verify whether any other First Nations were listed as

12

have asserted interests in the area. No further First Nations were identified through

13

that database. 14 BC Hydro is confident that the process utilized to identify potentially

14

affected First Nations was reasonable and appropriate.

15

5.2

16

Consultation with Saulteau commenced in December 2011 and is ongoing.

17

BC Hydro approached the consultation process in good faith with the intent of

18

substantially addressing Saulteaus concerns. As part of the consultation process,

19

BC Hydro provided capacity funding for Saulteau to undertake a Traditional Use

20

Study (the Saulteau TUS) and participate in the FNITR. The FNITR provided an

21

assessment as to the potential impacts of the Project on Saulteaus treaty rights as

22

set out in the TUS and requested that BC Hydro agree to a number of proposed

23

further baseline studies and mitigation and accommodation measures (the

24

Requested Mitigation Measures). BC Hydro carefully considered each of the

25

Requested Mitigation Measures and as a direct result incorporated several

26

mitigation measures into the Project. Where BC Hydro did not accept Requested
13
14

In addition, BC Hydro consulted a number of provincial and federal

Saulteau First Nations

Exhibit B-1, at page 4-9.


Exhibit B-1, at page 4-9.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 9

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

Mitigation Measures, it provided its rationale. As construction planning continues,

BC Hydro continues to consult on the outstanding Requested Mitigation Measures.

BC Hydro acknowledges that Saulteau disagrees with BC Hydros assessment of

the seriousness of the potential impacts from the Project, and the adequacy of

consultation conducted. In particular, Saulteau believes that BC Hydros current

response to the Requested Mitigation Measures is inadequate. The fact that

consultation is ongoing on many of the Requested Mitigation Measures is

appropriate given the extraordinarily detailed nature of the Requested Mitigation

Measures and the current stage of the Project. Specific details of construction

10

planning are currently being negotiated as part of the ECI process and in the

11

absence of these construction details, it is not practical for BC Hydro to provide

12

definitive responses to the outstanding Requested Mitigation Measures at this time.

13

The fact that consultation is ongoing does not mean it is inadequate. The question

14

before the BCUC is whether consultation has been adequate up to the point of its

15

decision. 15 BC Hydro respectfully submits that, for the reasons that follow,

16

consultation with Saulteau has been adequate to this stage.

17

5.2.1

18

The duty to consult arises when the Crown has knowledge, real or constructive, of

19

the potential existence of an Aboriginal right and contemplates conduct that has the

20

potential to adversely affect it. 16 The Project triggers the duty to consult with

21

Saulteau.

22

Once the duty to consult is triggered, the Crown must determine the requisite level of

23

consultation required. The scope of the duty to consult, and if necessary

24

accommodate, varies with the circumstances and is proportionate to a preliminary

25

assessment of the strength of the case supporting the existence of the right or title,
15
16

Scope of the Duty to Consult

Kwikwetlem First Nation v. BCUC, 2009 BCCA 68 (CanLII), at paragraph 70. [Kwikwetlem]
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII),
paragraph 35. [Haida]

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 10

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

and to the seriousness of the potentially adverse effect upon the right or title

claimed. 17 In cases where the Aboriginal right in question is established, the history

of dealing between the Crown and the First Nation is critical to the analysis. 18

As set out in Exhibit B-1 (section 4.2.4), BC Hydro concluded that the duty to consult

Saulteau lies towards the low end of the consultation spectrum. In Exhibit B-14

(section 2.1.3), BC Hydro considered all of the information obtained through the

consultation process to date (including the results of Saulteaus TUS and the FNITR)

and provided its updated scope of consultation assessment. BC Hydro continues to

believe that the scope of consultation is at the lower end of the consultation

10

spectrum. At the core of this assessment is a consideration of the framework set out

11

in Treaty 8 and BC Hydros conclusion that the Project will have limited and

12

temporary adverse impacts on Saulteau.

13

5.2.1.1

14

Saulteau has established Treaty 8 rights. 19 As the rights in question are established,

15

no strength of claim assessment is required. In Mikisew, a case also involving the

16

duty to consult in respect of potential impacts to Treaty 8 rights, the Supreme Court

17

of Canada held that in the case of treaty rights, a consideration of the historic

18

relationship between the Crown and First Nation must be considered:

Established Treaty Rights

Here, the most important contextual factor is that Treaty 8


provides a framework within which to manage the continuing
changes in land use already foreseen in 1899 and expected,
even now, to continue well into the future. In that context,
consultation is key to the achievement of the overall objective of
the modern law of treaty and aboriginal rights, namely
reconciliation. 20

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

17
18

19
20

Haida, paragraphs 39 to 44.


Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), [2005] 3 SCR 388, 2005 SCC 69
(CanLII), paragraph 63. [Mikisew]
Please refer to Exhibit B-1 (section 4.2.4.1) and Exhibit B-14 (section 2.1.1.3).
Mikisew, at paragraph 63.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 11

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

Signed in 1899, Treaty 8 was an agreement reached between the Crown and First

Nations residing in northern Alberta, northeastern British Columbia, northwestern

Saskatchewan and southern portions of the Northwest Territories. The agreement

provided for the surrender to the Crown of over 840,000 square kilometres of land in

exchange for reserves and other benefits, including the right to hunt, trap and fish

over the surrendered lands subject to the Crowns right to take up such lands from

time to time for societal interests:

15

And Her Majesty the Queen HEREBY AGREES with the said
Indians that they shall have right to pursue their usual vocations
of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered
as before described, subject to such regulations as may from
time to time be made by the Government of the country, acting
under the authority of Her Majesty, and saving and excepting
such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for
settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes. 21

16

This important dam safety project is precisely the type of Crown action contemplated

17

by the taking up clause in Treaty 8. Provided consultation, and where necessary

18

accommodation, has been adequate, any potential impacts from the Project to the

19

land base are addressed through the Treaty 8 framework.

20

5.2.1.2

21

In Mikisew, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the construction of a winter

22

road occupying 23 square kilometres in part adjacent to the Mikisews reserve lands,

23

through a national park and on surrendered lands triggered a duty to consult at the

24

lower end of the spectrum:

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

21

Low Project Impact

Treaty 8 (1899).

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 12

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

In this case, given that the Crown is proposing to build a fairly


minor winter road on surrendered lands where the Mikisew
hunting, fishing and trapping rights are expressly subject to the
taking up limitation, I believe the Crowns duty lies at the lower
end of the spectrum. 22

1
2
3
4
5
6

Mikisew remains the leading Supreme Court of Canada authority on the duty to

consult within the Treaty 8 context. Using Mikisew as a guide the evidence firmly

establishes that the potential impacts of the Project on Saulteaus interests are low:

All of the trucking activities and the majority of the mining activities will take

10

place on previously disturbed lands. The SFQ was commercially logged in the

11

1990s. The Utah and Table Roads are existing and operational service roads.

12

The Spur Road was at one time an operational road; its current state is

13

deactivated, but not reclaimed;

14

contemplated in Treaty 8;

15

16

None of the Project lands will require a new permanent taking up of lands as

Trucking and quarrying, the activities of most concern to First Nations, are

17

temporary, and expected to occur for two to three years as seasonably

18

permitted;

19

The Project is not a reviewable project and therefore does not trigger an

20

environmental assessment under either the Canadian Environmental

21

Assessment Act (CEAA) or the BC Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA).

22

Even under an accelerated schedule the expected production capacity of the

23

SFQ would require an increase of approximately 40% to trigger an

24

environmental assessment under BCEAA 23;

22
23

Mikisew, paragraph 64.


Exhibit B-18, BC Hydro response to SFN IR 3.24.1.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 13

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

The primary water source for the Project is Williston Reservoir and water

withdrawals from that source are not expected to have a residual impact to

water quality or quantity;

The secondary water sources for the Project are three streams located

throughout the Project footprint. All water withdrawal from these three streams

must be undertaken in accordance with BC Hydros section 8 Water Act permit,

which include strict provisions to ensure no residual impacts to stream flow;

The Project Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by qualified and


competent biologists found that all identified environmental impacts from the

9
10

Project are mitigatable, and no residual impacts are anticipated with the

11

implementation of appropriate environmental management plans, and

12

adherence to federal and provincial permitting requirements, and environmental

13

regulations and guidelines;

14

BC Hydro has developed an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) setting

15

out an environmental standard that the Contractor must meet through its

16

Environmental Protection Plan (EPP). The EPP will include a number of

17

sections dealing with specific mitigation plans including a Caribou Mitigation

18

and Monitoring Plan, Air Quality and Dust Control Plan, Archeological and

19

Heritage Management Plan, Sediment and Erosion Control Plan, Vegetation

20

Management Plan, and Water Quality Management Plan;

21

The SFQ will be reclaimed after use in accordance with standards set by the

22

Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM). In particular, MEM has directed that the

23

surface of the land and watercourses shall be reclaimed to the following use:

24

Wildlife Habitat. BC Hydro has also indicated that it is open to exploring with

25

First Nations potential enhancements to the Project area to protect and promote

26

traditional values following construction;.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 14

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

be deactivated once the Project is complete; and

The Spur Road is the only road that will be reactivated for the Project and it will

No heritage or archaeological sites have been identified at either the SFQ or


road sites. 24

BC Hydro comes to the above conclusion having considered the feedback received

from First Nations including the Saulteau TUS and the FNITR. 25 The Saulteau TUS

identified five Valued Components (VCs) that had the potential to be impacted from

the Project. The potential Project effects to each of these VCs were reviewed in

detail in Exhibit B-14 (section 2.1.2.1), a summary of which is provided below.

10

Hunting and Trapping: There will be some disruption to wildlife as it avoids the

11

immediate area, but this is expected to be minimal and temporary as the

12

trucking and quarry activities are short term and temporary displacement is

13

mitigable by the abundance of similar habitat surrounding the Project footprint.

14

No residual impacts on the quantity or quality of wildlife available are expected

15

with appropriate mitigation measures.

16

Gathering Food Plants and Medicines: Clearing for the Project is restricted to

17

the SFQ area and limited areas adjacent to the current road for necessary road

18

upgrades. The SFQ will be reclaimed after use. The baseline studies

19

undertaken support that none of the vegetation being cleared is considered rare

20

by the B.C. Conservation Data Center. There is an abundance of similar

21

vegetation surrounding the Project footprint available for gathering. A Dust

22

Control Plan will be developed with input from First Nations to ensure potential

23

impacts from dust on vegetation in the Project footprint are mitigated and

24

monitored.

24
25

Please refer to Exhibit B-1 (section 4.2.4.2) and Exhibit B-14 (section 2.1.2).
A summary of the results of these documents is set out in Exhibit B-14 (sections 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.2.1).

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 15

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

Fishing and Water: Aside from the placement of riprap into Williston Reservoir,

no works are currently planned for fish bearing streams. The Project does not

require a Fisheries Act authorization as the work does not pose serious harm to

fish. A Sediment and Erosion Control Plan and site specific plans will be

developed by a Certified Professional in Sediment and Erosion Control

(CPESC). Water quality in all nine fish bearing streams located in the vicinity of

the Project footprint will be regularly monitored.

Cultural Continuity: The Project will require a temporary closing of access to the
SFQ site and temporary interruptions to access on the forestry roads to address

9
10

safety issues. Mining of the SFQ will result in a notable change to the existing

11

landscape, as the site will be reclaimed after use. The SFQ is located outside of

12

Saulteau and West Moberly First Nations Area of Critical Community Interest

13

(ACCI). Increased works are expected to be temporary and seasonal.

14

BC Hydro has indicated a willingness to consider planned and targeted

15

stoppage of Project related trucking to accommodate First Nations activities.

16

BC Hydro has also indicated a willingness to explore potential enhancements to

17

the Project area to protect and promote traditional values following construction.

18

Carbon Lake and Access to Traditional Territory: The closest part of the Project

19

footprint to Carbon Lake is Table Road at approximately 15 km from the Project

20

footprint. Temporary interruptions to Utah Road for safety reasons may result in

21

disruptions to some First Nations access to Carbon Lake through Utah Road.

22

Carbon Lake has other access routes that will not be affected by the Project,

23

however some First Nations prefer to use the Utah Road access route. A Traffic

24

Management Plan is being developed to ensure minimal disruptions to access

25

and to facilitate safe use of the roads.

26

BC Hydros assessment of the new impacts of the Project was undertaken having

27

regard to the historical context appropriate to Treaty 8 as set out in Saulteaus TUS

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 16

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

and the FNITR. 26 BC Hydros approach was guided by the method previously

articulated by the Commission in its previous decisions:


These impacts are new, adverse impacts attributable to the
Project and the Panel therefore finds that this case can be
distinguished from Rio Tinto, as explained in West Moberly at
paragraph 116. Accordingly, the principles set out in West
Moberly apply, namely, the historical context is essential to a
proper understanding of the seriousness of the potential impacts
on the petitioners treaty right to hunt. (West Moberly,
paragraph 117) The Commission understands cumulative
impact to mean that whenever there are new impacts from a
Project, the Crown must consider the historical context of past
impacts, to put the new impacts in proper context and fully
comprehend their magnitude. 27 [Emphasis added.]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

BC Hydro has concluded that even when considered in the appropriate historical

16

context, the magnitude of the potential Project impacts remains low. BC Hydros

17

conclusion is supported by the following:

18

Even in the context of an area that has recently undergone rapid development,

19

the Project will not have a further permanent impact on the availability of land

20

on which Treaty 8 First Nations can practice their treaty rights;

21

The most significant change in landscape from the Project, the SFQ site, will be

22

primarily developed on previously disturbed lands and is not located within the

23

ACCI. The SFQ site will be reclaimed for Wildlife Habitat use prior to Project

24

completion (within approximately four to five years) 28;

25

Potential impacts from the Project on the already depleted Moberly caribou

26

herd are not anticipated as the Project is not in critical caribou habitat and

27

caribou are unlikely to be observed in the area. The most recent telemetry data

26

27

28

Please refer to Exhibit B-3; BC Hydros response to BCUC IR 1.20.2; and Exhibit B-14 (sections 2.1.2.1, at
15).
British Columbia Utilities Commission, Decision, Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the
Dawson Creek/Chetwynd Area Transmission Project (October 10, 2012), at page 156.
Exhibit B-1, Appendix H, at page 11.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 17

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

(April 1, 2011 to October 31, 2015) did not identify any radio collared animals in

the Project area. The closest identified caribou in that data was more than

20 km from the SQ site. 29 Any potential impacts that do materialize are

expected to be low as the Caribou Mitigation and Monitoring Plan requires the

Contractor to stop work immediately should a caribou be identified in the

Project area;

As to the potential for increased public access to Treaty 8 lands, the Table and

Utah Roads are already publically accessible roads. The Project does not

change this. As to the Spur Road, it will be activated for the Project, its use will

10

be limited to Project use, and it will be deactivated after the Project. As such, it

11

is currently not a public road and this will not change during the Project; and

12

Potential impacts to treaty rights from the Project, primarily from noise and dust,
are temporary and largely mitigable.

13

14

5.2.1.3

Mitigation Measures

15

FLNRO and MEM, the authorities responsible for permitting Project activities,

16

included a number of conditions in the Project authorizations and permits that

17

address avoidance and mitigation. These include but are not limited to:

18

The Section 8 Water Act Permit includes strict conditions (including quantity

19

and minimum flow) on the withdrawal of water from three permitted streams in

20

the Project area; and

21

The MEM Notice of Work for the Project contains conditions as to Site Stability,

22

Environmental Protection, Wildlife, Noise Abatement, Dust Control, Fuels and

23

Lubricants, and Chance Find Plan. 30

24

In addition, BC Hydro has developed an EMP for the Project which was informed by

25

the information received in the Project EA and the expertise of the qualified and
29
30

Exhibit B-14, at pages 15-16.


Exhibit B-4, Appendix H, pages 10 18.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 18

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

competent biologists that undertook it. The EMP sets out the environmental standard

that the Contractor must meet in constructing the Project. The EMP requires the

Contractor to develop an EPP that will set out the specific mitigation and monitoring

measures used to meet the standard in the EMP.

The Contractor selected for the Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) process is

currently developing its draft EPP, which will be finalized after that Contractor is

retained for Project implementation. The EPP will include a number of specific

mitigation plans including a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan, Traffic Management

Plan, Caribou Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, Air Quality and Duty Control Plan,

10

Archeological and Heritage Management Plan, Vegetation Management Plan and

11

Water Quality Management Plan.

12

The Project mitigation measures are also being informed by feedback from First

13

Nations. The FNITR requested that BC Hydro undertake a number of further studies,

14

adopt a number of further mitigation and monitoring measures and develop and

15

implement a number of workplans included numerous requested mitigations.

16

BC Hydro diligently considered each of the Requested Mitigation Measures and

17

provided substantive individual responses to each and every one. BC Hydros

18

responses are set out in the FNITR Recommended Mitigations/Studies and

19

BC Hydros Responses (the Mitigations Table). 31 As a direct result of the FNITR,

20

BC Hydro adopted a number of further mitigation measures into the Project and is

21

making amendments to its EMP. 32

22

Consultation on mitigation measures is ongoing. BC Hydro has reviewed the table

23

provided by Saulteau in Exhibit C5-12 and will provide a response to the comments

24

therein as part of the ongoing consultation process. BC Hydro has shared a copy of

25

the FNITR and the Mitigations Table with the Contractor and directed it to ensure

26

that the draft EPP is informed by the concerns raised therein, and where feasible
31
32

A copy of the Mitigations Table is attached as Appendix A to Exhibit B 14.


Exhibit B-14 (section 2.1.2.1).

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 19

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

that the Requested Mitigation Measures are incorporated into the draft EPP.

BC Hydro holds final approval of the EPP and has committed to consulting with

Saulteau directly on the draft EPP prior to it being finalized.

In summary, BC Hydro respectfully submits that the filed evidence clearly supports

that after BC Hydros extensive mitigation measures are implemented, the Project

will have low impacts on Saulteaus Treaty 8 rights.

5.2.2

Consultation Process

5.2.2.1

BC Hydro/Saulteau Direct Consultation

BC Hydro began consulting with Saulteau on the Project in December 2011 when

10

the Project was still in its infancy. The consultation process on the Project has

11

spanned over five years and will continue throughout the life of the Project which is

12

expected to be another four to five years if commenced this year as planned.

13

Throughout the consultation process, BC Hydro has consistently provided Saulteau

14

with all relevant Project-related information for review and comment, including but

15

not limited to: the Project EA, two Archaeological Impact Assessments, mapping and

16

shape files for the Project, Management Plans in support of all Provincial permit

17

applications, including Management Plans for the SFQ, Marine Load Out Area and

18

Spur Road, the EMP, the Application to the BCUC and regular Project updates. The

19

FNITR considered the relevant documents and provided detailed feedback.

20

To support Saulteaus participation in the consultation process, BC Hydro provided

21

Saulteau capacity funding. The Capacity Funding Agreement agreed to by the

22

parties provided Saulteau funding to attend meetings with BC Hydro, to hold

23

community meetings, to consider the information and documentation provided by

24

BC Hydro and provide feedback and comments, to retain legal counsel, to share

25

information about the Project with community members, to participate in regulatory

26

processes associated with the Project and to engage two consultants (Firelight and

27

LGL) to undertake the Saulteau TUS and FNITR. In addition, as part of the ongoing
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project
Page 20

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

consultation process on mitigation measures, BC Hydro has offered Saulteau further

capacity funding to continue to engage their preferred consultant to review the draft

EPP and the Traffic Management Plan.

Saulteau has also participated in various aspects of the Project including, but not

limited to several site visits to the Project area and participated in fieldwork for the

AIAs. Most importantly, BC Hydro has received extensive information from Saulteau

regarding their interests in the area and the potential impacts. Of particular note are

the Saulteau TUS and the FNITR. BC Hydro has considered all the information there

and provided Saulteau responses to all of the Requested Mitigation Measures.

10

5.2.2.2

11

The Crown is responsible for adequately discharging the duty to consult. While the

12

duty cannot be delegated to third parties, other processes, such as the

13

Commissions regulatory process, provide a complementary avenue through which

14

procedural aspects of the Crowns duty can be fulfilled. In such cases, the duty

15

continues to lie with the Crown, but some of the procedural aspects of the

16

Commissions process, including the opportunity to raise concerns regarding the

17

impacts of the Project directly to the Commission, are provided.

18

The BCUC has recognized in past decisions the contribution its own regulatory

19

process makes towards discharging the Crowns duty to consult:


The Minister has delegated the responsibility for current
consultation to BC Hydro, and has requested BC Hydro
undertake further consultation if it is required for the purpose of
a decision by the Minister regarding the Commissions
determinations. However, in the Inquiry Panels view, the
regulatory process that the Inquiry Panel is responsible for will
fulfill certain procedural aspects of the consultation owed by the
Crown. 33 [Emphasis added.]

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The BCUCs Regulatory Review Process

Through the BCUCs regulatory process, Saulteau was provided with:


33

BCUC, Section 5 Transmission Inquiry, Appendix A to Order No. G-108-09, at page 13.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 21

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

Adequate notice of an intended decision;

All necessary information in a timely way;

An opportunity to express its interest and concerns directly to the


decision-maker (in this case the BCUC);

An opportunity to engage in the discovery process through the filing of IRs;

An opportunity to file evidence including the TUS and FNITR; and

An opportunity to receive participant assistance/cost award funding.

Saulteau actively participated in the BCUC process.

5.2.3

Saulteau First Nations Concerns

10

5.2.3.1

Failure to Share Relevant Project Documents

11

Saulteau has raised specific concerns regarding the sharing of documents during

12

the consultation process including that BC Hydro did not share the draft EMP for the

13

Project in a timely way or provide BC Hydros meeting notes until requested.

14

With respect to the first concern, BC Hydro agrees that the EMP for the Project

15

could have been provided to Saulteau earlier in the process. However, even with this

16

delay, Saulteaus interests have not been prejudiced. Their consultant undertook a

17

review of the EMP as part of the FNITR and BC Hydro is in the process of amending

18

the EMP to address some of the concerns raised therein including:

19

1.

The information from the FNITR regarding Caribou critical habitat is being used

20

to inform revisions to the Caribou Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, which is part

21

of the EMP 34; and

22

2.

A revision is being made to account for operational wildlife protection and


monitoring and this will also form part of the contractors EPP. 35

23

34

Exhibit B-14, page 17.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 22

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

BC Hydro leaves the determination of whether to provide meeting notes to First

Nations to the individual Aboriginal Relations lead based on their judgment in a

specific consultation process and based on any discussion with a First Nation about

this. 36 Saulteau asked BC Hydro for our meeting notes and BC Hydro provided

them. BC Hydro fails to see how the sharing of meeting notes is material to the

assessment of the adequacy of consultation. Saulteau has provided detailed written

input on the Project through the FNITR and their TUS and BC Hydro has provided

detailed written responses.

5.2.3.2

The Project EA was deficient

10

The FNITR considered the VCs identified by the Saulteau TUS and concluded that

11

the Project was likely to impair the ability of First Nation members to exercise their

12

Aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt, fish, trap and carry out other traditional activities

13

in their preferred locations by their preferred means. 37 The FNITR suggested that

14

the Project EA was deficient in a number of respects and recommended that

15

BC Hydro have its contractor Ecofor undertake further baseline studies, testing,

16

modelling, and assessments. BC Hydro considered the Requested Mitigation

17

Measures (which includes studies) and provided a detailed issue by issue

18

response. 38

19

BC Hydro disagrees that the Project EA is deficient. The Project EA was adequate

20

and appropriate for the scope of the Project. The EA, prepared by qualified and

21

competent biologists, found that all identified environmental impacts are mitigable. 39

22

Many of the requests made in the FNITR were for studies, baseline collection and

23

further assessments similar in detail to those required for a legislated environmental

24

assessment on a larger project. The Project is not a reviewable project under either
35
36
37
38
39

Exhibit B-14, Appendix A.


Exhibit B-18, BC Hydro Response to SFN IR 3.22.5
Exhibit B-14 (section 2.1.2.1).
Exhibit B-14, Appendix B.
Exhibit B-1, page 4-16.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 23

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

CEAA or BCEAA. The proposition put forth in the FNITR, that in the absence of

these additional studies, testing, modelling, and assessments the Project EA is

deficient, fails to recognize that the nature, scope and magnitude of environmental

assessment required varies with the magnitude and nature of the project. The

thresholds established by the Legislature and Parliament were intended to reflect the

seriousness and likelihood of impacts from a project. The same considerations

establishing these legal thresholds are relevant in considering the seriousness of a

projects potential impacts on Aboriginal interests.

The Project EA was filed in support of BC Hydros applications for the requisite

10

permits and authorizations from both FLNRO and MEM. Both of these regulatory

11

authorities relied on the Project EA in issuing their respective permits and

12

authorizations. Those permits and authorizations remain valid and have not been

13

challenged.

14

BC Hydro conducted the Project EA voluntarily to gain a better understanding of

15

environmental impacts. The scope and methodology employed for the Project EA

16

was guided by input from FLNRO who itself undertook direct consultation with

17

potentially affected First Nations. The Ecological Components (ECs) studied in the

18

Project EA were selected having regard to input received from FLNRO and First

19

Nations at the time, literature searches, site visits, professional judgment and field

20

studies. 40 BC Hydro agrees that the TUS and FNITR provide useful information as to

21

the VCs important to First Nations. Had these VCs been communicated to BC Hydro

22

at the time, they would have informed the selection of the ECs for the EA. In any

23

event, the potential impacts to these First Nations VCs were assessed as part of the

24

TUS and FNITR and BC Hydro has considered that information in forming its

25

assessment on the potential impacts of the Project.

40

Exhibit B-14, Appendix B.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 24

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

5.2.3.3

BC Hydro did not undertake a Cumulative Effects Assessment

The FNITR alleged that BC Hydros assessment of Project impacts was deficient in

the absence of a cumulative effects assessment. In particular, the FNITR required

BC Hydro to undertake a quantitative analysis of past disturbances from 1984 to

2015.

BC Hydros approach to cumulative effects assessments is guided by the provincial

and federal regulatory guidelines, which directs that a cumulative effects

assessment is triggered where residual effects remain. 41 The Project does not give

rise to any residual effects, as defined in by those guidelines and therefore no

10

cumulative effects assessment was undertaken.

11

There is no requirement at law for a cumulative effects assessment to be undertaken

12

as part of the Haida determination on the seriousness of the potential impacts. The

13

requirement is for the Crown to ensure that it has assessed the new potential Project

14

impacts in the appropriate historical context in order to fully comprehend their

15

magnitude. 42 This is precisely the assessment that BC Hydro undertook and in doing

16

so, it met the requisite legal standard.

17

5.2.3.4

18

BC Hydros Response to the Requested Mitigation Measures is


Inadequate

19

As BC Hydro understands it, Saulteau is of the view that consultation on the Project

20

is not adequate as BC Hydro has not agreed to all of the Requested Mitigation

21

Measures.

22

As a direct result of the FNITR, BC Hydro is in the process of updated its EMP as

23

follows:

41
42

Exhibit B-3, BC Hydros response to BCUC IR 1.20.1,


West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia (Chief Inspector of Mines), 2011 BCCA 247 (CanLII), [2011]
BCJ No. 942 (QL), paragraph 117. [West Moberly]

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 25

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

1.

The information from the FNITR regarding Caribou critical habitat is being used

to inform revisions to the Caribou Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, which is part

of the EMP (Exhibit B-14, page 17); and

2.

A revision is being made to account for operational wildlife protection and

monitoring and this will also form part of the contractors EPP (Exhibit B14,

Appendix A).

In addition, BC Hydro integrated a number of new mitigation measures into the

Project. These include:

1.

facilitate safe access through the Project area;

10
11

BC Hydro will ensure First Nations are provide with a trucking schedule to

2.

BC Hydro will work with the Contractor and First Nations to a develop

12

communication plan or protocol for the Project which will include

13

communication with First Nations;

14

3.

Background turbidity levels will be measured in the nine fish bearing streams in

15

the Project footprint prior to construction to facilitate monitoring of potential

16

effects from the Project to the water quality of these fish bearing streams;

17

4.

coordinated to avoid windthrow risk;

18
19

5.

6.

All proposed methods in the FNITR work plan regarding Caribou Mitigation and
Monitoring will be incorporated into the Project;

22
23

Opportunities will be provided to First Nations to work as environmental


monitors;

20
21

Removal of vegetation in Riparian Management Areas will be planned and

7.

The Contractor will complete wildlife observation forms, map locations of

24

sittings, and where a species that is listed under the Species At Risk Act

25

(SARA) has been observed describe mitigations and undertake follow-up

26

monitoring in the area; and

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 26

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

8.

BC Hydro has required the Contractor to incorporate a provision in its EPP that

provides that BC Hydros employees and contractors employees cannot

engage in hunting or fishing activities in the Project area while engaged in

employment activities connected with the Project. 43

As to the remaining Requested Mitigation Measures:

mitigation or studies, it has explained the rationale for its decision.

Where BC Hydro has advised that it will not be undertaking the requested

As to the outstanding Requested Mitigation Measures, consultation is ongoing.


This is appropriate given the extraordinarily detailed nature of the Requested

9
10

Mitigation Measures and the current stage of the Project. Specific details of

11

construction planning are currently being negotiated as part of the ECI process

12

and in the absence of these construction details, it is not practical for BC Hydro

13

to provide definitive responses to the outstanding Requested Mitigation

14

Measures at this time.

15

BC Hydros respectfully submits that its overall response to the Requested Mitigation

16

Measures has been reasonable and adequate. The depth of information provided in

17

BC Hydros substantive responses to each of the Requested Mitigation Measures

18

supports that BC Hydro gave serious consideration to the individual requests made.

19

Consultation on the FNITR directly resulted in the incorporation of additional

20

mitigation measures into the Project.

21

The fact that BC Hydro has not accepted all of the Requested Mitigation Measure

22

and continues to consult on those that are outstanding does not mean consultation

23

is inadequate. The duty to consult is a procedural protection, it does not guarantee a

24

substantive right of accommodation:

43

Exhibit B-14, section 2.1.2.1.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 27

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

The First Nation argues that in exercising his discretion to


approve the grant the Director was required to have regard to
First Nations concerns and to engage in consultation. This is
true. The First Nation goes too far, however, in seeking to
impose on the territorial government not only the procedural
protection of consultation but also a substantive right of
accommodation. The First Nation protests that its concerns
were not taken seriously if they had been, it contends, the
Paulsen application would have been denied. This overstates
the scope of the duty to consult in this case. The First Nation
does not have a veto over the approval process. No such
substantive right is found in the treaty or in the general law,
constitutional or otherwise [Emphasis added]. 44

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

5.2.3.5

Absence of Agreement on Requested Mitigation Measures

15

The FNITR requested that the parties commit to reaching an agreement on the

16

content of a number of the Requested Mitigations Measures, particularly in the form

17

of a number of workplans. In response, BC Hydro advised that while it hoped to gain

18

First Nations support for its mitigation and monitoring measures, final approval of

19

the detailed construction plans (e.g. EMP, EPP and Traffic Management Plan) rests

20

with BC Hydro. Such a response is reasonable, appropriate and correct at law.

21

There is no duty to agree; rather, the commitment is to a meaningful process of

22

consultation.

23

In making decisions about the Requested Mitigation Measures, BC Hydro had a duty

24

to consider not only feedback from First Nations, but also other valid interests

25

including ratepayer interests (costs, reliability), safety, environment, practicality

26

schedule. BC Hydro weighed the appropriate considerations and came to

27

reasonable conclusions. Such is the nature of reconciliation:


Aboriginal rights are a necessary part of the reconciliation of
aboriginal societies with the broader political community of
which they are part; limits placed on those rights are, where the
objectives furthered by those limits are of sufficient importance

28
29
30
31

44

Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, [2010] 3 SCR 103, paragraph 14. [Little Salmon]

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 28

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

to the broader community as a whole, equally a necessary part


of that reconciliation. [Emphasis added.]

In many cases, accepting the proposed workplans in the FNTIR would provide First

Nations a veto over the Projects mitigations and monitoring measures which would

be contrary to BC Hydros other responsibilities. BC Hydros response was

reasonable and prudent.

5.2.3.6

Saulteau has expressed concern that the consultation process is not complete

before the BCUC renders its decision. Consultation continues through each stage of

10

project development. The BCUC does not need to find that consultation is complete.

11

Its assessment is whether or not consultation up to the point of its decision is

12

adequate.

13

it continues for the life of the Project. If Saulteau is not satisfied with the consultation

14

process on the outstanding Requested Mitigation Measures, it is not left without

15

further remedy; recourse lies with the courts. 46

16

5.2.3.7

17

Saulteau has suggested that the involvement of the Contractor in the discussion on

18

appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures is in effect a delegation of the

19

Crowns duty to consult. To be clear, BC Hydro has not delegated its duty to consult

20

First Nations. Such a delegation is not allowed at law: the ultimate legal

21

responsibility for construction and accommodation rests with the Crown. The honour

22

of the Crown cannot be delegated. 47

23

By involving the Contractor in this process, BC Hydro is in fact ensuring that those

24

individuals undertaking the Project will have the necessary context to undertake the

25

Project in a manner that is sensitive to First Nations concerns. Having reviewed the

45
46
47

Consultation is not Complete

45

BC Hydros duty to consult does not end with the Commission process,

BC Hydro has delegated the Duty to Consult to the Contractor

Kwikwetlem, paragraph 70.


Rio Tinto, paragraph 63 citing Haida, paragraph 51.
Haida, paragraph 53.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 29

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

Saulteau TUS and the FNITR, the Contractor will have the necessary context to

understand the specific First Nations concerns that the mitigations and monitoring

measures are meant to address.

Similarly, the involvement of the Contractor in these discussions facilitates the

discussion around how the Requested Mitigation Measures can be incorporated into

the Project. The Contractor has specialized knowledge in respect of the Project

activities and its involvement in developing mitigation measures is necessary.

While Contractor involvement contributes to the development of mitigations

responsive to First Nations concerns, BC Hydro retains ultimate decision-making

10

authority and oversight over these measures and their implementation. BC Hydro

11

has the ability to reject the final EPP if it is not satisfied that its meets the necessary

12

environmental standard set out in the EMP. With respect to ensuring that the EPP is

13

adhered to, BC Hydro will, through its Construction Contract, retain adequate

14

powers to at its discretion:

15

Stop work; and

16

Issue a default notice to the Contractor requiring compliance within a


reasonable period of time. 48

17

18

Further, should the Contractor not achieve compliance in accordance with the

19

default notice, BC Hydro will have the option of terminating the Construction

20

Contract or doing the work itself at the Contractors expense 49. The Contractors

21

involvement in no way jeopardizes the consideration First Nations feedback. In fact,

22

it helps ensure that those undertaking the Project have a clear and contextual

23

understanding of the mitigation measures and their importance to First Nations.

48
49

Exhibit B-18, BC Hydros response to BCUC IR 3.29.1.2.


Exhibit B-18, BC Hydros response to BCUC IR 3.29.1.2.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 30

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

5.2.4

Assessment of Adequacy of Consultation

The evidentiary record supports that consultation with Saulteau on the Project has

exceeded the low level of consultation required in this case. In Little Salmon, the

Supreme Court of Canada found that the following definition of consultation was

consistent with a duty to consult at the lower end of the spectrum:

Consult or consultation means to provide:

a) to the party to be consulted, notice of a matter to be decided


in sufficient form and detail to allow that party to prepare its
views on the matter;

8
9

b) a reasonable period of time in which the party to be


consulted may prepare its views on the matter, and an
opportunity to present such views to the party obliged to
consult; and

10
11
12
13

c) full and fair consideration by the party obliged to consult of


any views presented. 50

14
15
16

Irrespective of the scope of consultation required, the Crown must always act in

17

good faith with the intention of substantially addressing the First Nations concerns

18

as they arise throughout all the stages of the consultation process. 51 The Supreme

19

Court of Canada in Haida relied on the following definition from New Zealand as an

20

indicator of meaningful consultation:


genuine consultation means a process that involves

21
22

gathering information to test policy proposals

23

putting forward proposals that are not yet finalized

24

seeking Mori opinion on those proposals

25

informing Mori of all relevant information upon which


those proposals are based

26

50
51

Little Salmon, paragraph 74.


Haida, paragraph 42.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 31

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

not promoting but listening with an open mind to what


Mori have to say

being prepared to alter the original proposal

providing feedback both during the consultation process


and after the decision-process.

1
2

5
6

BC Hydro acted in good faith through the process, and consistently approached the

consultation process with the intention of substantially addressing Saulteaus

concerns about the Project. Consultation on the Project commenced early on in the

Project and continued throughout its development. Saulteau was provided with

10

adequate Project information in a timely manner. Where further information was

11

required, BC Hydro was responsive to such requests. Saulteau received adequate

12

capacity funding to support their participation in the process including the

13

engagement of two separate consultants (LGL and Firelight) to complete two

14

separate studies. BC Hydro listened with an open mind to what Saulteau has

15

proposed and made changes to the Project where appropriate . As a direct result of

16

the engagement with Saulteau, BC Hydro will be amending its EMP, and has

17

required the Contractor to integrate several of the Requested Mitigation Measures

18

into the EPP. In addition, BC Hydro continues to consider the outstanding

19

Requested Mitigation Measures as the specific details about construction become

20

available from the Contractor. Saulteau will have an opportunity to review and

21

comment on the draft EPP and Traffic Management Plan prior to BC Hydro

22

approval.

23

BC Hydro respectfully submits that the scope of the consultation undertaken with

24

Saulteau on the Project was deeper than required. In Squamish Nation, the

25

B.C. Supreme Court provided the following helpful description of consultation at a

26

medium level, with reference to other cases:

27
28
29

[197] I note some general parameters from the case law on


what a mid-range consultation may consist of. It is more than a
duty to give notice, disclose information, and discuss any
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project
Page 32

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

issues raised in response to the notice (Haida Nation at


paragraph 43). It is less than the opportunity to make
submissions for consideration, formal participation in the
decision-making process, and provision of written reasons to
show that Aboriginal concerns were considered and to reveal
the impact they had on the decision (Haida Nation at
paragraph 44).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

[198] In Dene Tha First Nation v. British Columbia (Minister


of Energy and Mines) Grauer J. found that the government
engaged in a reasonable mid-range consultation by giving the
First Nation the opportunity to make extensive and
wide-ranging submissions, exchanging reports and a great
deal of information, economic, environmental, scientific and
speculative, and setting up processes to involve the First
Nation in ongoing development decisions that could give rise to
potential adverse impacts on its treaty rights (at
paragraph 117).

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

[199] In Long Plain First Nation Hughes J. held that a


mid-range consultation required more than the minimum of
giving notice, disclosing information and responding to concerns
raised. He said the consultation ought to include at least some
of the higher duties including a duty to meet with the Applicants,
to hear and discuss their concerns, to take those concerns into
meaningful consideration and to advise as to the course of
action taken and why (paragraph 74). 52

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

BC Hydro submits that the consultation process with Saulteau satisfied these

27

definitions. The parties have met face to face and by teleconference numerous times

28

over the course of the five-year consultation process in addition to two site visits with

29

Ecofor. During meetings Saulteau communicated its concerns about the Project to

30

BC Hydro and BC Hydro meaningfully considered how to address these concerns

31

through mitigation, and where appropriate, accommodation. Saulteaus feedback on

32

the Project was extensive and wide-ranging covering a number of topics including

33

but not limited to potential impacts from the Project to Soils and Terrain, Water

34

Quality and Quantity, Air Quality, Fish, Fish Habitat and Aquatic Resources, Riparian
52

Squamish Nation v. B.C. (Community, Sport and Cultural Development), 2014 BCSC 991 (CanLII),
paragraphs 197 to 199. [Squamish Nation]

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 33

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

Habitat, Wetland Loss and Alternation, vegetation, Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat,

Species at Risk, Socio-Economic, Traditional Law and Resource Use, Human

Occupancy and Resource Use, Community Health, Cumulative Effects, Dust, Noise,

and Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Measures. The parties exchanged

reports on the Project and the potential impacts from the Project including but not

limited to the Project EA, two AIAs undertaken on the SFQ and areas adjacent to the

roads, the Saulteau TUS, and the FNITR. Throughout the process, where BC Hydro

has made decisions about the Project, it has provided Saulteau with the rationale

supporting those decisions and offered to meet to discuss. Finally, BC Hydro has

10

committed to ensuring that Saulteau is involved in the ongoing development of

11

mitigation and monitoring measures including through consultation on the draft EPP

12

and TMP.

13

BC Hydro recognizes the parties disagree on the adequacy of BC Hydros response

14

to the Requested Mitigation Measures. While this disagreement is unfortunate, it is

15

not a basis on which to find that the honour of the Crown has not been maintained.

16

As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada:

22

[] the Crown is bound by its honour to balance societal and


Aboriginal interests in making decisions that may affect
Aboriginal claims. The Crown may be required to make
decisions in the face of disagreement as to the adequacy of its
response to Aboriginal concerns. Balance and compromise will
then be necessary. 53 [Emphasis added.]

23

BC Hydro submits that it has and continues to strive to find an appropriate balance

24

between Aboriginal concerns and the significant other public interests that it must

25

consider.

17
18
19
20
21

53

Haida, paragraph 45.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 34

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

5.3

McLeod Lake Indian Band

5.3.1

Scope of the Duty to Consult

As set out in Exhibit B-14 (section 2.1.3), BC Hydro is of the view that the duty to

consult McLeod Lake Indian Band (McLeod Lake) is at the low end of the Haida

spectrum. As the descendants of signatories to Treaty 8, McLeod Lake has

established treaty rights in the Project area. As discussed in section 5.2.1, Treaty 8

guarantees McLeod the right to engage in its traditional activities over the lands

covered by Treaty 8 subject to the Crowns right to take up lands from time to time

for certain purposes. The Project is precisely the type of activities contemplated by

10

the taking up provision. The Project is temporary, on previously disturbed lands,

11

with no new permanent taking up of lands, and a significant distance from First

12

Nations main communities.

13

5.3.2

14

BC Hydro/McLeod Lake Direct Consultation

15

The Crown consultation process with McLeod Lake started in December 2011 when

16

the Project was still in its infancy. Both parties approached the consultation process

17

in good faith with the goal of addressing McLeod Lakes concerns. 54 Throughout the

18

consultation process, BC Hydro consistently provided McLeod Lake with all relevant

19

Project-related information for review and comment. 55 BC Hydro has been

20

responsive to information and capacity requests made by McLeod Lake. The parties

21

entered into a capacity funding agreement to support McLeod Lakes review of the

22

Project which included, but was not limited to, engaging consultants to undertake the

23

McLeod Lake TUS and the FNITR. BC Hydro has carefully considered all the

24

information received from McLeod Lake as part of the consultation process

25

(including but not limited to the McLeod Lake TUS and the FNITR). BC Hydro has
54
55

Consultation Process

BCUC, Transcript Procedural Conference #1 (January 27, 2016), at page 45.


For a full chronology of the consultation process between BC Hydro and McLeod Lake refer to Exhibit B-1
(section 4.2.5) and Exhibit B-14, Appendix C-2.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 35

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

used the information received to inform its decisions about the Project. As a direct

result of the FNITR, BC Hydro made a number of additions to the Projects mitigation

and monitoring measures. Consultation with McLeod Lake on mitigation and

monitoring measures for the Project is ongoing and will continue throughout the life

of the Project.

BCUC Process

McLeod Lake has intervened in the BCUC process. As an Intervener, McLeod Lake

has received all of the documentation filed in the proceeding, and had the

opportunities to fully participate in the review of the Application. McLeod Lakes TUS

10

and the FNITR were filed with the Commission for consideration. Furthermore,

11

McLeod Lake (through LGL) submitted IRs on BC Hydros Application.

12

Mr. Clayton Davis, a representative from McLeod Lakes Land Referral Office that

13

has been the primary contact from the First Nation in respect of the Project, took the

14

opportunity recently to directly express McLeods views on the Project to the

15

Commission:

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

So, its late in the game, there are potentials for impacts, were
well aware of that. However, Hydro has said, yeah, lets stops
and well look at these mitigations and well do some adaptive
monitoring plans, and well get this stuff figured out down the
road. So, Im happy with that. So yeah, lets get going on this
project.
My concern is if something pops up on this TLUS or FNITI [Sic]
that nobody foresaw, this is going to cause problems, yes or no?
But I have to go back to the main view, safety. That dam fails,
were all hooped. Well die up there. You guys will lose your
power, but we will die up there. Well lose our land, well lose
lots. So, I go back to the safety issue, lets take care of that first.
Treaty is important, but if theres no land left, if theres no
members left, you cant exercise your treaty rights. Thats the
bottom line. So, I say to you folks, make a decision, get going on
this, and then down the road make sure that we any

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 36

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

information come out of the FNITI [sic] and out the TLUS is
incorporated as we work of Hydro [sic], and proceed with this
project. 56

1
2
3
4

5.3.3

Assessment of Adequacy of Consultation

As set out in section 5.2.3 above, consultation at the low end of the spectrum

requires the Crown to provide notice, information in sufficient form and detail, a

reasonable amount of time for response, an opportunity to respond and a full and

fair consideration of the concerns presented. The evidentiary record supports that

BC Hydros consultation process with McLeod Lake met all of these procedural

10

requirements and was undertaken in good faith. Such a finding is consistent with the

11

evidence on the record including McLeod Lakes own direct evidence to the BCUC:

12

15

[] Hydro has said, yeah, lets stop and well look at these
mitigations and well do some adaptive monitoring plans, and
well get this stuff figured out down the road. So, Im happy with
that. So, yeah, lets get going on this project. 57

16

The requisite level of Crown consultation was met and the honour of the Crown has

17

been maintained. BC Hydro will continue to consult with McLeod Lake throughout

18

the Project.

19

5.4

20

BC Hydro believes the scope of consultation required with West Moberly First

21

Nations (West Moberly), Doig River First Nation (Doig River), Blueberry River First

22

Nations, Fort Nelson First Nation, Halfway River First Nation, and Prophet River First

23

Nation is at the low end of the Haida spectrum. 58 BC Hydro notified all of these First

24

Nations while the Project was in its infancy. Throughout the consultation process,

25

BC Hydro provided First Nations detailed information about the Project, considered

26

First Nation feedback about potential impacts and responded to requests received.

13
14

56
57
58

Other First Nations

BCUC, Transcript Procedural Conference #1 (January 27, 2016), at pages 46 to 47.


Ibid., at page 46.
Exhibit B-1 (section 4.2.4.2) and Exhibit B-14 (section 2.1.3).

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 37

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

Detailed chronologies of the consultation undertaken with each of these First

Nations are set out in Exhibit B-1 (section 4.2.5) and Exhibit B-14 (section 2.2 and

Appendices C-3, C-4 and C-5). BC Hydro submits that the evidentiary record

supports that consultation with these First Nations has been adequate such that the

Crowns honour has been maintained.

BC Hydro provided these First Nations copies of the Application together with

information about how they could participate in the BCUC regulatory process for the

Project. Doig River registered as an Interested Party to the proceeding.

The FNITR filed with the BCUC provides that West Moberly and Doig River were

10

amongst the First Nations who participated in the study. BC Hydro has responded to

11

the issues and the recommendations raised in the FNITR. That response has

12

primarily been through communicated through Saulteau. BC Hydro will continue to

13

consult with participant First Nations on the results of the FNITR and in particular the

14

Requested Mitigations Measures. On this note, West Moberly continues to indicate a

15

desire for a Traditional Use Study to help inform mitigation and monitoring

16

measures. BC Hydros offer to provide capacity for that study stands and the parties

17

are continuing to discuss this. BC Hydro will continue to consult on the Project with

18

all potentially affected First Nations throughout the life of the Project.

19

20

The Project-related public engagement processes are described in Exhibit B-1

21

(section 4.3). It is BC Hydros view that these public engagement processes have

22

been comprehensive and sufficient to date. BC Hydro began engaging the public on

23

the Project in spring 2011 during the Project Definition Phase. BC Hydros public

24

engagement process was primarily undertaken in writing. Such an approach was

25

appropriate in light of the low potential impacts from the Project. The written process

26

involved the circulation of regular Project newsletters. The newsletters were

27

circulated to the appropriate audience, provided adequate information on the

Public Engagement

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 38

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

Project, ensured the public had updated information, and offered contact information

for follow-up inquires. A single workshop on the Application was held in June 2015 in

Hudsons Hope. In addition, the BCUCs regulatory process provided the public a

venue in which to learn more about the Project and raise any potential concerns.

The public engagement process has not raised any significant concerns regarding

the Project. Public engagement on the Project is ongoing and BC Hydro has

committed to continue its public engagement process as the Project processes. 59

BC Hydro appreciates the manner in which the BCUC has balanced the schedule

Summary and Order Sought

10

realities with legitimate stakeholder interests and First Nations consultation needs in

11

determining the process for reviewing the Application. In BC Hydros respectful

12

submission, the BCUCs process has adequately allowed all viewpoints to be fully

13

considered while recognizing that this important dam safety project should not be

14

delayed a construction season if found to be in the public interest.

15

There is no evidence on the record that this Project is not in the public interest. The

16

proposed Project scope, costs and schedule are reasonable. BC Hydro has

17

adequately engaged with the public on the Project and no significant concerns have

18

been raised. All parties agree this Project contributes to ensuring the integrity of the

19

Dam; there is no debate amongst interveners that this Project is needed.

20

The only remaining question before the Commission is whether consultation with

21

Saulteau has been adequate. The evidentiary record supports that the potential

22

impacts of the Project to First Nations are low, that the duty to consult is on the low

23

end of the Haida spectrum, and that the consultation process on the Project has

24

been substantive, fulsome, and has met consultation at the medium level of the

25

spectrum. The core of Saulteau and BC Hydros disagreement is BC Hydros

26

response to the Requested Mitigation Measures requested in the FNITR. The


59

Exhibit B-1, section 4.3.3.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 39

(I)BCHydro

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
May 6, 2016

Power smart
s

evidence is that BC Hydro gave genuine consideration t() all of the Requested

Mitigation Measures, balanced those requests again other societal interests, and

10

where appropriate integrated Requested Mitigation Measures into the Project and

11

committed to ongoing consultation on those that are outstanding due to the current

12

stage of the Project. BC Hydro's response was reasonable given its duty as the

1s

Crown to balance societal and Aboriginal interests. First Nations consultation has

14

been reasonable and adequate to this stage.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED MAY 6, 2016

10

14

Jennif

1s

Senior Solicitor & Counsel

1e

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page 40

Counsels Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

INDEX
Cases
1.

Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, [2010] 3 SCR 103,

2.

British Columbia Utilities Commission, Decision, Certificate of Public


Convenience and Necessity for the Dawson Creek/Chetwynd Area Transmission
Project (October 10, 2012)

3.

Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, 2004
SCC 73 (CanLII)

4.

Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), [2005] 3


SCR 388, 2005 SCC 69 (CanLII)

5.

R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723, 1996 CanLII 160 (SCC)

6.

Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, [2010] 2 SCR 650, 2010
SCC 43 (CanLII)

7.

Squamish Nation v. B.C. (Community, Sport and Cultural Development), 2014


BCSC 991 (CanLII)

8.

West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia (Chief Inspector of Mines), 2011
BCCA 247 (CanLII), [2011] BCJ No 942 (QL)

9.

Kwikwetlem First Nation v. British Columbia (Utilities Commission), 2009 BCCA


68 [CanLII]

Legislation
10.

Utilities Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c 473

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project


Page i

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

103

c. little salmon/CarmaCks

David Beckman, in his capacity as


Director, Agriculture Branch, Department
of Energy, Mines and Resources, Minister
of Energy, Mines and Resources, and
Government of Yukon Appellants/
Respondents on crossappeal

David Beckman, en sa qualit de directeur,


Direction de lagriculture, ministre de
lnergie, des Mines et des Ressources,
Ministre de lnergie, des Mines et
des Ressources, et gouvernement du
Yukon Appelants/Intims au pourvoi incident

v.

c.

Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation


and Johnny Sam and Eddie Skookum, on
behalf of themselves and all other members
of the Little Salmon/Carmacks First
Nation Respondents/Appellants on cross
appeal

Premire nation de Little Salmon/Carmacks


et Johnny Sam et Eddie Skookum, en leur
propre nom et au nom de tous les autres
membres de la Premire nation de Little
Salmon/Carmacks Intims/Appelants au
pourvoi incident

and

et

Attorney General of Canada, Attorney


General of Quebec, Attorney General of
Newfoundland and Labrador, Gwichin
Tribal Council, Sahtu Secretariat Inc.,
Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)/
Cree Regional Authority, Council of Yukon
First Nations, Kwanlin Dn First Nation,
Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., Tlicho Government,
TeMexw Nations and Assembly of First
Nations Interveners

Procureur gnral du Canada, procureur


gnral du Qubec, procureur gnral de
Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador, Conseil tribal
des Gwichin, Sahtu Secretariat Inc.,
Grand conseil des Cris (Eeyou Istchee)/
Administration rgionale crie, Conseil des
Premires nations du Yukon, Premire
nation de Kwanlin Dn, Nunavut Tunngavik
Inc., gouvernement tlicho, Nations
TeMexw et Assemble des Premires
Nations Intervenants

Indexed as: Beckman v. Little Salmon/


Carmacks First Nation

Rpertori : Beckman c. Premire nation de


Little Salmon/Carmacks

2010 SCC 53

2010 CSC 53

File No.: 32850.

No du greffe : 32850.

2009: November 12; 2010: November 19.

2009 : 12 novembre; 2010 : 19 novembre.

Present: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps,


Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.

Prsents : La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie,


LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein et
Cromwell.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR


THE YUKON TERRITORY

EN APPEL DE LA COUR DAPPEL DU YUKON

Constitutional law Aboriginal peoples Aborig


inal rights Land claims Duty of Crown to consult

Droit constitutionnel Autochtones Droits ances


traux Revendications territoriales Obligation de la

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 1 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

and accommodate in the context of a modern compre


hensive land claims treaty Treaty provides Aboriginal
right of access for hunting and fishing for subsistence
in their traditional territory Application by non
Aboriginal for an agricultural land grant within terri
tory approved by Crown Whether Crown had duty to
consult and accommodate Aboriginal peoples If so,
whether Crown discharged its duty Constitution Act,
1982, s. 35.

Couronne de consulter et daccommoder les Autochtones


dans le contexte dun trait rcent relatif des revendi
cations territoriales globales Trait accordant aux
Autochtones laccs leur territoire traditionnel pour y
pratiquer la chasse et la pche de subsistance Appro
bation, par la Couronne, dune demande de concession
de terres agricoles dans ce territoire prsente par un
nonAutochtone La Couronne avaitelle lobligation
de consulter et daccommoder les Autochtones? Si
oui, la Couronne sestelle acquitte de cette obliga
tion? Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, art. 35.

Crown law Honour of the Crown Duty to con


sult and accommodate Aboriginal peoples Whether
Crown has duty to consult and accommodate prior to
making decisions that might adversely affect Aboriginal
rights and title claims.

Droit de la Couronne Honneur de la Couronne


Obligation de consulter et daccommoder les Autoch
tones La Couronne atelle lobligation de consulter
et daccommoder les Autochtones avant de prendre des
dcisions susceptibles davoir des consquences ngati
ves sur leurs revendications de titre et de droits?

Administrative law Judicial review Standard of


review Whether decision maker had duty to consult
and accommodate If so, whether decision maker dis
charged this duty Lands Act, R.S.Y. 2002, c. 132; Ter
ritorial Lands (Yukon) Act, S.Y. 2003, c. 17.

Droit administratif Contrle judiciaire Norme


de contrle Le dcideur avaitil lobligation de consul
ter et daccommoder les Autochtones? Si oui, sestil
acquitt de cette obligation? Loi sur les terres, L.R.Y.
2002, ch. 132; Loi du Yukon sur les terres territoriales,
L.Y. 2003, ch. 17.

Little Salmon/Carmacks entered into a land claims


agreement with the governments of Canada and the
Yukon Territory in 1997, after 20 years of negotiations.
Under the treaty, Little Salmon/Carmacks members
have a right of access for hunting and fishing for subsistence in their traditional territory, which includes a
parcel of 65 hectares for which P submitted an application for an agricultural land grant in November 2001.
The land applied for by P is within the trapline of S,
who is a member of Little Salmon/Carmacks.

En 1997, aprs 20 ans de ngociations, la Premire


nation Little Salmon/Carmacks a conclu avec les gouvernements du Canada et du Territoire du Yukon un
accord sur les revendications territoriales. Aux termes
du trait, les membres de la premire nation possdent,
des fins de chasse et de pche de subsistance, un droit
daccs leur territoire traditionnel qui englobe une
parcelle de 65 hectares lgard de laquelle P a fait une
demande de concession de terres agricoles en novembre
2001. La parcelle vise par la demande de P se trouve
dans le territoire de pigeage de S, un membre de la
premire nation.

Little Salmon/Carmacks disclaim any allegation that


a grant to P would violate the treaty, which itself contemplates that surrendered land may be taken up from
time to time for other purposes, including agriculture.
Nevertheless, until such taking up occurs, the members
of Little Salmon/Carmacks attach importance to their
ongoing treaty interest in surrendered Crown lands (of
which the 65 acres forms a small part). Little Salmon/
Carmacks contend that in considering the grant to P the
territorial government proceeded without proper consultation and without proper regard to relevant First
Nations concerns.

La premire nation rejette toute allgation que la


concession dune parcelle P violerait le trait, qui prvoit lui-mme que des terres cdes peuvent loccasion tre prises dautres fins, notamment des fins
agricoles. Mais jusqu ce que des terres aient t ainsi
prises, les membres de la premire nation accordent de
limportance lintrt quils conservent sur les terres
cdes la Couronne (dont les 65 hectares forment une
petite partie). La premire nation soutient quen examinant la demande de concession de P, le gouvernement
territorial a agi sans tenir la consultation requise et sans
prendre en compte les proccupations pertinentes de la
premire nation.

The Yukon governments Land Application Review


Committee (LARC) considered Ps application at a

Le Comit dexamen des demandes dalination


de terres ( CEDAT ) du gouvernement du Yukon a

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

104

Page 2 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks

105

meeting to which it invited Little Salmon/Carmacks.


The latter submitted a letter of opposition to Ps application prior to the meeting, but did not attend. At the
meeting, LARC recommended approval of the application and, in October 2004, the Director, Agriculture
Branch, Yukon Department of Energy, Mines and
Resources, approved it. Little Salmon/Carmacks
appealed the decision to the Assistant Deputy Minister,
who rejected its review request. On judicial review,
however, the Directors decision was quashed and set
aside. The chambers judge held that the Yukon failed to
comply with the duty to consult and accommodate. The
Court of Appeal allowed the Yukons appeal.

examin la demande de P lors dune runion laquelle


taient invits les reprsentants de la premire nation.
Cette dernire ne sest pas fait reprsenter la runion
mais avait prsent une lettre dopposition la demande
de P. la runion, le CEDAT a recommand lapprobation de la demande, et le directeur de la Direction
de lagriculture du ministre de lnergie, des Mines et
des Ressources du Yukon la approuve au mois doctobre 2004. La premire nation a fait appel de la dcision
auprs du sous-ministre adjoint, qui a rejet la demande
de rvision. lissue du contrle judiciaire toutefois, la
dcision du directeur a t annule. Le juge sigeant en
cabinet a conclu que le Yukon navait pas respect son
obligation de consulter et daccommoder. La Cour dappel a accueilli lappel du Yukon.

Held: The appeal and cross-appeal should be dismissed.

Arrt : Le pourvoi et le pourvoi incident sont rejets.

Per McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, Fish, Abella,


Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.: When a modern
land claim treaty has been concluded, the first step is to
look at its provisions and try to determine the parties
respective obligations, and whether there is some form
of consultation provided for in the treaty itself. While
consultation may be shaped by agreement of the parties,
the Crown cannot contract out of its duty of honourable
dealing with Aboriginal people it is a doctrine that
applies independently of the intention of the parties as
expressed or implied in the treaty itself.

La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Binnie, Fish,


Abella, Charron, Rothstein et Cromwell : Lorsquun
trait rcent relatif aux revendications territoriales a t
conclu, la premire tape consiste en examiner les dispositions et tenter de dterminer les obligations respectives des parties et lexistence, dans le trait lui-mme,
dune forme quelconque de consultation. Les parties
peuvent sentendre sur les modalits de la consultation,
mais la Couronne ne peut se soustraire son obligation de traiter honorablement avec les Autochtones il
sagit dune doctrine qui sapplique indpendamment de
lintention des parties, que cette intention soit expresse
ou implicite dans le trait lui-mme.

In this case, a continuing duty to consult existed.


Members of Little Salmon/Carmacks possessed an
express treaty right to hunt and fish for subsistence on
their traditional lands, now surrendered and classified
as Crown lands. While the Treaty did not prevent the
government from making land grants out of the Crowns
holdings, and indeed it contemplated such an eventuality, it was obvious that such grants might adversely
affect the traditional economic and cultural activities of
Little Salmon/Carmacks, and the Yukon was required
to consult with Little Salmon/Carmacks to determine
the nature and extent of such adverse effects.

En lespce, lobligation de consulter tait permanente. Les membres de la premire nation possdaient
un droit, prvu expressment au trait, de pratiquer
la chasse et la pche de subsistance sur leur territoire
traditionnel qui a maintenant t cd et est considr
comme des terres de la Couronne. Mme si le trait
nempchait pas le gouvernement de concder des
terres de la Couronne, cette possibilit y tait mme
prvue, il tait vident que cela risquait davoir des
consquences ngatives sur les activits conomiques
et culturelles traditionnelles de la premire nation, et
le Yukon tait tenu de consulter cette dernire afin de
dterminer la nature et ltendue de ces consquences
ngatives.

The treaty itself set out the elements the parties


regarded as an appropriate level of consultation (where
the treaty requires consultation) including proper notice
of a matter to be decided in sufficient form and detail
to allow that party to prepare its view on the matter;
a reasonable period of time in which the party to be
consulted may prepare its views on the matter, and an
opportunity to present such views to the party obliged

Le trait lui-mme prcise les lments considrs


par les parties comme constituant une consultation
approprie (lorsquune consultation est ncessaire). Ces
lments comprennent un avis suffisamment dtaill
concernant la question trancher afin de permettre la
partie consulte de prparer sa position sur la question,
un dlai suffisant pour permettre la partie devant tre
consulte de prparer sa position sur la question ainsi

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 3 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

to consult; and full and fair consideration by the party


obliged to consult of any views presented.

que loccasion de prsenter cette position la partie


oblige de tenir la consultation, et un examen complet
et quitable de toutes les positions prsentes, par la
partie oblige de tenir la consultation.

The actual treaty provisions themselves did not


govern the process for agricultural grants at the time.
However, given the existence of the treaty surrender
and the legislation in place to implement it, and the
decision of the parties not to incorporate a more elaborate consultation process in the Treaty itself, the scope
of the duty of consultation in this situation was at the
lower end of the spectrum.

Le processus de concession de terres des fins agricoles ntait pas rgi lpoque par les dispositions
elles-mmes du trait. Cependant, tant donn lexistence de la cession opre par le trait et les textes lgislatifs adopts en vue de la mise en uvre de celui-ci,
ainsi que la dcision des parties de ne pas incorporer
dans le trait lui-mme un processus de consultation
plus labor, la porte de lobligation de consultation
dans une telle situation se situait au bas du continuum.

Accordingly, the Director was required, as a matter


of compliance with the legal duty to consult based on
the honour of the Crown, to be informed about and consider the nature and severity of any adverse impact of
the proposed grant before he made a decision to determine (amongst other things) whether accommodation
was necessary or appropriate. The purpose of consultation was not to re-open the Treaty or to re-negotiate
the availability of the lands for an agricultural grant.
Such availability was already established in the Treaty.
Consultation was required to help manage the important ongoing relationship between the government and
the Aboriginal community in a way that upheld the
honour of the Crown and promoted the objective of reconciliation.

Par consquent, le directeur tait tenu, pour se


conformer lobligation juridique de consulter fonde
sur lhonneur de la Couronne, dtre inform de la
nature et de la gravit de toute incidence ngative de la
concession projete et den tenir compte avant de prendre une dcision, pour dterminer (entre autres choses)
si des accommodements taient ncessaires ou appropris. La consultation navait pas pour objet de rouvrir
le trait ou de rengocier la possibilit de concder les
terres des fins agricoles. Cette possibilit tait dj
prvue au trait. La consultation tait requise afin de
faciliter la gestion de la relation importante entre le
gouvernement et la communaut autochtone en conformit avec la prservation de lhonneur de la Couronne
et la ralisation de lobjectif de rconciliation.

In this case, the duty of consultation was discharged.


Little Salmon/Carmacks acknowledges that it received
appropriate notice and information. The Little Salmon/
Carmacks objections were made in writing and they
were dealt with at a meeting at which Little Salmon/
Carmacks was entitled to be present (but failed to
attend). Both Little Salmon/Carmacks objections and
the response of those who attended the meeting were
before the Director when, in the exercise of his delegated authority, he approved Ps application. Neither the
honour of the Crown nor the duty to consult required
more.

En lespce, lobligation de consultation a t respecte. La premire nation reconnat avoir reu un


avis suffisant et linformation utile. Elle a communiqu ses objections par crit, et celles-ci ont t tudies
lors dune runion laquelle la premire nation avait
le droit dassister (mais laquelle elle ne sest pas fait
reprsenter). Le directeur avait pris connaissance des
objections de la premire nation et de la rponse fournie par les personnes prsentes la runion lorsque,
dans lexercice de son pouvoir dlgu, il a approuv la
demande de P. Lhonneur de la Couronne et lobligation
de consultation nexigeaient rien de plus.

Nor was there any breach of procedural fairness.


While procedural fairness is a flexible concept, and
takes into account the Aboriginal dimensions of the
decision facing the Director, it is nevertheless a doctrine that applies as a matter of administrative law to
regulate relations between the government decision
makers and all residents of the Yukon, Aboriginal as
well as non-Aboriginal.

Il ny a eu non plus aucun manquement lquit procdurale. Si lquit procdurale est une notion souple
et prend en compte les aspects qui, dans la dcision
que doit prendre le directeur, touchent directement les
Autochtones, il nen demeure pas moins que cette doctrine
sapplique en droit administratif pour encadrer les relations entre les dcideurs gouvernementaux et tous les habitants du Yukon, Autochtones comme non-Autochtones.

While the Yukon had a duty to consult, there


was no further duty of accommodation on the
facts of this case. Nothing in the treaty itself or in

Si le Yukon avait une obligation de consultation,


les faits de lespce ne donnent lieu aucune autre
obligation daccommodement. Le trait lui-mme ou

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

106

Page 4 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks

107

the surrounding circumstances gave rise to such a


requirement.

lensemble des circonstances ne donnent en aucun cas


ouverture une telle obligation.

In exercising his discretion in this case, as in all


others, the Director was required to respect legal and
constitutional limits. The constitutional limits included
the honour of the Crown and its supporting doctrine
of the duty to consult. The standard of review in that
respect, including the adequacy of the consultation, is
correctness. Within the limits established by the law
and the Constitution, however, the Directors decision
should be reviewed on a standard of reasonableness.

Dans lexercice de son pouvoir discrtionnaire dans


ce cas, comme dans tous les autres cas, le directeur
devait respecter des limites lgales et constitutionnelles. Les limites constitutionnelles incluaient lhonneur
de la Couronne et le principe de lobligation de consulter qui lappuie. La norme de contrle cet gard, y
compris lgard du caractre adquat de la consultation, est celle de la dcision correcte. Dans les limites
tablies par le droit et la Constitution, toutefois, la dcision du directeur doit tre examine selon la norme de
la raisonnabilit.

In this case, the Director did not err in law in concluding that the level of consultation that had taken
place was adequate. The advice the Director received
from his officials after consultation is that the impact of
the grant of 65 hectares would not be significant. There
is no evidence that he failed to give full and fair consideration to the concerns of Little Salmon/Carmacks. The
material filed by the parties on the judicial review application does not demonstrate any palpable error of fact
in his conclusion. Whether or not a court would have
reached a different conclusion is not relevant. The decision to approve or not to approve the grant was given
by the legislature to the Minister who, in the usual way,
delegated the authority to the Director. His disposition
was reasonable in the circumstances.

En lespce, le directeur na pas commis derreur


de droit en concluant que la consultation mene tait
adquate. Selon lavis reu de ses fonctionnaires par
le directeur aprs la consultation, les incidences de
la concession de 65 hectares de terres ne seraient pas
importantes. Rien nindique que les proccupations de
la premire nation nont pas fait lobjet dun examen
complet et quitable de sa part. Les documents dposs
par les parties lors de la demande de contrle judiciaire
ne rvlent lexistence daucune erreur de fait manifeste
dans sa conclusion. Le fait quun tribunal judiciaire
aurait ventuellement pu arriver une conclusion diffrente nest pas pertinent. La dcision dapprouver ou de
ne pas approuver la concession de la parcelle de terre a
t confie par lassemble lgislative au ministre qui,
de la faon habituelle, a dlgu ce pouvoir au directeur. La dcision prise par ce dernier tait raisonnable
dans les circonstances.

Per LeBel and Deschamps JJ.: Whereas past cases


have concerned unilateral actions by the Crown that triggered a duty to consult for which the terms had not been
negotiated, in the case at bar, the parties have moved
on to another stage. Formal consultation processes are
now a permanent feature of treaty law, and the Little
Salmon/Carmacks Final Agreement affords just one
example of this. To give full effect to the provisions of
a treaty such as the Final Agreement is to renounce a
paternalistic approach to relations with Aboriginal peoples. It is a way to recognize that Aboriginal peoples
have full legal capacity. To disregard the provisions
of such a treaty can only encourage litigation, hinder
future negotiations and threaten the ultimate objective
of reconciliation.

Les juges LeBel et Deschamps : Si, jusquici, les


litiges ont mis en cause une action unilatrale de la
Couronne qui dclenchait une obligation de consulter
dont les modalits navaient pas t ngocies, le prsent
dossier indique que les parties sont maintenant passes
une autre tape. Les processus formels de consultation font maintenant rsolument partie de lunivers juridique des traits. LEntente dfinitive de Little Salmon/
Carmacks nen est quun exemple. Donner leur plein effet
aux stipulations dun trait comme lEntente dfinitive
cest renoncer toute approche paternaliste lgard des
peuples autochtones. Il sagit dune faon de reconnatre
leur pleine capacit juridique. Mconnatre les stipulations dun tel trait ne peut quencourager le recours aux
tribunaux, nuire aux ngociations futures et compromettre la ralisation de lobjectif ultime de rconciliation.

To allow one party to renege unilaterally on its constitutional undertaking by superimposing further rights
and obligations relating to matters already provided
for in the treaty could result in a paternalistic legal
contempt, compromise the national treaty negotiation

Permettre une partie de revenir unilatralement


sur son engagement constitutionnel en y superposant
des droits et obligations additionnels portant sur des
matires dj prvues au trait risque de se traduire par
un mpris juridique paternaliste, de compromettre le

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 5 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

process and frustrate the ultimate objective of reconciliation. This is the danger of what seems to be an unfortunate attempt to take the constitutional principle of the
honour of the Crown hostage together with the principle of the duty to consult Aboriginal peoples that flows
from it.

processus national de ngociation de traits et de nuire


la poursuite de lobjectif ultime de rconciliation.
Voil le pril auquel nous expose ce qui semble tre une
malheureuse prise en otage du principe constitutionnel
dhonneur de la Couronne et du principe en dcoulant,
lobligation de consulter les Autochtones.

In concluding a treaty, the Crown does not act dishonourably in agreeing with an Aboriginal community
on an elaborate framework involving various forms of
consultation with respect to the exercise of that communitys rights. Nor does the Crown act dishonourably if it
requires the Aboriginal party to agree that no parallel
mechanism relating to a matter covered by the treaty
will enable that party to renege on its undertakings.
Legal certainty is the primary objective of all parties to
a comprehensive land claim agreement.

Dans le cadre de la conclusion dun trait, il ny a rien


de dshonorant pour la Couronne sentendre avec une
communaut autochtone sur un rgime dtaill et multiforme de consultation relative lexercice des droits de
cette communaut. Il ny a rien non plus de dshonorant
de la part de la Couronne exiger de la partie autochtone
quaucun rgime parallle relatif une matire prvue
au trait ne permette celle-ci de revenir sur ses engagements. En effet, la scurit juridique est lobjectif premier de toutes les parties un accord portant rglement
de revendication territoriale globale.

Legal certainty cannot be attained if one of the parties to a treaty can unilaterally renege on its undertakings with respect to a matter provided for in the treaty
where there is no provision for its doing so in the treaty.
This does not rule out the possibility of there being
matters not covered by a treaty with respect to which
the Aboriginal party has not surrendered possible
Aboriginal rights. Nor does legal certainty imply that
an equitable review mechanism cannot be provided for
in a treaty.

Il ne saurait y avoir de scurit juridique si une des


parties un trait pouvait unilatralement et sans que
cela ne soit prvu au trait revenir sur ses engagements lgard dune matire prvue ce trait. Cela ne
veut pas dire quil ne peut pas exister de matires dont les
parties nauront pas trait et lgard desquelles la partie
autochtone pourra ne pas avoir renonc dventuels
droits ancestraux. La scurit juridique nexclut pas non
plus la possibilit de prvoir, dans un trait, un mcanisme quitable de rexamen.

Thus, it should be obvious that the best way for a


court to contribute to ensuring that a treaty fosters a
positive long relationship between Aboriginal and nonAboriginal communities consists in ensuring that the
parties cannot unilaterally renege on their undertakings. And once legal certainty has been pursued as a
common objective at the negotiation stage, it cannot
become a one-way proposition at the stage of implementation of the treaty. On the contrary, certainty with
respect to one partys rights implies that the party in
question must discharge its obligations and respect the
other partys rights. Having laboured so hard, in their
common interest, to substitute a well-defined legal
system for an uncertain normative system, both the
Aboriginal party and the Crown party have an interest
in seeing their efforts bear fruit.

En ce sens, il devrait tre vident que la meilleure


faon pour les tribunaux de contribuer ce quun trait
favorise une longue relation positive entre parties autochtone et tatique consiste sassurer que les parties ne
puissent revenir unilatralement sur leurs engagements.
Et il se trouve que, en aval de sa poursuite en tant quobjectif partag ltape de la ngociation, la scurit juridique ne saurait, ltape de la mise en uvre dun trait,
oprer sens unique. Au contraire, la scurit des droits
dune partie implique ncessairement que celle-ci sacquitte de ses obligations et respecte les droits de lautre
partie. Stant toutes deux chines, dans leur intrt
commun, substituer un systme juridique prcis un
rgime normatif incertain, la partie autochtone et la
partie tatique ont toutes deux intrt ce que leur uvre
produise ses effets.

It is in fact because the agreement in issue does


provide that the Aboriginal party has a right to various forms of consultation with respect to the rights
the Crown wishes to exercise in this case that rights
and obligations foreign to the mechanism provided for
in the treaty must not be superimposed on it, and not
simply because this is a modern treaty constituting a
land claims agreement.

En lespce, cest justement parce que laccord en


cause traite bel et bien des diffrentes formes de consultation auxquelles a droit la partie autochtone concernant les droits que la Couronne veut exercer quil faut
se garder de superposer ce rgime des droits et obligations qui lui sont trangers, et non pas simplement parce
quil sagit dun trait moderne constituant un accord
portant rglement de revendications territoriales.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

108

Page 6 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks

109

Even when the treaty in issue is a land claims agreement, the Court must first identify the common intention
of the parties and then decide whether the common law
constitutional duty to consult applies to the Aboriginal
party. Therefore, where there is a treaty, the common
law duty to consult will apply only if the parties to the
treaty have failed to address the issue of consultation.

Mme lorsque le trait en cause est un accord portant rglement de revendications territoriales, la Cour
doit dabord dgager lintention commune des parties,
elle se prononcera ensuite sur lapplication, la partie
autochtone, du rgime jurisprudentiel relatif lobligation constitutionnelle de consultation. Par consquent,
en prsence dun trait, lobligation jurisprudentielle de
consultation ne sappliquera quen cas domission des
parties au trait davoir prvu cette matire.

The consultation that must take place if a right of the


Aboriginal party is impaired will consist in either: (1)
the measures provided for in the treaty in this regard;
or (2) if no such measures are provided for in the treaty,
the consultation required under the common law framework.

La consultation requise lorsquil y a atteinte un droit


des Autochtones comportera : (1) soit les mesures prvues par le trait cet gard; (2) soit, dfaut de telles
mesures dans le trait, un degr de consultation que le
rgime jurisprudentiel tablit.

Where a treaty provides for a mechanism for consultation, what it does is to override the common law
duty to consult Aboriginal peoples; it does not affect
the general administrative law principle of procedural
fairness, which may give rise to a duty to consult rights
holders individually.

Lorsquun trait tablit des mesures de consultation, ce que le trait a pour effet dcarter dans un tel
cas est bien lobligation jurisprudentielle de consultation des peuples autochtones, non pas toute obligation de
consulter individuellement le titulaire dun droit pouvant
dcouler du principe gnral du droit administratif quest
lquit procdurale.

The courts are not blind to omissions, or gaps left in


the treaty, by the parties with respect to consultation,
and the common law duty to consult could always be
applied to fill such a gap. But no such gap can be found
in this case.

Les tribunaux ne sont pas aveugles aux omissions ou


lacunes des parties au trait en matire de consultation
et lobligation jurisprudentielle de consultation pourrait
toujours sappliquer pour combler cette lacune. Mais
aucune lacune de ce genre ne peut tre constate dans la
prsente affaire.

These general considerations alone would form a


sufficient basis for dismissing the appeal.

Il serait possible, sur la seule base de ces considrations dordre gnral, de rejeter lappel principal.

But the provisions of the Final Agreement also confirm this conclusion. The Final Agreement includes general and interpretive provisions that are reproduced from
the Umbrella Agreement. More precisely, this framework was first developed by the parties to the Umbrella
Agreement, and was then incorporated by the parties
into the various final agreements concluded under the
Umbrella Agreement. Where there is any inconsistency
or conflict, the rules of this framework prevail over the
common law principles on the interpretation of treaties
between governments and Aboriginal peoples.

Cependant, les dispositions de lEntente dfinitive


confirment elles aussi cette conclusion. LEntente dfinitive comporte des dispositions gnrales et interprtatives
qui ont t reprises de lAccord-cadre. Plus exactement,
ce rgime a dabord t labor par les parties lAccordcadre, puis repris par les parties aux diffrentes ententes dfinitives conclues conformment aux stipulations
de cet accord. Advenant toute incompatibilit, ce rgime
lemporte sur les principes dgags par la jurisprudence
en matire dinterprtation de traits conclus par les gouvernements et les peuples autochtones.

These general and interpretive provisions also establish certain rules with respect to the relationships of
the Umbrella Agreement and any final agreement concluded under it, not only the relationship between them,
but also that with the law in general. These rules can be
summarized in the principle that the Final Agreement
prevails over any other non-constitutional legal rule,
subject to the requirement that its provisions not be
so construed as to affect the rights of Yukon Indian
people as Canadian citizens and their entitlement to

Ces dispositions interprtatives et gnrales posent


aussi certaines normes relatives aux rapports quentretiennent lAccord-cadre et toute entente dfinitive conclue
conformment ses stipulations, non seulement entre
eux, mais avec le reste du droit galement. Ces normes
peuvent tre rsumes par le principe selon lequel lEntente dfinitive lemporte sur toute autre rgle de droit
infraconstitutionnel, sous rserve du fait que ses dispositions ne doivent pas tre interprtes dune manire
portant atteinte aux droits des Indiens du Yukon en tant

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 7 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

all the rights, benefits and protections of other citizens. In short, therefore, with certain exceptions, the
treaty overrides Aboriginal rights related to the matters
to which it applies, and in cases of conflict or inconsistency, it prevails over all other non-constitutional
law.

que citoyens canadiens ni leur droit de jouir de tous


les droits, avantages et protections reconnus aux autres
citoyens. En somme, donc, sauf exception le trait se
substitue aux droits ancestraux relativement aux matires
dont il dispose et il a prsance, en cas dincompatibilit,
sur le reste du droit infraconstitutionnel.

Regarding the relationship between the treaty in issue


and the rest of our constitutional law other than the case
law on Aboriginal rights, such a treaty clearly cannot
on its own amend the Constitution of Canada. In other
words, the Final Agreement contains no provisions that
affect the general principle that the common law duty
to consult will apply only where the parties have failed
to address the issue of consultation. This will depend
on whether the parties have come to an agreement on
this issue, and if they have, the treaty will unless, of
course, the treaty itself provides otherwise override
the application to the parties of any parallel framework,
including the common law framework.

En ce qui a trait la relation entre le trait en cause


et le reste de notre droit constitutionnel au-del du
seul rgime jurisprudentiel des droits ancestraux, un
tel trait ne saurait videmment lui seul modifier la
Constitution du Canada. Autrement dit, lEntente dfinitive ne contient pas de dispositions qui auraient une
incidence sur le principe gnral selon lequel lobligation de consultation de rgime jurisprudentiel ne sappliquera quen cas domission des parties au trait davoir
prvu cette matire. En effet, tout dpendra de ce que
les parties auront ou non convenu sur la question, auquel
cas le trait, sauf bien sr renvoi leffet contraire dans
celui-ci, aura cart lapplication entre les parties de tout
rgime parallle, y compris le rgime jurisprudentiel.

In this case, the parties included provisions in the


treaty that deal with consultation on the very question
of the Crowns right to transfer Crown land upon an
application like the one made by P.

En lespce, les parties ont prvu, dans le trait des


dispositions concernant la consultation sur la question
prcise du droit de la Couronne de cder de ses terres
la suite dune demande comme celle de P.

Ps application constituted a project to which the


assessment process provided for in Chapter 12 of the
Final Agreement applied. Although that process had
not yet been implemented, Chapter 12, including the
transitional legal rules it contains, had been. Under
those rules, any existing development assessment process would remain applicable. The requirements of
the processes in question included not only consultation with the First Nation concerned, but also its participation in the assessment of the project. Any such
participation would involve a more extensive consultation than would be required by the common law duty in
that regard. Therefore, nothing in this case can justify
resorting to a duty other than the one provided for in the
Final Agreement.

La demande de P constituait un projet soumis au processus dvaluation prvu au chapitre 12 de lEntente


dfinitive. Ce processus navait pas t mis en uvre,
mais le chapitre 12 lavait t, y compris les rgles de
droit provisoire y figurant. En vertu de ces rgles, tout
processus existant dvaluation des activits de dveloppement demeurait en vigueur. Ces processus prvoyaient
non seulement la consultation de la nation autochtone
concerne, mais aussi sa participation lvaluation du
projet. Une telle participation impliquait un niveau de
consultation suprieur celui qui aurait t fond sur
lobligation faite par la jurisprudence cet gard. En
consquence, rien, en lespce, ne saurait justifier le
recours une obligation externe celle prvue par lEntente dfinitive.

Moreover, the provisions of Chapter 16 on fish and


wildlife management establish a framework under
which the First Nations are generally invited to participate in the management of those resources at the predecision stage. In particular, the invitation they receive
to propose fish and wildlife management plans can be
regarded as consultation.

De plus, les dispositions du chapitre 16 qui concernent


la gestion des ressources halieutiques et fauniques instaurent un rgime par lequel les premires nations sont
gnralement invites participer la gestion de ces ressources sur une base prdcisionnelle. Notamment, linvitation qui leur est faite de proposer des plans de gestion
des ressources halieutiques et fauniques peut tre considre comme une consultation.

The territorial governments conduct raises questions in some respects. In particular, there is the fact
that the Director did not notify the First Nation of
his decision of October 18, 2004 until July 27, 2005.

certains gards, la conduite des autorits territoriales soulve des interrogations. Cest notamment le
cas en ce qui a trait au fait que le directeur na signifi
que le 27 juillet 2005 la premire nation sa dcision

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

110

Page 8 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks

111

Under s. 81(1) of the Yukon Environmental and Socio


economic Assessment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 7 (YESAA),
the designated office and, if applicable, the executive committee of the Yukon Development Assessment
Board would have been entitled to receive copies of
that decision and, one can only assume, to receive them
within a reasonable time. Here, the functional equivalent of the designated office is the Land Application
Review Committee (LARC). Even if representatives
of the First Nation did not attend the August 13, 2004
meeting, it would be expected that the Director would
inform that First Nation of his decision within a reasonable time. Nonetheless, the time elapsed after the decision did not affect the quality of the prior consultation.

du 18 octobre 2004. En vertu du par. 81(1) de la Loi


sur lvaluation environnementale et socioconomique
au Yukon, L.C. 2003, ch. 7, ( LESY ), le bureau
dsign et, le cas chant, le comit de direction de
la Commission dvaluation des activits de dveloppement du Yukon auraient eu droit de recevoir une copie
de cette dcision, et ce, on peut le supposer, lintrieur
dun dlai raisonnable. Lquivalent fonctionnel du
bureau dsign est ici le Comit dexamen des demandes dalination de terres ( CEDAT ). Mme si les
reprsentants de la premire nation ne se sont pas prsents la runion du 13 aot 2004, on se serait attendu
ce que le directeur informe cette premire nation de
sa dcision dans un dlai raisonnable. Ce dlai, survenu
aprs la dcision, na cependant pas affect la qualit de
la consultation pralable.

The territorial governments decision to proceed


with Ps application at the prescreening stage despite
the requirement of consultation in the context of the
First Nations fish and wildlife management plan was
not an exemplary practice either. However, the First
Nation did not express concern about this in its letter of
July 27, 2004 to Yukons Lands Branch. And as can be
seen from the minutes of the August 13, 2004 meeting,
the concerns of the First Nation with respect to resource
conservation were taken into consideration. Also, the
required consultation in the context of the fish and
wildlife management plan was far more limited than
the consultation to which the First Nation was entitled
in participating in LARC, which was responsible for
assessing the specific project in issue in this appeal.
Finally, the First Nation, the renewable resources council and the Minister had not agreed on a provisional
suspension of the processing of applications for land in
the area in question.

La dcision qua prise ladministration territoriale,


au terme de lexamen pralable, de poursuivre le traitement de la demande de P malgr la consultation qui avait
cours dans le cadre du plan de gestion des ressources
halieutiques et fauniques de la premire nation nest pas
davantage un exemple de bonne pratique. Cependant,
la premire nation na pas exprim cette proccupation
dans sa lettre du 27 juillet 2004 la Direction des Terres
du Yukon. De plus, comme le dmontre le procs-verbal
de la runion du 13 aot 2004, les proccupations de
la premire nation concernant la conservation des ressources ont t prises en considration. Au surplus, la
consultation qui avait cours dans le cadre du plan de
gestion des ressources halieutiques et fauniques tait
beaucoup plus limite que celle laquelle donnait droit
la participation de la premire nation au CEDAT qui
tait charg dvaluer le projet spcifique faisant lobjet
du prsent pourvoi. De surcrot, la premire nation, le
conseil des ressources renouvelables et le ministre ne
staient pas entendus sur la suspension provisoire du
traitement de toute demande dalination de terres dans
la rgion vise.

Despite these aspects of the handling of Ps application that are open to criticism, it can be seen from the
facts as a whole that the respondents received what they
were entitled to receive from the appellants where consultation as a First Nation is concerned. In fact, in some
respects they were consulted to an even greater extent
than they would have been under the YESAA.

Au-del de ces aspects critiquables du cheminement


de la demande de P, lensemble des faits rvle que les
intims ont reu des appelants ce quoi ils avaient droit
de la part de ceux-ci en matire de consultation titre de
premire nation. En ralit, ils ont mme obtenu certains gards davantage que ce que leur aurait procur la
LESY.

The only right the First Nation would have had under
the YESAA was to be heard by the assessment district
office as a stakeholder. That consultation would have
been minimal, whereas the First Nation was invited to
participate directly in the assessment of Ps application
as a member of LARC.

Le seul droit quaurait obtenu la premire nation en


vertu de la LESY est celui dtre entendue titre de
personne intresse par le bureau de circonscription. Il
sagissait l dune consultation minimale, alors que la
premire nation a t invite participer directement,
titre dvaluateur membre du CEDAT, lvaluation de la
demande de P.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 9 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

It is true that the First Nations representatives did not


attend the August 13, 2004 meeting. They did not notify
the other members of LARC that they would be absent
and did not request that the meeting be adjourned, but
they had already submitted comments in a letter.

Il est vrai que les reprsentants de la premire nation


ne se sont pas prsents la runion du 13 aot 2004.
Cela est survenu sans quils ne prviennent au pralable
les autres membres du CEDAT et sans demander lajournement de la runion mais alors quils avaient fait des
commentaires par lettre.

Thus, the process that led to the October 18, 2004


decision on Ps application was consistent with the
transitional law provisions of Chapter 12 of the Final
Agreement. There is no legal basis for finding that the
Crown breached its duty to consult.

Par consquent, le processus qui a men la dcision du 18 octobre 2004 relativement la demande de
P respectait les dispositions de droit provisoire prvues
au chapitre 12 de lEntente dfinitive. Il nexiste aucun
motif juridique permettant de conclure que lobligation
de consultation de la Couronne a t viole.

Cases Cited

Jurisprudence

By Binnie J.

Cite par le juge Binnie

Considered: R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456;


R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771; applied: Mikisew
Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian
Heritage), 2005 SCC 69, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 388; Haida
Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004
SCC 73, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511; R. v. Van der Peet, [1996]
2 S.C.R. 507; Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008
SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration) v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, [2009] 1 S.C.R.
339; Quebec (Attorney General) v. Moses, 2010 SCC
17, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 557; referred to: Taku River Tlingit
First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment
Director), 2004 SCC 74, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 550; R. v.
Kapp, 2008 SCC 41, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 483; R. v. Taylor
(1981), 62 C.C.C. (2d) 227, leave to appeal refused,
[1981] 2 S.C.R. xi; R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R.
1075; R. v. Nikal, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; Delgamuukw
v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; Rio Tinto
Alcan Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC
43, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 650; Slaight Communications Inc.
v. Davidson, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; Little Sisters Book
and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice),
2000 SCC 69, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120; Suresh v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC
1, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; Multani v. Commission scolaire
MargueriteBourgeoys, 2006 SCC 6, [2006] 1 S.C.R.
256.

Arrts examins : R. c. Marshall, [1999] 3 R.C.S.


456; R. c. Badger, [1996] 1 R.C.S. 771; arrts appliqus : Premire nation crie Mikisew c. Canada (Ministre
du Patrimoine canadien), 2005 CSC 69, [2005] 3 R.C.S.
388; Nation hada c. ColombieBritannique (Ministre
des Forts), 2004 CSC 73, [2004] 3 R.C.S. 511; R.
c. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 R.C.S. 507; Dunsmuir c.
NouveauBrunswick, 2008 CSC 9, [2008] 1 R.C.S. 190;
Canada (Citoyennet et Immigration) c. Khosa, 2009
CSC 12, [2009] 1 R.C.S. 339; Qubec (Procureur gn
ral) c. Moses, 2010 CSC 17, [2010] 1 R.C.S. 557; arrts
mentionns : Premire nation Tlingit de Taku River
c. ColombieBritannique (Directeur dvaluation de
projet), 2004 CSC 74, [2004] 3 R.C.S. 550; R. c. Kapp,
2008 CSC 41, [2008] 2 R.C.S. 483; R. c. Taylor (1981),
62 C.C.C. (2d) 227, autorisation dappel refuse, [1981]
2 R.C.S. xi; R. c. Sparrow, [1990] 1 R.C.S. 1075; R. c.
Nikal, [1996] 1 R.C.S. 1013; Delgamuukw c. Colombie
Britannique, [1997] 3 R.C.S. 1010; Rio Tinto Alcan Inc.
c. Conseil tribal Carrier Sekani, 2010 CSC 43, [2010] 2
R.C.S. 650; Slaight Communications Inc. c. Davidson,
[1989] 1 R.C.S. 1038; Little Sisters Book and Art
Emporium c. Canada (Ministre de la Justice), 2000 CSC
69, [2000] 2 R.C.S. 1120; Suresh c. Canada (Ministre de
la Citoyennet et de lImmigration), 2002 CSC 1, [2002]
1 R.C.S. 3; Multani c. Commission scolaire Marguerite
Bourgeoys, 2006 CSC 6, [2006] 1 R.C.S. 256.

By Deschamps J.

Cite par la juge Deschamps

Considered: Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada


(Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69, [2005]
3 S.C.R. 388; referred to: Guerin v. The Queen, [1984]
2 S.C.R. 335; R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075;
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests),
2004 SCC 73, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511; Taku River Tlingit
First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment
Director), 2004 SCC 74, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 550; Reference

Arrt examin : Premire nation crie Mikisew c.


Canada (Ministre du Patrimoine canadien), 2005 CSC
69, [2005] 3 R.C.S. 388; arrts mentionns : Guerin c. La
Reine, [1984] 2 R.C.S. 335; R. c. Sparrow, [1990] 1 R.C.S.
1075; Nation hada c. ColombieBritannique (Ministre
des Forts), 2004 CSC 73, [2004] 3 R.C.S. 511; Premire
nation Tlingit de Taku River c. ColombieBritannique
(Directeur dvaluation de projet), 2004 CSC 74, [2004]

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

112

Page 10 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks

113

re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; R. v.


Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507; R. v. Kapp, 2008
SCC 41, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 483; St. Anns Island Shooting
and Fishing Club Ltd. v. The King, [1950] S.C.R.
211; Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (National
Energy Board), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 159; Delgamuukw v.
British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; Mitchell v.
M.N.R., 2001 SCC 33, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911; R. v. White
(1964), 50 D.L.R. (2d) 613, affd (1965), 52 D.L.R.
(2d) 481; R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025; Province
of Ontario v. Dominion of Canada (1895), 25 S.C.R.
434; R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771; R. v. Sundown,
[1999] 1 S.C.R. 393; R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R.
456; Quebec (Attorney General) v. Moses, 2010 SCC
17, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 557; Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v. Carrier
Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43, [2010] 2 S.C.R.
650; Osoyoos Indian Band v. Oliver (Town), 2001 SCC
85, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 746.

3 R.C.S. 550; Renvoi relatif la scession du Qubec,


[1998] 2 R.C.S. 217; R. c. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 R.C.S.
507; R. c. Kapp, 2008 CSC 41, [2008] 2 R.C.S. 483;
St. Anns Island Shooting and Fishing Club Ltd. c.
The King, [1950] R.C.S. 211; Qubec (Procureur gn
ral) c. Canada (Office national de lnergie), [1994] 1
R.C.S. 159; Delgamuukw c. ColombieBritannique,
[1997] 3 R.C.S. 1010; Mitchell c. M.R.N., 2001 CSC 33,
[2001] 1 R.C.S. 911; R. c. White (1964), 50 D.L.R. (2d)
613, conf. par (1965), 52 D.L.R. (2d) 481; R. c. Sioui,
[1990] 1 R.C.S. 1025; Province of Ontario c. Dominion
of Canada (1895), 25 R.C.S. 434; R. c. Badger, [1996]
1 R.C.S. 771; R. c. Sundown, [1999] 1 R.C.S. 393; R.
c. Marshall, [1999] 3 R.C.S. 456; Qubec (Procureur
gnral) c. Moses, 2010 CSC 17, [2010] 1 R.C.S. 557; Rio
Tinto Alcan Inc. c. Conseil tribal Carrier Sekani, 2010
CSC 43, [2010] 2 R.C.S. 650; Bande indienne dOsoyoos
c. Oliver (Ville), 2001 CSC 85, [2001] 3 R.C.S. 746.

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Lois et rglements cits

Assessable Activities, Exceptions and Executive Com


mittee Projects Regulations, SOR/2005-379, ss. 2, 5,
Sch. 1, Part 13, item 27.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992,
c. 37.
Constitution Act, 1867, Part VI.
Constitution Act, 1982, ss. 25, 35, 52, Part V.
Environmental Assessment Act, S.Y. 2003, c. 2 [rep.
O.I.C. 2005/202, (2006) 25 Y. Gaz. II, 32].
Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5.
Lands Act, R.S.Y. 2002, c. 132, s. 7(1)(a).
Royal Proclamation (1763), R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 1.
Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act, S.Y. 2003, c. 17.
Wildlife Act, R.S.Y. 2002, c. 229, ss. 13(1), 82, 187.
Yukon Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment
Act, S.C. 2003, c. 7, ss. 2(1) territory, 5, 8, 20(1),
23(1), 47(2), 50(1), 55(1)(b), 55(4), 60, 63, 81(1), 82(1),
83(1), 84(1), 122(c), 134.
Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, S.C.
1994, c. 34, ss. 5, 6(2), 13.

Charte canadienne des droits et liberts.


Loi canadienne sur lvaluation environnementale, L.C.
1992, ch. 37.
Loi constitutionnelle de 1867, partie VI.
Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, art. 25, 35, 52, partie V.
Loi du Yukon sur les terres territoriales, L.Y. 2003,
ch. 17.
Loi sur lvaluation environnementale, L.Y. 2003, ch. 2
[abr. D. 2005/202, (2006) 25 Gaz. Y. II, 32].
Loi sur lvaluation environnementale et socioconomi
que au Yukon, L.C. 2003, ch. 7, art. 2(1) territoire ,
5, 8, 20(1), 23(1), 47(2), 50(1), 55(1)b), 55(4), 60, 63,
81(1), 82(1), 83(1), 84(1), 122c), 134.
Loi sur la faune, L.R.Y. 2002, ch. 229, art. 13(1), 82,
187.
Loi sur le rglement des revendications territoriales des
premires nations du Yukon, L.C. 1994, ch. 34, art.
5, 6(2), 13.
Loi sur les Indiens, L.R.C. 1985, ch. I-5.
Loi sur les terres, L.R.Y. 2002, ch. 132, art. 7(1)a).
Proclamation royale (1763), L.R.C. 1985, app. II, no 1.
Rglement sur les activits susceptibles dvaluation, les
exceptions et les projets de dveloppement soumis
au comit de direction, DORS/2005-379, art. 2, 5,
ann. 1, partie 13, art. 27.

Treaties and Agreements

Traits et ententes

James Bay and Northern Qubec Agreement (1975).


Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation Final Agreement,
July 1, 1997 (online: http://www.eco.gov.yk.ca/pdf/
little_salmon_carmacks_fa.pdf).
Treaty No. 8 (1899).
Treaty No. 11 (1921).

Accord-cadre dfinitif entre le gouvernement du Canada,


le Conseil des Indiens du Yukon et le gouvernement
du Yukon (1993).
Convention de la BaieJames et du Nord qubcois
(1975).

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 11 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

Umbrella Final Agreement between the Government of


Canada, the Council for Yukon Indians and the Government of the Yukon (1993).

Entente dfinitive de la Premire nation de Little


Salmon/Carmacks, 1 juillet 1997 (en ligne : http://
www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/al/ldc/ccl/fagr/ykn/slmon/lsfa/
lsfa-fra.pdf).
Trait no 8 (1899).
Trait no 11 (1921).

Authors Cited

Doctrine cite

Canada. Indian and Northern Affairs. Federal Policy for


the Settlement of Native Claims. Ottawa: Indian and
Northern Affairs Canada, 1993.
Grammond, Sbastien. Amnager la coexistence: Les
peuples autochtones et le droit canadien. Cowansville, Qu.: Yvon Blais, 2003.
Newman, Dwight G. The Duty to Consult: New Rela
tionships with Aboriginal Peoples. Saskatoon: Purich
Publishing, 2009.
Saint-Hilaire, Maxime. La proposition dentente de
principe avec les Innus: vers une nouvelle gnration
de traits? (2003), 44 C. de D. 395.
Stevenson, Mark L. Visions of Certainty: Challenging
Assumptions, in Law Commission of Canada, ed.,
Speaking Truth to Power: A Treaty Forum. Ottawa:
Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Canada, 2001, 113.
Williams, Robert A. Linking Arms Together: American
Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace, 16001800.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Yukon. Agriculture for the 90s: A Yukon Policy. Whitehorse: Yukon Government, 1991.

Canada. Affaires indiennes et du Nord. Politique du


gouvernement fdral en vue du rglement des reven
dications autochtones. Ottawa : Affaires indiennes et
du Nord Canada, 1993.
Grammond, Sbastien. Amnager la coexistence : Les
peuples autochtones et le droit canadien. Cowansville, Qu. : Yvon Blais, 2003.
Newman, Dwight G. The Duty to Consult : New Rela
tionships with Aboriginal Peoples. Saskatoon : Purich
Publishing, 2009.
Saint-Hilaire, Maxime. La proposition dentente de
principe avec les Innus : vers une nouvelle gnration
de traits? (2003), 44 C. de D. 395.
Stevenson, Mark L. Visions de certitude : question dhypothses , dans Commission du droit du
Canada, dir., Parlons franchement propos des
traits. Ottawa : Ministre des travaux publics et des
Services gouvernementaux Canada, 2001, 123.
Williams, Robert A. Linking Arms Together : American
Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace, 16001800.
New York : Oxford University Press, 1997.
Yukon. Agriculture for the 90s : A Yukon Policy. Whitehorse : Yukon Government, 1991.

APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from a judgment of the Yukon Court of Appeal (Newbury,
Kirkpatrick and Tysoe JJ.A.), 2008 YKCA 13, 296
D.L.R. (4th) 99, 258 B.C.A.C. 160, 434 W.A.C.
160, [2008] 4 C.N.L.R. 25, 71 R.P.R. (4th) 162,
[2008] Y.J. No. 55 (QL), 2008 CarswellYukon 62,
setting aside the decision of Veale J., 2007 YKSC
28, [2007] 3 C.N.L.R. 42, [2007] Y.J. No. 24 (QL),
2007 CarswellYukon 18, quashing the approval of
application for land grant. Appeal and cross-appeal
dismissed.

POURVOI et POURVOI INCIDENT contre


un arrt de la Cour dappel du Yukon (les juges
Newbury, Kirkpatrick et Tysoe), 2008 YKCA 13,
296 D.L.R. (4th) 99, 258 B.C.A.C. 160, 434 W.A.C.
160, [2008] 4 C.N.L.R. 25, 71 R.P.R. (4th) 162,
[2008] Y.J. No. 55 (QL), 2008 CarswellYukon 62,
qui a infirm une dcision du juge Veale, 2007
YKSC 28, [2007] 3 C.N.L.R. 42, [2007] Y.J. No. 24
(QL), 2007 CarswellYukon 18, annulant lapprobation de la demande de concession de terres. Pourvoi
et pourvoi incident rejets.

Brad Armstrong, Q.C., Keith Bergner, Penelope


Gawn and Lesley McCullough, for the appellants/
respondents on cross-appeal.

Brad Armstrong, c.r., Keith Bergner, Penelope


Gawn et Lesley McCullough, pour les appelants/
intims au pourvoi incident.

Jean Teillet, Arthur Pape and Richard B. Salter,


for the respondents/appellants on cross-appeal.

Jean Teillet, Arthur Pape et Richard B. Salter,


pour les intims/appelants au pourvoi incident.

Mitchell R. Taylor, Q.C., for the intervener the


Attorney General of Canada.

Mitchell R. Taylor, c.r., pour lintervenant le procureur gnral du Canada.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

114

Page 12 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks Le juge Binnie

115

Hugues Melanon and Natacha Lavoie, for the


intervener the Attorney General of Quebec.

Hugues Melanon et Natacha Lavoie, pour lintervenant le procureur gnral du Qubec.

Rolf Pritchard and Justin S. C. Mellor, for the


intervener the Attorney General of Newfoundland
and Labrador.

Rolf Pritchard et Justin S. C. Mellor, pour lintervenant le procureur gnral de Terre-Neuve-etLabrador.

Brian A. Crane, Q.C., for the interveners the


Gwichin Tribal Council and Sahtu Secretariat
Inc.

Brian A. Crane, c.r., pour les intervenants le


Conseil tribal des Gwichin et Sahtu Secretariat
Inc.

JeanSbastien Clment and Franois Dandon


neau, for the intervener the Grand Council of the
Crees (Eeyou Istchee)/Cree Regional Authority.

JeanSbastien Clment et Franois Dandon


neau, pour lintervenant le Grand conseil des Cris
(Eeyou Istchee)/Administration rgionale crie.

James M. Coady, Dave Joe and Daryn R. Leas,


for the intervener the Council of Yukon First
Nations.

James M. Coady, Dave Joe et Daryn R. Leas,


pour lintervenant le Conseil des Premires nations
du Yukon.

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., and Bruce Elwood, for


the intervener the Kwanlin Dn First Nation.

Joseph J. Arvay, c.r., et Bruce Elwood, pour lintervenante la Premire nation de Kwanlin Dn.

James R. Aldridge, Q.C., and Dominique Nouvet,


for the intervener Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.

James R. Aldridge, c.r., et Dominique Nouvet,


pour lintervenante Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.

John Donihee, for the intervener the Tlicho


Government.

John Donihee, pour lintervenant le gouvernement tlicho.

Robert J. M. Janes and Karey M. Brooks, for the


intervener the TeMexw Nations.

Robert J. M. Janes et Karey M. Brooks, pour


lintervenante les Nations TeMexw.

Peter W. Hutchins and Julie Corry, for the intervener the Assembly of First Nations.

Peter W. Hutchins et Julie Corry, pour lintervenante lAssemble des Premires Nations.

The judgment of McLachlin C.J. and Binnie,


Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.
was delivered by

Version franaise du jugement de la juge en


chef McLachlin et des juges Binnie, Fish, Abella,
Charron, Rothstein et Cromwell rendu par

[1] binnie J. This appeal raises important


questions about the interpretation and implementation of modern comprehensive land claims treaties between the Crown and First Nations and other
levels of government.

[1] le juge binnie Ce pourvoi soulve dimportantes questions touchant linterprtation et


la mise en uvre des traits rcents relatifs des
revendications territoriales globales conclus entre la
Couronne, les Premires Nations et dautres paliers
de gouvernement.

[2] The treaty at issue here is the Little Salmon/


Carmacks First Nation Final Agreement (the
LSCFN Treaty), which was finalized in 1996
and ratified by members of the First Nation in

[2] Le trait en cause en lespce est lEntente


dfinitive de la Premire nation de Little Salmon/
Carmacks (le trait PNLSC ), finalise en 1996
et ratifie par les membres de la premire nation

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 13 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Binnie J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

1997. The LSCFN Treaty is one of 11 that arose out


of and implement an umbrella agreement signed
in 1993 after 20 years of negotiations between
representatives of all of the Yukon First Nations
and the federal and territorial governments. It was
a monumental achievement. These treaties fall
within the protection of s. 35 of the Constitution
Act, 1982, which gives constitutional protection to
existing Aboriginal and treaty rights.

en 1997. Le trait PNLSC sinscrit dans une srie


de 11 traits dcoulant et assurant la mise en
uvre dun accord-cadre sign en 1993 aprs 20
ans de ngociations entre des reprsentants de
lensemble des premires nations du Yukon et les
gouvernements fdral et territorial. Il sagissait
dune ralisation des plus imposantes. Ces traits sont viss par lart. 35 de la Loi constitution
nelle de 1982, qui accorde une protection constitutionnelle aux droits existants ancestraux
ou issus de traits des peuples autochtones du
Canada.

[3] The present dispute relates to an application


for judicial review of a decision by the Yukon
territorial government dated October 18, 2004, to
approve the grant of 65 hectares of surrendered
land to a Yukon resident named Larry Paulsen. The
plot borders on the settlement lands of the Little
Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, and forms part of
its traditional territory, to which its members have
a treaty right of access for hunting and fishing for
subsistence. In the result, Mr. Paulsen still awaits
the outcome of the grant application he submitted
on November 5, 2001.

[3] Le litige concerne une demande de contrle


judiciaire dune dcision par laquelle le gouvernement territorial du Yukon a approuv, le 18 octobre
2004, la concession un habitant du Yukon nomm
Larry Paulsen de 65 hectares de terres cdes. La
parcelle en question est contigu aux terres vises
par le rglement de la Premire nation de Little
Salmon/Carmacks ( PNLSC ), et fait partie de
son territoire traditionnel, auquel ses membres ont
un droit daccs issu dun trait des fins de chasse
et de pche de subsistance. En raison de ce litige, M.
Paulsen attend toujours le rsultat de sa demande de
concession de terre prsente le 5 novembre 2001.

[4] The First Nation disclaims any allegation


that the Paulsen grant would violate the LSCFN
Treaty, which itself contemplates that surrendered
land may be taken up from time to time for other
purposes, including agriculture. Nevertheless, until
such taking up occurs, the members of the LSCFN
have an ongoing treaty interest in surrendered
Crown lands (of which the 65 hectares form a small
part), to which they have a treaty right of access for
hunting and fishing for subsistence. The LSCFN
contends that the territorial government proceeded
without proper consultation and without proper
regard to relevant First Nations concerns. They say
the decision of October 18, 2004, to approve the
Paulsen grant should be quashed.

[4] La premire nation rejette toute allgation


suivant laquelle la concession de la parcelle M.
Paulsen violerait le trait PNLSC, qui lui-mme
prvoit que des terres cdes peuvent loccasion
tre prises dautres fins, notamment des fins
agricoles. Mais jusqu ce que des terres aient t
ainsi prises, les membres de la PNLSC conservent
un intrt issu dun trait relativement aux terres de
la Couronne cdes (dont les 65 hectares forment
une petite partie), lgard desquelles ils ont un
droit daccs issu dun trait des fins de chasse et
de pche de subsistance. La PNLSC soutient que
le gouvernement territorial a agi sans effectuer la
consultation requise et sans tenir compte des proccupations pertinentes de la premire nation. Selon
elle, la dcision du 18 octobre 2004 approuvant la
concession de terres M. Paulsen devrait tre annule.

[5] The territorial government responds that no


consultation was required. The LSCFN Treaty,

[5] Le gouvernement territorial rplique


quaucune consultation ntait exige. Le trait

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

116

Page 14 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks Le juge Binnie

117

it says, is a complete code. The treaty refers to


consultation in over 60 different places but a
land grant application is not one of them. Where
not specifically included, the duty to consult, the
government says, is excluded.

PNLSC constitue, dit-il, un code complet. Il est


question de consultation plus de 60 endroits
diffrents dans le trait, mais jamais propos
dune demande de concession de terres. Lorsque
lobligation de consulter nest pas spcifiquement mentionne, dit le gouvernement, elle est
exclue.

[6] The important context of this appeal, therefore,


is an application for judicial review of a decision
that was required to be made by the territorial
government having regard to relevant constitutional
as well as administrative law constraints. The
Yukon Court of Appeal held, as had the trial judge,
that the LSCFN Treaty did not exclude the duty of
consultation, although in this case the content of
that duty was at the lower end of the spectrum (2007
YKSC 28; 2008 YKCA 13). The Court of Appeal
went on to hold, disagreeing in this respect with the
trial judge, that on the facts the governments duty
of consultation had been fulfilled.

[6] Le pourvoi sinscrit donc dans le contexte


important dune demande de contrle judiciaire
dune dcision que le gouvernement territorial
devait prendre en tenant compte des contraintes
applicables quimposent tant le droit constitutionnel que le droit administratif. La Cour dappel du
Yukon a conclu, comme le juge de premire instance, que le trait PNLSC nexcluait pas lobligation de consulter, bien que le contenu de cette obligation se situait en lespce au bas du continuum
(2007 YKSC 28; 2008 YKCA 13). La Cour dappel a ensuite conclu, en dsaccord sur ce point avec
le juge de premire instance, que selon les faits, le
gouvernement stait acquitt de son obligation de
consulter.

[7] I agree that the duty of consultation was not


excluded by the LSCFN Treaty, although its terms
were relevant to the exercise of the territorial
government discretion, as were other principles
of administrative and Aboriginal law, as will be
discussed. On the facts of the Paulsen application,
however, I agree with the conclusion of the Court
of Appeal that the First Nation did not make out
its case. The First Nation received ample notice of
the Paulsen application, an adequate information
package, and the means to make known its
concerns to the decision maker. The LSCFNs
objections were made in writing and they were
dealt with at a meeting at which the First Nation
was entitled to be present (but failed to show up).
Both the First Nations objections and the response
of those who attended the meeting were before the
appellant when, in the exercise of his delegated
authority, he approved the Paulsen application. In
light of the consultation provisions contained in
the treaty, neither the honour of the Crown nor the
duty to consult were breached. Nor was there any
breach of procedural fairness. Nor can it be said
that the appellant acted unreasonably in making

[7] Jestime moi aussi que lobligation de consulter ntait pas exclue par le trait PNLSC, mme si
les clauses de ce dernier taient pertinentes lgard
de lexercice, par le gouvernement territorial, de son
pouvoir discrtionnaire, linstar dautres principes
du droit administratif et du droit des Autochtones,
comme nous le verrons. Mais devant les faits relatifs
la demande de M. Paulsen, je suis daccord avec la
conclusion de la Cour dappel selon laquelle la premire nation na pas russi dmontrer le bien-fond
de ses arguments. La premire nation a t avise
longtemps davance de la demande de M. Paulsen;
on lui a fourni une documentation adquate et on
lui a donn le moyen de faire connatre ses proccupations au dcideur. La PNLSC a communiqu
ses objections par crit, et celles-ci ont t tudies
lors dune runion laquelle la premire nation avait
le droit dassister (mais laquelle elle ne sest pas
fait reprsenter). Lappelant avait pris connaissance
des objections souleves par la premire nation et de
la rponse fournie par les personnes prsentes la
runion lorsque, dans lexercice de son pouvoir dlgu, il a approuv la demande de M. Paulsen. Vu
les dispositions relatives la consultation contenues

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 15 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Binnie J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

the decision that he did. I would dismiss the appeal


and cross-appeal.

au trait, lhonneur de la Couronne a t prserv


et il ny a eu aucun manquement lobligation de
consultation. Il ny a eu non plus aucun manquement
lquit procdurale. On ne peut en outre affirmer
que lappelant a agi de manire draisonnable en
prenant la dcision quil a prise. Je suis davis de
rejeter le pourvoi et le pourvoi incident.

I.

I.

Overview

Vue densemble

[8] Historically, treaties were the means by which


the Crown sought to reconcile the Aboriginal
inhabitants of what is now Canada to the assertion
of European sovereignty over the territories
traditionally occupied by First Nations. The
objective was not only to build alliances with First
Nations but to keep the peace and to open up the
major part of those territories to colonization and
settlement. No treaties were signed with the Yukon
First Nations until modern times.

[8] Dans le pass, les traits ont constitu le moyen


par lequel la Couronne sest efforce de faire accepter aux habitants autochtones de ce qui est maintenant le Canada laffirmation de la souverainet
europenne sur les territoires traditionnellement
occups par les Premires Nations. Lobjectif ne
consistait pas seulement construire des alliances
avec celles-ci, mais maintenir la paix et ouvrir
la majeure partie de ces territoires la colonisation.
Aucun trait na t sign avec les premires nations
du Yukon avant lre moderne.

[9] Unlike their historical counterparts, the


modern comprehensive treaty is the product of
lengthy negotiations between well-resourced and
sophisticated parties. The negotiation costs to Yukon
First Nations of their various treaties, financed
by the federal government through reimbursable
loans, were enormous. The LSCFN share alone
exceeded seven million dollars. Under the Yukon
treaties, the Yukon First Nations surrendered
their Aboriginal rights in almost 484,000 square
kilometres, roughly the size of Spain, in exchange
for defined treaty rights in respect of land tenure
and a quantum of settlement land (41,595 square
kilometres), access to Crown lands, fish and
wildlife harvesting, heritage resources, financial
compensation, and participation in the management
of public resources. To this end, the LSCFN Treaty
creates important institutions of self-government
and authorities such as the Yukon Environmental
and Socio-economic Assessment Board and the
Carmacks Renewable Resources Council, whose
members are jointly nominated by the First Nation
and the territorial government.

[9] Contrairement aux traits historiques, les traits rcents portant sur des revendications globales sont le fruit de longues ngociations entre des
parties qui sont averties et disposent de ressources
importantes. Le cot norme de la ngociation des
divers traits, pour les premires nations du Yukon,
a t financ par le gouvernement fdral au moyen
de prts remboursables. Pour la seule PNLSC,
le cot a dpass les sept millions de dollars. En
vertu des traits du Yukon, les premires nations du
Yukon ont cd leurs droits ancestraux sur presque
484 000 kilomtres carrs, soit environ la superficie de lEspagne, contre des droits dfinis par traits au chapitre de la tenure et une certaine quantit
de terres vises par le rglement (41 595 kilomtres carrs), laccs aux terres de la Couronne, la
rcolte de poissons et danimaux sauvages et aux
ressources patrimoniales, une indemnisation pcuniaire et la participation la gestion des ressources
publiques. cette fin, le trait PNLSC tablit dimportantes institutions dautonomie gouvernementale
et des autorits comme lOffice dvaluation environnementale et socioconomique du Yukon et le
Conseil des ressources renouvelables de Carmacks,
dont les membres sont dsigns conjointement par
la premire nation et le gouvernement territorial.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

118

Page 16 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks Le juge Binnie

119

[10] The reconciliation of Aboriginal and nonAboriginal Canadians in a mutually respectful


long-term relationship is the grand purpose of s. 35
of the Constitution Act, 1982. The modern treaties,
including those at issue here, attempt to further the
objective of reconciliation not only by addressing
grievances over the land claims but by creating the
legal basis to foster a positive long-term relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities. Thoughtful administration of the treaty
will help manage, even if it fails to eliminate, some
of the misunderstandings and grievances that have
characterized the past. Still, as the facts of this case
show, the treaty will not accomplish its purpose if it
is interpreted by territorial officials in an ungenerous manner or as if it were an everyday commercial contract. The treaty is as much about building
relationships as it is about the settlement of ancient
grievances. The future is more important than the
past. A canoeist who hopes to make progress faces
forwards, not backwards.

[10] La rconciliation des Canadiens autochtones


et non autochtones dans le cadre dune relation
long terme empreinte de respect mutuel : voil le
noble objectif de lart. 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle
de 1982. Les traits rcents, y compris ceux en
cause en lespce, tentent de contribuer la ralisation de cet objectif de rconciliation, non seulement
en rpondant aux griefs relatifs aux revendications
territoriales, mais en crant le fondement juridique
propre favoriser une relation long terme harmonieuse entre les collectivits autochtones et non
autochtones. Une application judicieuse du trait
aidera aplanir, sans ncessairement les liminer,
certains des malentendus et des dolances qui ont
caractris le pass. Mais comme le montrent les
faits de la prsente affaire, lobjectif du trait ne
pourra tre atteint si les responsables territoriaux
linterprtent de faon mesquine ou comme sil
sagissait dun banal contrat commercial. Le trait
vise tout autant ltablissement de relations que
la rsolution des griefs du pass. Lavenir est plus
important que le pass. Un canoteur qui souhaite
avancer regarde devant lui, non derrire.

[11] Equally, however, the LSCFN is bound to


recognize that the $34 million and other treaty
benefits it received in exchange for the surrender
has earned the territorial government a measure of
flexibility in taking up surrendered lands for other
purposes.

[11] La PNLSC doit cependant reconnatre du


mme coup que les 34 millions de dollars et les
autres avantages quelle a reus en change de la
cession autorisent le gouvernement territorial
faire preuve dune certaine souplesse dans lutilisation dautres fins des terres cdes.

[12] The increased detail and sophistication of


modern treaties represents a quantum leap beyond
the pre-Confederation historical treaties such as the
1760-61 Treaty at issue in R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3
S.C.R. 456, and post-Confederation treaties such as
Treaty No. 8 (1899) at issue in R. v. Badger, [1996]
1 S.C.R. 771, and Mikisew Cree First Nation v.
Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005
SCC 69, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 388. The historical
treaties were typically expressed in lofty terms of
high generality and were often ambiguous. The
courts were obliged to resort to general principles
(such as the honour of the Crown) to fill the gaps
and achieve a fair outcome. Modern comprehensive
land claim agreements, on the other hand, starting
perhaps with the James Bay and Northern Qubec
Agreement (1975), while still to be interpreted and

[12] Par leur complexit et leur caractre dtaill,


les traits rcents marquent un norme progrs, la
fois par rapport aux traits historiques antrieurs
la Confdration tels les traits de 1760 et 1761 en
cause dans R. c. Marshall, [1999] 3 R.C.S. 456, et
par rapport aux traits postrieurs la Confdration
tel le Trait no 8 (1899) dont il est question dans R.
c. Badger, [1996] 1 R.C.S. 771, et dans Premire
nation crie Mikisew c. Canada (Ministre du
Patrimoine canadien), 2005 CSC 69, [2005] 3
R.C.S. 388. Les traits historiques, habituellement
formuls en termes nobles dune grande gnralit, taient souvent ambigus. Les tribunaux se sont
ainsi vus forcs de recourir des principes gnraux
(comme lhonneur de la Couronne) pour pallier les
lacunes et parvenir un rsultat quitable. En revanche, si les ententes rcentes sur des revendications

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 17 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Binnie J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

applied in a manner that upholds the honour of


the Crown, were nevertheless intended to create
some precision around property and governance
rights and obligations. Instead of ad hoc remedies
to smooth the way to reconciliation, the modern
treaties are designed to place Aboriginal and nonAboriginal relations in the mainstream legal system
with its advantages of continuity, transparency, and
predictability. It is up to the parties, when treaty
issues arise, to act diligently to advance their
respective interests. Good government requires
that decisions be taken in a timely way. To the
extent the Yukon territorial government argues that
the Yukon treaties represent a new departure and
not just an elaboration of the status quo, I think
it is correct. However, as the trial judge Veale J.
aptly remarked, the new departure represents but a
step albeit a very important step in the long
journey of reconciliation (para. 69).

territoriales globales que lon pourrait sans doute


faire remonter la Convention de la BaieJames
et du Nord qubcois (1975) doivent elles aussi
tre interprtes et appliques en conformit avec
lhonneur de la Couronne, elles taient nanmoins
censes procurer une certaine prcision quant aux
droits et obligations relatifs la proprit et la gouvernance. Au lieu dinstituer des mcanismes ponctuels facilitant la rconciliation, les traits rcents
visent inscrire les relations entre Autochtones et
non-Autochtones dans le systme juridique gnral,
avec les avantages que cela prsente au plan de la
continuit, de la transparence et de la prvisibilit.
Il appartient aux parties, lorsque lapplication des
traits suscite des difficults, dagir de faon diligente pour faire valoir leurs intrts respectifs. Une
bonne gouvernance suppose que les dcisions soient
prises en temps opportun. Dans la mesure o le gouvernement territorial du Yukon plaide que les traits
du Yukon constituent un nouveau dpart et non pas
simplement un prolongement du statu quo, je crois
quil a raison. Toutefois, comme le juge Veale la si
justement fait remarquer en premire instance, le
nouveau dpart ne reprsente quune tape mais
une tape trs importante dans le long voyage de
la rconciliation (par. 69).

[13] There was in this case, as mentioned, an


express treaty right of members of the First Nation
to hunt and fish for subsistence on their traditional
lands, now surrendered and classified as Crown
lands. While the LSCFN Treaty did not prevent
the government from making land grants out of the
Crowns land holdings, and indeed it contemplated
such an eventuality, it was obvious that such grants
might adversely affect the traditional economic
activities of the LSCFN, and the territorial
government was required to consult with the
LSCFN to determine the nature and extent of such
adverse effects.

[13] Comme je lai indiqu, le trait PNLSC


confrait expressment aux membres de la premire
nation, dans le cas prsent, un droit de chasse et
de pche de subsistance sur leurs terres ancestrales, qui ont fait lobjet dune cession et sont maintenant considres comme des terres de la Couronne.
Mme si le trait ninterdisait pas aux autorits
doctroyer des terres faisant partie des terres de la
Couronne, en fait, cette possibilit y tait envisage il tait vident que cela risquait davoir des
consquences ngatives sur les activits conomiques traditionnelles de la PNLSC, et le gouvernement territorial tait tenu de consulter cette dernire afin de dterminer la nature et ltendue de
ces consquences ngatives.

[14] The delegated statutory decision maker was


the appellant David Beckman, the Director of the
Agriculture Branch of the territorial Department of
Energy, Mines and Resources. He was authorized,
subject to the treaty provisions, to issue land grants

[14] Le dcideur dlgu en vertu de la loi tait


lappelant David Beckman, le directeur de la
Direction de lagriculture du ministre de lnergie,
des Mines et des Ressources du Yukon. Il tait autoris, sous rserve des clauses du trait, concder

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

120

Page 18 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks Le juge Binnie

121

to non-settlement lands under the Lands Act, R.S.Y.


2002, c. 132, and the Territorial Lands (Yukon)
Act, S.Y. 2003, c. 17. The First Nation argues that
in exercising his discretion to approve the grant
the Director was required to have regard to First
Nations concerns and to engage in consultation.
This is true. The First Nation goes too far, however,
in seeking to impose on the territorial government
not only the procedural protection of consultation
but also a substantive right of accommodation. The
First Nation protests that its concerns were not
taken seriously if they had been, it contends, the
Paulsen application would have been denied. This
overstates the scope of the duty to consult in this
case. The First Nation does not have a veto over the
approval process. No such substantive right is found
in the treaty or in the general law, constitutional
or otherwise. The Paulsen application had been
pending almost three years before it was eventually
approved. It was a relatively minor parcel of 65
hectares whose agricultural use, according to the
advice received by the Director (and which he was
entitled to accept), would not have any significant
adverse effect on First Nations interests.

des terres non vises par un rglement en vertu de la


Loi sur les terres, L.R.Y. 2002, ch. 132, et de la Loi
du Yukon sur les terres territoriales, L.Y. 2003, ch.
17. Selon la premire nation, le directeur tait oblig,
dans lexercice de son pouvoir discrtionnaire dapprouver la concession de terres, de tenir compte des
proccupations de la premire nation et de tenir des
consultations. Cest exact. Mais la premire nation
va trop loin lorsquelle prtend imposer au gouvernement territorial non seulement la protection procdurale quoffre la consultation, mais galement le
respect dun droit substantif laccommodement. La
premire nation se plaint de ce que ses proccupations nont pas t prises au srieux sinon, ditelle, la demande de M. Paulsen aurait t rejete.
Elle se trouve ainsi largir indment lobligation
de consulter en lespce. La premire nation ne jouit
pas dun droit de veto lgard du processus dapprobation. Aucun droit semblable nest prvu par
le trait ni par le droit commun, constitutionnel ou
autre. La demande de M. Paulsen est demeure en
suspens pendant prs de trois ans avant dtre finalement approuve. Elle concernait une parcelle relativement petite de 65 hectares dont lutilisation des
fins agricoles, suivant lavis reu par le directeur
un avis quil tait en droit daccepter naurait
aucune incidence ngative notable sur les intrts de
la premire nation.

[15] Unlike Mikisew Cree where some


accommodation was possible through a rerouting
of the proposed winter road, in this case, the stark
decision before the appellant Director was to grant
or refuse the modified Paulsen application. He
had before him the relevant information. Faceto-face consultation between the First Nation and
the Director (as decision maker) was not required.
In my view, the decision was reasonable having
regard to the terms of the treaty, and in reaching
it the Director did not breach the requirements of
the duty to consult, natural justice, or procedural
fairness. There was no constitutional impediment
to approval of the Paulsen application and from an
administrative law perspective the outcome fell
within a range of reasonable outcomes.

[15] Contrairement la situation dans Premire


nation crie Mikisew, o un accommodement tait
possible par la modification du trac de la route
hivernale projete, dans la prsente affaire, la
dcision consistait purement et simplement, pour
le directeur appelant, accorder ou rejeter la
demande modifie de M. Paulsen. Il disposait de
linformation pertinente. Les reprsentants de la
premire nation et le directeur (en tant que dcideur) ntaient pas tenus de se rencontrer pour tenir
des consultations. Je suis davis que la dcision tait
raisonnable, compte tenu des termes du trait, et
que le directeur, lorsquil la prise, na en aucun cas
cart lobligation de tenir des consultations, la justice naturelle ou lquit procdurale. Il nexistait
aucun obstacle constitutionnel lapprobation de la
demande de M. Paulsen, et du point de vue du droit
administratif, le rsultat entrait dans la gamme des
rsultats raisonnables.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 19 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Binnie J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

II. Facts

II. Les faits

[16] On November 5, 2001, Larry Paulsen


submitted his application for an agricultural land
grant of 65 hectares. He planned to grow hay,
put up some buildings and raise livestock. The
procedure governing such grant applications was
set out in a pre-treaty territorial government policy,
Agriculture for the 90s: A Yukon Policy (1991) (the
1991 Agriculture Policy).

[16] Le 5 novembre 2001, Larry Paulsen a prsent une demande de concession de 65 hectares
de terres agricoles. Il projetait de cultiver du fourrage, de construire quelques btiments et dlever
du btail. La faon de traiter de telles demandes
tait nonce dans une politique du gouvernement
territorial antrieure au trait, intitule Agriculture
for the 90s : A Yukon Policy (1991) (la Politique
agricole pour 1991 ).

[17] The Paulsen application (eventually in


the form of a Farm Development Plan) was
pre-screened by the Agriculture Branch and the
Lands Branch as well as the Land Claims and
Implementation Secretariat (all staffed by territorial
civil servants) for completeness and compliance
with current government policies.

[17] La Direction de lagriculture et la Direction


des terres ainsi que le Secrtariat des revendications territoriales (le personnel de tous ces services
tant form de fonctionnaires territoriaux) ont procd un examen prliminaire de la demande de
M. Paulsen (devenue depuis un plan de dveloppement agricole ), afin de vrifier si la demande
tait complte et respectait les politiques gouvernementales en vigueur.

[18] The Paulsen application was then sent to the


Agriculture Land Application Review Committee
(ALARC) for a more in-depth technical review
by various Yukon government officials. ALARC
was established under the 1991 Agriculture Policy.
It predates and is completely independent from the
treaty. The civil servants on ALARC recommended
that Mr. Paulsen reconfigure his parcel to include
only the bench of land set back from the Yukon
River for reasons related to the suitability of the
soil and unspecified environmental, wildlife, and
trapping concerns. Mr. Paulsen complied.

[18] La demande de M. Paulsen a ensuite t


transmise au Comit dexamen des demandes
concernant les terres agricoles ( CEDTA ), o
elle devait faire lobjet dun examen technique plus
approfondi par divers fonctionnaires du Yukon.
Institu en vertu de la Politique agricole pour 1991,
le CEDTA est antrieur au trait et na rien voir
avec celui-ci. Les fonctionnaires du CEDTA ont
recommand M. Paulsen de redlimiter sa parcelle de terre de faon ny inclure que la partie
du terrain formant terrasse en retrait du fleuve
Yukon, pour des raisons lies aux caractristiques du sol et des proccupations non prcises
concernant lenvironnement, la faune et la flore
ainsi que le pigeage. M. Paulsen sest conform
cette recommandation.

[19] On February 24, 2004, ALARC recommended that the Paulsen application for the parcel,
as reconfigured, proceed to the next level of review,
namely, the Land Application Review Committee
(LARC), which includes First Nations representatives. LARC also functioned under the 1991
Agriculture Policy and, as well, existed entirely
independently of the treaties.

[19] Le 24 fvrier 2004, le CEDTA a recommand que la demande de M. Paulsen, ainsi redlimite, soit soumise au palier dexamen suprieur, soit celui du Comit dexamen des demandes
dalination de terres ( CEDAT ), o sigent des
reprsentants des premires nations. Le CEDAT
exerait des fonctions prvues la Politique agricole pour 1991 et il navait lui non plus rien voir
avec les traits.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

122

Page 20 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks Le juge Binnie

123

[20] Reference should also be made at this point


to the Fish and Wildlife Management Board a
treaty body composed of persons nominated by the
First Nation and Yukon government which in
August 2004 (i.e. while the Paulsen application was
pending) adopted a Fish and Wildlife Management
Plan (FWMP) that identified a need to protect
wildlife and habitat in the area of the Yukon River,
which includes the Paulsen lands. It proposed that
an area in the order of some 10,000 hectares be
designated as a Habitat Protection Area under the
Wildlife Act, R.S.Y. 2002, c. 229. The FWMP also
recognized the need to preserve the First Nations
ability to transfer its culture and traditions to its
youth through opportunities to participate in traditional activities. The FWMP did not, however, call
for a freeze on approval of agricultural land grants
in the area pending action on the FWMP proposals.

[20] Il faut aussi mentionner la Commission de


gestion des ressources halieutiques et fauniques
un organe constitu par le trait dont les membres
sont dsigns par la premire nation et le gouvernement du Yukon qui, en aot 2004 (soit pendant que la demande de M. Paulsen tait toujours
ltude) a adopt un plan de gestion des ressources
halieutiques et fauniques ( PGRHF ) faisant tat
de la ncessit de protger la faune et son habitat
dans la rgion du fleuve Yukon o se trouvent les
terres demandes par M. Paulsen. Il y tait propos
quune superficie de quelque 10 000 hectares soit
dsigne comme rgion de protection de lhabitat
sous le rgime de la Loi sur la faune, L.R.Y. 2002,
ch. 229. tait en outre reconnue dans le PGRHF
la ncessit de prserver la capacit de la premire
nation de transmettre sa culture et ses traditions aux
nouvelles gnrations en leur donnant loccasion de
participer des activits traditionnelles. Le PGRHF
ne prvoyait cependant pas le gel des approbations
de concession de terres agricoles dans la rgion
jusqu ce quil ait t donn suite aux propositions
contenues dans le plan.

[21] Trapline #143 was registered to Johnny Sam,


a member of the LSCFN. His trapline is in a category administered by the Yukon government, not
the First Nation. It helps him to earn a livelihood as
well as to provide a training ground for his grandchildren and other First Nation youth in the ways of
trapping and living off the land. The trapline covers
an area of approximately 21,435 hectares. As noted
by the Court of Appeal, the 65 hectares applied for
by Mr. Paulsen is approximately one-third of one
percent of the trapline. A portion of the trapline had
already been damaged by forest fire, which, in the
LSCFN view, added to the significance of the loss
of a further 65 hectares. The severity of the impact
of land grants, whether taken individually or cumulatively, properly constituted an important element
of the consultation with LARC and, ultimately, a
relevant consideration to be taken into account by
the Director in reaching his decision.

[21] Le territoire de pigeage no 143 a t enregistr au nom de Johnny Sam, un membre de la


PNLSC. Ce territoire de pigeage appartient
une catgorie administre par le gouvernement du
Yukon, et non par la premire nation. Johnny Sam
lutilise comme gagne-pain partiel et comme une
base o ses petits-enfants ainsi que dautres jeunes
de la premire nation sy entranent aux mthodes
de pigeage et y apprennent vivre des ressources
de la nature. Le territoire de pigeage stend sur
une superficie denviron 21 435 hectares. Comme
la relev la Cour dappel, la parcelle de 65 hectares vise par la demande de M. Paulsen correspond
approximativement un tiers de un pour cent du
territoire de pigeage en question. Une partie du
territoire de pigeage avait dj t dtriore par
un incendie de fort, ce qui, pour la PNLSC, avait
pour effet de rendre plus onreuse la perte de 65
autres hectares. La grande incidence des concessions de terres, prises individuellement ou cumulativement, constituait juste titre pour le CEDAT
un lment important de la consultation et, en dfinitive, une considration pertinente que le directeur
devait prendre en compte pour rendre sa dcision.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 21 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Binnie J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

[22] The LARC meeting to discuss the Paulsen


application was scheduled for August 13, 2004.
The First Nation received notice and was invited to
provide comments prior to the meeting and to participate in the discussion as a member of LARC.

[22] Le CEDAT devait se runir le 13 aot 2004


pour discuter de la demande de M. Paulsen. La
premire nation en a t avise; elle a t invite
prsenter des observations avant la runion et
participer la discussion en sa qualit de membre
du CEDAT.

[23] On July 27, 2004, the First Nation submitted a letter of opposition to the Paulsen application.
The letter identified concerns about impacts on
Trapline #143, nearby timber harvesting, the loss
of animals to hunt in the area, and adjacent cultural and heritage sites. No reference was made in
the First Nations letter to Johnny Sams concerns
about cultural transfer or to the FWMP. The letter
simply states that [t]he combination of agricultural
and timber harvesting impacts on this alreadydamaged trapline would certainly be a significant
deterrent to the ability of the trapper to continue his
traditional pursuits (A.R., vol. II, at p. 22).

[23] Le 27 juillet 2004, la premire nation a


exprim par lettre son opposition la demande
de M. Paulsen. La lettre faisait tat de proccupations touchant les incidences sur le territoire de pigeage no 143, la rcolte de bois dans les environs,
la perte danimaux pour la chasse dans la rgion
et certains sites dintrt culturel et patrimonial.
La lettre de la premire nation ne faisait pas mention des proccupations de Johnny Sam concernant la transmission de la culture, ni du PGRHF.
Il y tait simplement crit que [traduCtion] [l]a
conjugaison dincidences relatives lagriculture
et la rcolte de bois sur ce territoire de pigeage
dj dtrior aurait certainement un effet dissuasif
notable quant la possibilit pour le trappeur de
continuer se livrer ses activits traditionnelles
(d.a., vol. II, p. 22).

[24] Nobody from the LSCFN attended the


August 13, 2004 meeting. Susan Davis, its usual
representative, was unable to attend for undisclosed
reasons. The meeting went on as planned.

[24] Aucun reprsentant de la PNLSC ntait prsent la runion du 13 aot 2004. Susan Davis,
la personne qui reprsentait habituellement la
premire nation, na pu y assister pour des raisons non prcises. La runion a eu lieu comme
prvu.

[25] The members of LARC who were present


(mainly territorial government officials) considered the Paulsen application and recommended
approval in principle. The minutes of the August
13 meeting show that LARC did consider the concerns voiced by the LSCFN in its July 27, 2004
letter. Those present at the meeting concluded that
the impact of the loss of 65 hectares on Trapline
#143 would be minimal as the Paulsen application
covered a very small portion of the traplines overall
area and noted that Johnny Sam could apply under
Chapter 16 of the LSCFN Treaty for compensation for any diminution in its value. LARC recommended an archaeological survey to address potential heritage and cultural sites. (An archaeological
assessment was later conducted and reported on

[25] Les membres du CEDAT qui taient prsents (principalement des fonctionnaires du gouvernement territorial) ont tudi la demande de
M. Paulsen et en ont recommand lapprobation
de principe. Le procs-verbal de la runion du 13
aot indique que le CEDAT a bel et bien pris en
considration les proccupations exprimes par la
PNLSC dans sa lettre du 27 juillet 2004. Les personnes prsentes la runion sont arrives la
conclusion que la perte de 65 hectares aurait une
incidence minime sur le territoire de pigeage no
143, du fait que la demande de M. Paulsen visait
une trs petite partie du territoire en question. Elles
ont signal que Johnny Sam pouvait, en vertu du
chapitre 16 du trait PNLSC, demander une indemnisation pour toute diminution de la valeur du

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

124

Page 22 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks Le juge Binnie

125

September 2, 2004, that it was unable to identify


any sites that would be impacted adversely by the
grant.)

territoire de pigeage. Le CEDAT a recommand


quon procde une reconnaissance archologique
au sujet des sites dintrt patrimonial et culturel.
(Une valuation archologique a t effectue par
la suite, et selon le rapport en date du 2 septembre
2004, elle na permis lidentification daucun site sur
lequel loctroi de la parcelle aurait des incidences
ngatives.)

[26] On September 8, 2004, the First Nation representatives met with Agriculture Branch staff who
were conducting an agricultural policy review. The
meeting did not focus specifically on the Paulsen
application. Nevertheless, the First Nation made the
general point that its concerns were not being taken
seriously. Agriculture Branch officials replied that
they consult on such matters through LARC but
they were not required by the Final Agreement to
consult on such issues. Meetings and discussions
with the First Nation had been conducted, they
said, only as a courtesy.

[26] Le 8 septembre 2004, des reprsentants de


la premire nation ont rencontr les fonctionnaires
de la Direction de lagriculture qui procdaient
un examen de la politique agricole. Cette rencontre na pas port spcifiquement sur la demande
de M. Paulsen. La premire nation a tout de mme
signal que ses proccupations navaient pas t
prises au srieux. Les fonctionnaires ont rpondu
quils tiennent des consultations sur ces questions
dans le cadre du CEDAT, mais que lEntente dfinitive ne les obligeait pas tenir des consultations sur
de telles questions. Cest uniquement par courtoisie,
ont-ils dit, quon avait tenu des runions et des discussions avec la premire nation.

[27] On October 18, 2004, the Director approved


the Paulsen application and sent a letter to Larry
Paulsen, informing him of that fact. He did not
notify the LSCFN of his decision, as he ought to
have done.

[27] Le 18 octobre 2004, le Directeur a approuv


la demande de M. Paulsen et lui a envoy une lettre
pour len informer. Il na pas avis la PNLSC de sa
dcision, ce quil aurait d faire.

[28] Apparently unaware that the Paulsen application had been approved, the First Nation continued
to express its opposition by way of a series of letters from Chief Eddie Skookum to the Yukon government. Johnny Sam also wrote letters expressing
his opposition. It seems the government officials
failed to disclose that the Directors decision to
approve the grant had already been made. This had
the unfortunate effect of undermining appropriate
communication between the parties.

[28] Ntant apparemment pas au courant de lapprobation de la demande de M. Paulsen, la premire


nation a continu manifester son opposition par
une srie de lettres adresses par le chef Eddie
Skookum au gouvernement du Yukon. Johnny Sam
a lui aussi crit des lettres dans lesquelles il faisait
part de son opposition. Les fonctionnaires semblent
avoir tu le fait que le directeur avait dj dcid
dapprouver la concession de la parcelle de terre.
Cette omission a eu pour effet malheureux de miner
la communication opportune entre les parties.

[29] In the summer of 2005, Susan Davis, representing the First Nation, made enquiries of the
Agriculture Branch and obtained confirmation that
the Paulsen application had already been approved.
She was sent a copy of the October 18, 2004
approval letter.

[29] Au cours de lt 2005, Susan Davis, la


reprsentante de la premire nation, a demand la
Direction de lagriculture o en tait le dossier. On
lui a confirm que la demande de M. Paulsen avait
dj t approuve et on lui a fait parvenir une copie
de la lettre dapprobation du 18 octobre 2004.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 23 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Binnie J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

[30] In response, by letter dated August 24,


2005, the First Nation launched an administrative
appeal of the Paulsen grant to the Assistant Deputy
Minister.

[30] En rponse, la premire nation, par une lettre


du 24 aot 2005, a fait appel de la concession de
la parcelle M. Paulsen auprs du sous-ministre
adjoint.

[31] On December 12, 2005, the request to


review the decision was rejected on the basis that
the First Nation had no right of appeal because it
was a member of LARC, and not just an intervener
under the LARC Terms of Reference. The Terms of
Reference specify that only applicants or interveners may initiate an appeal. The Terms of Reference
had no legislative or treaty basis whatsoever, but
the Yukon government nevertheless treated them as
binding both on the government and on the First
Nation.

[31] Le 12 dcembre 2005, la demande dexamen


de la dcision a t rejete au motif que la premire
nation navait aucun droit dappel, puisquen vertu
du mandat du CEDAT, elle tait un membre de ce
comit et non simplement un intervenant. Il est prcis dans ce mandat que seuls les demandeurs ou les
intervenants peuvent former un appel. Le mandat
ne trouvait aucun fondement dans un texte lgislatif
ou un trait, mais le gouvernement du Yukon considrait tout de mme quil liait tant le gouvernement
que la premire nation.

[32] Frustrated by the territorial governments


approach, which it believed broadly misconceived
and undermined relations between the territorial
government and the LSCFN, the First Nation initiated the present application for judicial review.

[32] Irrite par la dmarche du gouvernement territorial qui, selon elle, dnaturait et bafouait gravement les relations entre le gouvernement et la
PNLSC, la premire nation a prsent la demande
de contrle judiciaire lorigine du pourvoi.

III. Analysis

III. Analyse

[33] The decision to entrench in s. 35 of the


Constitution Act, 1982 the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights,
signalled a commitment by Canadas political leaders to protect and preserve constitutional space for
Aboriginal peoples to be Aboriginal. At the same
time, Aboriginal people do not, by reason of their
Aboriginal heritage, cease to be citizens who fully
participate with other Canadians in their collective
governance. This duality is particularly striking in
the Yukon, where about 25 percent of the population
identify themselves as Aboriginal. The territorial
government, elected in part by Aboriginal people,
represents Aboriginal people as much as it does
non-Aboriginal people, even though Aboriginal
culture and tradition are and will remain distinctive.

[33] Par la dcision dinscrire lart. 35 de la Loi


constitutionnelle de 1982 la reconnaissance et la
confirmation des droits existants ancestraux ou
issus de traits des peuples autochtones, les dirigeants politiques du Canada sengageaient protger et prserver un espace constitutionnel permettant aux Autochtones dtre des Autochtones. Mais
lexistence de leur hritage autochtone ne fait pas en
sorte que les Autochtones cessent dtre des citoyens
qui participent pleinement avec les autres Canadiens
leur gouvernance collective. Cette dualit est particulirement frappante au Yukon, o environ 25
pour 100 de la population se rclame dune identit autochtone. Le gouvernement territorial, lu en
partie par les Autochtones, reprsente tout autant
ces derniers que les non-Autochtones, mme si la
culture et la tradition autochtones conservent maintenant et pour lavenir leur caractre distinctif.

[34] Underlying the present appeal is not only the


need to respect the rights and reasonable expectations of Johnny Sam and other members of his
community, but the rights and expectations of

[34] la base du prsent pourvoi, il y a la ncessit


de respecter non seulement les droits et les attentes
raisonnables de Johnny Sam et dautres membres de
sa communaut, mais aussi ceux dautres habitants

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

126

Page 24 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

127

c. little salmon/CarmaCks Le juge Binnie

other Yukon residents, including both Aboriginal


people and Larry Paulsen, to good government.
The Yukon treaties are intended, in part, to replace
expensive and time-consuming ad hoc procedures
with mutually agreed upon legal mechanisms that
are efficient but fair.

du Yukon, y compris les Autochtones et Larry


Paulsen, relativement un bon gouvernement. Les
traits du Yukon visent notamment substituer
des procdures ponctuelles coteuses en temps et
en argent des mcanismes juridiques mutuellement
accepts qui sont efficaces tout en tant quitables.

[35] I believe the existence of Larry Paulsens


stake in this situation is of considerable importance.
Unlike Mikisew Cree, which involved a dispute
between the Federal government and the Mikisew
Cree First Nation over the route of a winter road,
Mr. Paulsen made his application as an ordinary
citizen who was entitled to a government decision
reached with procedural fairness within a reasonable time. On the other hand, the entitlement of
the trapper Johnny Sam was a derivative benefit
based on the collective interest of the First Nation
of which he was a member. I agree with the Court
of Appeal that he was not, as an individual, a necessary party to the consultation.

[35] Je crois que lexistence de lintrt de Larry


Paulsen dans la prsente situation revt une importance considrable. Contrairement ce qui tait le
cas dans laffaire Premire nation crie Mikisew,
o le litige opposait le gouvernement fdral et
la Premire nation crie Mikisew au sujet du trac
dune route hivernale, M. Paulsen a prsent sa
demande en qualit de simple citoyen ayant droit
une dcision gouvernementale prise conformment
lquit procdurale dans un dlai raisonnable. Par
ailleurs, le droit du trappeur Johnny Sam constituait
un avantage driv quil tenait de lintrt collectif de la premire nation dont il tait membre. Je
suis daccord avec la cour dappel pour dire quil
ntait pas, titre individuel, une partie ncessaire
la consultation.

A. The LSCFN Treaty Reflects a Balance of Inter


ests

A. Le trait PNLSC prsente un juste quilibre


des intrts

[36] Under the treaty, the LSCFN surrendered


all undefined Aboriginal rights, title, and interests in its traditional territory in return for which
it received:

[36] Aux termes du trait, la PNLSC a renonc


la totalit de ses droits, titres et intrts ancestraux
non prciss concernant son territoire traditionnel,
en change de quoi elle a reu :

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

[traduCtion]

title to 2,589 square kilometres of settlement


land [Chapters 9 and 15];

un titre lgard dune superficie de 2 589 kilomtres carrs de terres vises par le rglement [chapitres 9 et 15];

financial compensation of $34,179,210 [Chapter


19];

une indemnisation pcuniaire de 34 179 210 $ [chapitre 19];

potential for royalty sharing [Chapter 23];

une possibilit de partage des redevances [chapitre


23];

economic development measures [Chapter 22];

des mesures de dveloppement conomique [chapitre 22];

rights of access to Crown land (except that disposed of by agreement for sale, surface licence, or
lease) [Chapter 6];

des droits daccs aux terres de la Couronne ( lexception de celles faisant lobjet dun contrat de vente,
dun permis ou dun bail de surface) [chapitre 6];

special management areas [Chapter 10];

des zones spciales de gestion [chapitre 10];

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 25 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Binnie J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

protection of access to settlement land [s. 6.2.7];

la protection de laccs aux terres vises par le


rglement [art. 6.2.7];

rights to harvest fish and wildlife [Chapter 16];

des droits relatifs la rcolte des ressources halieutiques et fauniques [chapitre 16];

rights to harvest forest resources [Chapter 17];

des droits relatifs la rcolte des ressources forestires [chapitre 17];

rights to representation and involvement in land


use planning [Chapter 11] and resource management [Chapters 14, 16-18].

des droits relatifs la reprsentation et la participation dans le cadre de lamnagement du territoire


[chapitre 11] et de la gestion des ressources [chapitres 14, 16-18].

(C.A. reasons, para. 41)

(motifs de la C.A., par. 41)

These are substantial benefits, especially when


compared to the sparse offerings of earlier treaties such as those provided to the Mikisew Cree in
Treaty No. 8. With the substantive benefits, however, came not only rights but duties and obligations. It is obvious that the long-term interdependent relationship thus created will require work and
good will on both sides for its success.

Il sagit l davantages substantiels, surtout si on les


compare aux rares avantages offerts par les anciens
traits comme ceux accords la Premire nation
crie Mikisew dans le Trait no 8. Ces avantages
considrables, toutefois, saccompagnaient non seulement de droits, mais aussi dobligations. La russite de la relation dinterdpendance long terme
qui a t tablie ncessitera de toute vidence du
travail et de la bonne volont de part et dautre.

[37] The reason for the governments tight-lipped


reaction to the unfolding Paulsen situation, as
explained to us at the hearing by its counsel, was
the fear that if the duty of consultation applies,
these parties will be in court like parties are in
areas where there are no treaties, and there will
be litigation over whether the consultation applies;
what is the appropriate level of the consultation?
Is accommodation required? It is all under court
supervision (transcript, at p. 18). The history of
this appeal shows, however, that taking a hard line
does not necessarily speed matters up or make litigation go away.

[37] Le silence du gouvernement face la situation que prsentait la demande de M. Paulsen,


comme la expliqu lavocat du gouvernement
laudience, tait attribuable la crainte que, dans
le cas o lobligation de consulter sappliquerait,
[traduCtion] les parties se trouveront devant le
tribunal dans la mme situation que dans les domaines o il nexiste pas de trait, et on dbattra la question de savoir si la consultation sapplique, ainsi que
celles de savoir quel est le niveau de consultation
requis et si un accommodement est ncessaire. Tout
est soumis la supervision du tribunal (transcription, p. 18). Lhistorique du prsent pourvoi montre
cependant que ladoption de la ligne dure nacclre pas ncessairement les choses, pas plus quelle
nlimine les litiges.

[38] The denial by the Yukon territorial government of any duty to consult except as specifically
listed in the LSCFN Treaty complicated the Paulsen
situation because at the time the Director dealt with
the application the treaty implementation provision
contemplated in Chapter 12 had itself not yet been
implemented. I do not believe the Yukon Treaty
was intended to be a complete code. Be that as it

[38] La ngation, par le gouvernement territorial


du Yukon, de toute obligation de consulter sauf dans
les cas prvus spcifiquement dans le trait PNLSC
a compliqu la situation que prsentait la demande
de M. Paulsen car, lpoque o le directeur a pris
une dcision sur la demande, la disposition relative la mise en uvre du trait envisage au chapitre 12 navait elle-mme pas encore t mise en

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

128

Page 26 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks Le juge Binnie

129

may, the duty to consult is derived from the honour


of the Crown which applies independently of the
expressed or implied intention of the parties (see
below, at para. 61). In any event, the procedural gap
created by the failure to implement Chapter 12 had
to be addressed, and the First Nation, in my view,
was quite correct in calling in aid the duty of consultation in putting together an appropriate procedural framework.

uvre. Je ne crois pas que le trait du Yukon tait


cens constituer un code complet . Quoi quil en
soit, lobligation de consulter dcoule du principe
de lhonneur de la Couronne, qui sapplique indpendamment de lintention expresse ou implicite
des parties (voir le par. 61 ci-aprs). De toute faon,
il fallait remdier la lacune procdurale suscite
par labsence de mise en uvre du chapitre 12, et
la premire nation a eu tout fait raison mon avis
dinvoquer lobligation de consulter et dtablir un
cadre de procdure appropri.

[39] Nevertheless, consultation was made available and did take place through the LARC process
under the 1991 Agriculture Policy, and the ultimate
question is whether what happened in this case
(even though it was mischaracterized by the territorial government as a courtesy rather than as the
fulfilment of a legal obligation) was sufficient. In
Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia
(Project Assessment Director), 2004 SCC 74,
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 550, the Court held that participation in a forum created for other purposes may nevertheless satisfy the duty to consult if in substance
an appropriate level of consultation is provided.

[39] Quoi quil en soit, la consultation a effecti


vement t rendue possible et a bel et bien eu lieu
dans le cadre du processus du CEDAT en vertu de
la Politique agricole pour 1991. En dernire analyse,
la question trancher est de savoir si, dans la prsente affaire, ce que lon a fait tait suffisant (bien
que le gouvernement territorial y ait vu tort une
mesure de courtoisie plutt que lexcution dune
obligation juridique). Dans Premire nation Tlingit
de Taku River c. ColombieBritannique (Directeur
dvaluation de projet), 2004 CSC 74, [2004] 3
R.C.S. 550, la Cour a conclu que la participation
un forum cr pour dautres besoins peut tout de
mme satisfaire lobligation de consulter si, pour
lessentiel, un niveau appropri de consultation a
t rendu possible.

B. The Relationship Between Section 35 and the


Duty to Consult

B. La relation entre lart. 35 et lobligation de


consulter

[40] The First Nation relies in particular on the


following statements in Haida Nation v. British
Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73,
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 511, at para. 20:

[40] La premire nation se fonde en particulier


sur le passage suivant de larrt Nation hada c.
ColombieBritannique (Ministre des Forts), 2004
CSC 73, [2004] 3 R.C.S. 511, par. 20 :

It is a corollary of s. 35 that the Crown act honourably in defining the rights it guarantees and in reconciling them with other rights and interests. This, in turn,
implies a duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate.

Larticle 35 a pour corollaire que la Couronne doit agir


honorablement lorsquil sagit de dfinir les droits garantis par celui-ci et de les concilier avec dautres droits et
intrts. Cette obligation emporte son tour celle de
consulter et, sil y a lieu, daccommoder.

Further, at para. 32:

galement, au par. 32 :

The jurisprudence of this Court supports the view


that the duty to consult and accommodate is part of a
process of fair dealing and reconciliation that begins
with the assertion of sovereignty and continues beyond
formal claims resolution. Reconciliation is not a final

La jurisprudence de la Cour taye le point de vue


selon lequel lobligation de consulter et daccommoder
fait partie intgrante du processus de ngociation honorable et de conciliation qui dbute au moment de laffirmation de la souverainet et se poursuit au-del du

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 27 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Binnie J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

legal remedy in the usual sense. Rather, it is a process flowing from rights guaranteed by s. 35(1) of the
Constitution Act, 1982. [Emphasis added.]

rglement formel des revendications. La conciliation ne


constitue pas une rparation juridique dfinitive au sens
usuel du terme. Il sagit plutt dun processus dcoulant
des droits garantis par le par. 35(1) de la Loi constitu
tionnelle de 1982. [Je souligne.]

[41] Reference should also be made to R. v. Kapp,


2008 SCC 41, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 483, at para. 6, where
the Court said:

[41] On peut galement citer larrt R. c. Kapp,


2008 CSC 41, [2008] 2 R.C.S. 483, par. 6, o la
Cour a dit ce qui suit :

The decision to enhance aboriginal participation in


the commercial fishery may also be seen as a response
to the directive of this Court in Sparrow, at p. 1119,
that the government consult with aboriginal groups in
the implementation of fishery regulation in order to
honour its fiduciary duty to aboriginal communities.
Subsequent decisions have affirmed the duty to consult
and accommodate aboriginal communities with respect
to resource development and conservation; it is a constitutional duty, the fulfilment of which is consistent
with the honour of the Crown: see e.g. Delgamuukw
v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010. [Emphasis
added.]

La dcision de favoriser la participation des Autochtones


la pche commerciale peut aussi tre perue comme
une rponse la directive donne par notre Cour dans
larrt Sparrow, p. 1119, selon laquelle, en appliquant
la rglementation sur les pches, le gouvernement doit
consulter les groupes autochtones afin de respecter lobligation de fiduciaire quil a envers ces collectivits. Des
arrts subsquents ont confirm lobligation de consulter
et daccommoder les collectivits autochtones dans les
domaines de lexploitation et de la conservation des ressources; il sagit l dune obligation constitutionnelle qui
concorde avec le principe de lhonneur de la Couronne :
voir, par exemple, larrt Delgamuukw c. Colombie
Britannique, [1997] 3 R.C.S. 1010. [Je souligne.]

[42] The obligation of honourable dealing was recognized from the outset by the Crown itself in the
Royal Proclamation of 1763 (reproduced in R.S.C.
1985, App. II, No. 1), in which the British Crown
pledged its honour to the protection of Aboriginal
peoples from exploitation by non-Aboriginal peoples. The honour of the Crown has since become an
important anchor in this area of the law: see R. v.
Taylor (1981), 62 C.C.C. (2d) 227 (Ont. C.A.), leave
to appeal refused, [1981] 2 S.C.R. xi; R. v. Sparrow,
[1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; R. v. Nikal, [1996] 1 S.C.R.
1013; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997]
3 S.C.R. 1010; as well as Badger, Marshall and
Mikisew Cree, previously referred to. The honour
of the Crown has thus been confirmed in its status
as a constitutional principle.

[42] Lobligation de se conduire honorablement


a t reconnue ds le dpart par la Couronne ellemme dans la Proclamation royale de 1763 (L.R.C.
1985, App. II, no 1). La Couronne britannique
sy engageait sur lhonneur protger les peuples
autochtones contre lexploitation de la part des peuples non autochtones. Lhonneur de la Couronne est
devenu depuis lors un important point dancrage
dans ce domaine du droit : voir R. c. Taylor (1981),
62 C.C.C. (2d) 227 (C.A. Ont.), autorisation dappel
refuse, [1981] 2 R.C.S. xi; R. c. Sparrow, [1990]
1 R.C.S. 1075; R. c. Nikal, [1996] 1 R.C.S. 1013;
Delgamuukw c. ColombieBritannique, [1997]
3 R.C.S. 1010, de mme que Badger, Marshall et
Premire nation crie Mikisew, dont il a dj t fait
tat. Lhonneur de la Couronne a par consquent t
confirm dans son statut de principe constitutionnel.

[43] However, this is not to say that every policy


and procedure of the law adopted to uphold the
honour of the Crown is itself to be treated as if
inscribed in s. 35. As the Chief Justice noted in
Haida Nation, [t]he honour of the Crown gives
rise to different duties in different circumstances
(para. 18). This appeal considers its application in

[43] Il ne faut pas en conclure pour autant que toute


politique et procdure juridique adopte en vue de
prserver lhonneur de la Couronne doive elle-mme
tre considre comme inscrite dans lart. 35. Ainsi
que la soulign la Juge en chef dans Nation hada,
[l]honneur de la Couronne fait natre diffrentes obligations selon les circonstances (par. 18).

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

130

Page 28 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks Le juge Binnie

131

the modern treaty context; its application where no


treaty has yet been signed was recently the subject
of this Courts decision in Rio Tinto Alcan Inc.
v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43,
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 650.

Dans le prsent pourvoi, nous examinons lapplication du principe de lhonneur de la Couronne


dans le contexte dun trait rcent; son application
lorsquaucun trait na t sign a rcemment fait
lobjet de la dcision de notre Cour dans Rio Tinto
Alcan Inc. c. Conseil tribal Carrier Sekani, 2010
CSC 43, [2010] 2 R.C.S. 650.

[44] The respondents submission, if I may put


it broadly, is that because the duty to consult is
constitutional, therefore there must be a reciprocal constitutional right of the First Nation to be
consulted, and constitutional rights of Aboriginal
peoples are not subject to abrogation or derogation
except as can be justified under the high test set out
in Sparrow. On this view, more or less every case
dealing with consultation in the interpretation and
implementation of treaties becomes a constitutional
case. The trouble with this argument is that the content of the duty to consult varies with the circumstances. In relation to what Haida Nation called a
spectrum of consultation (para. 43), it cannot be
said that consultation at the lower end of the spectrum instead of at the higher end must be justified
under the Sparrow doctrine. The minimal content
of the consultation imposed in Mikisew Cree (para.
64), for example, did not have to be justified as
a limitation on what would otherwise be a right to
deep consultation. The circumstances in Mikisew
Cree never gave rise to anything more than minimal
consultation. The concept of the duty to consult is
a valuable adjunct to the honour of the Crown, but
it plays a supporting role, and should not be viewed
independently from its purpose.

[44] La thse de lintime, si je peux la rsumer


grands traits, est celle-ci : tant donn la nature
constitutionnelle de lobligation de consulter,
il doit exister un droit constitutionnel rciproque
de la premire nation dtre consulte, et les droits
constitutionnels des peuples autochtones sont
labri de toute abrogation ou drogation, exception
faite de celles qui peuvent se justifier au regard du
critre rigoureux tabli dans Sparrow. Selon cette
logique, pratiquement chaque affaire ayant trait
la consultation dans le cadre de linterprtation et
de la mise en uvre des traits devient une affaire
constitutionnelle. Cet argument est problmatique
en ce que le contenu de lobligation de consulter
varie suivant les circonstances. Relativement ce
que lon a appel dans Nation hada un continuum de consultation (par. 43), on ne peut affirmer que la consultation au bas plutt quau haut du
continuum doit tre justifie suivant la doctrine de
larrt Sparrow. Le contenu minimal de la consultation impos dans Premire nation crie Mikisew
(par. 64), par exemple, navait pas tre justifi
comme une limite ce qui serait autrement un droit
une consultation approfondie . Dans Premire
nation crie Mikisew, les circonstances nont jamais
requis plus quun minimum de consultation. Si la
notion dobligation de consulter se veut un complment valable lhonneur de la Couronne, elle joue
un rle de soutien et ne devrait pas tre considre
indpendamment de lobjectif quelle vise atteindre.

[45] The LSCFN invited us to draw a bright line


between the duty to consult (which it labelled constitutional) and administrative law principles such
as procedural fairness (which it labelled unsuitable). At the hearing, counsel for the LSCFN was
dismissive of resort in this context to administrative law principles:

[45] La PNLSC nous a demand dtablir une


nette distinction entre lobligation de consulter (quelle a qualifie de constitutionnelle) et les
principes du droit administratif tels lquit procdurale (quelle a qualifis dinadquats). Lors
de laudition, lavocat de la PNLSC a rejet le
recours aux principes du droit administratif dans ce
contexte :

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 29 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Binnie J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

[A]dministrative law principles are not designed to


address the very unique circumstance of the CrownAboriginal history, the Crown-Aboriginal relationship.
Administrative law principles, for all their tremendous
value, are not tools toward reconciliation of Aboriginal
people and other Canadians. They are not instruments
to reflect the honour of the Crown principles. [transcript, at p. 62]

[traduCtion] [L]es principes du droit administratif ne


sont pas conus pour sappliquer au cas tout fait particulier de lhistoire des relations entre la Couronne et les
Autochtones. Ces principes, malgr leur valeur considrable, ne constituent pas des outils favorisant la rconciliation entre les Autochtones et les autres Canadiens. Ce
ne sont pas des instruments par lesquels peuvent sexprimer les principes relatifs lhonneur de la Couronne.
[transcription, p. 62]

However, as Lamer C.J. observed in R. v. Van der


Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507, aboriginal rights exist
within the general legal system of Canada (para.
49). Administrative decision makers regularly have
to confine their decisions within constitutional
limits: Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson,
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; Little Sisters Book and Art
Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2000
SCC 69, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120; Suresh v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002
SCC 1, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; and Multani v. Commis
sion scolaire MargueriteBourgeoys, 2006 SCC 6,
[2006] 1 S.C.R. 256. In this case, the constitutional
limits include the honour of the Crown and its supporting doctrine of the duty to consult.

Toutefois, comme la prcis le Juge en chef Lamer


dans R. c. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 R.C.S. 507, les
droits ancestraux existent dans les limites du systme juridique canadien (par. 49). Les dcideurs administratifs doivent couramment confiner
leurs dcisions dans les limites constitutionnelles :
Slaight Communications Inc. c. Davidson, [1989] 1
R.C.S. 1038; Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium
c. Canada (Ministre de la Justice), 2000 CSC 69,
[2000] 2 R.C.S. 1120; Suresh c. Canada (Ministre
de la Citoyennet et de lImmigration), 2002 CSC
1, [2002] 1 R.C.S. 3, et Multani c. Commission sco
laire MargueriteBourgeoys, 2006 CSC 6, [2006]
1 R.C.S. 256. En lespce, les limites constitutionnelles incluent lhonneur de la Couronne
et le principe de lobligation de consulter qui
lappuie.

[46] The link between constitutional doctrine and


administrative law remedies was already noted in
Haida Nation, at the outset of our Courts duty to
consult jurisprudence:

[46] Le lien entre la doctrine constitutionnelle et


les recours de droit administratif a dj t signal
dans Nation hada, un des premiers arrts traitant
de lobligation de consulter :

In all cases, the honour of the Crown requires that


the Crown act with good faith to provide meaningful
consultation appropriate to the circumstances. In discharging this duty, regard may be had to the procedural
safeguards of natural justice mandated by administrative law. [Emphasis added; para. 41.]

Dans tous les cas, le principe de lhonneur de la Couronne


commande que celle-ci agisse de bonne foi et tienne une
vritable consultation, qui soit approprie eu gard aux
circonstances. Lorsque vient le temps de sacquitter de
cette obligation, les garanties procdurales de justice
naturelle exiges par le droit administratif peuvent servir
de guide. [Je souligne; par. 41.]

The relevant procedural safeguards mandated by


administrative law include not only natural justice
but the broader notion of procedural fairness. And
the content of meaningful consultation appropriate to the circumstances will be shaped, and in
some cases determined, by the terms of the modern
land claims agreement. Indeed, the parties themselves may decide therein to exclude consultation
altogether in defined situations and the decision
to do so would be upheld by the courts where this

Les garanties procdurales en question quexige


le droit administratif englobent non seulement la
justice naturelle mais aussi la notion plus gnrale
de lquit procdurale. Et les termes des ententes
rcentes sur les revendications territoriales suggreront, et dans certains cas dicteront, le contenu
de la vritable consultation approprie eu gard
aux circonstances . Les parties elles-mmes peuvent dcider dans ces ententes dexclure purement
et simplement la consultation dans des situations

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

132

Page 30 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks Le juge Binnie

133

outcome would be consistent with the maintenance


of the honour of the Crown.

prcises, et les tribunaux accepteront cette dcision lorsquune telle dcision serait compatible
avec le maintien de lhonneur de la Couronne.

[47] The parties in this case proceeded by way


of an ordinary application for judicial review.
Such a procedure was perfectly capable of taking
into account the constitutional dimension of the
rights asserted by the First Nation. There is no
need to invent a new constitutional remedy.
Administrative law is flexible enough to give full
weight to the constitutional interests of the First
Nation. Moreover, the impact of an administrative
decision on the interest of an Aboriginal community, whether or not that interest is entrenched in
a s. 35 right, would be relevant as a matter of procedural fairness, just as the impact of a decision
on any other community or individual (including
Larry Paulsen) may be relevant.

[47] Les parties en lespce ont choisi la voie


dune demande ordinaire de contrle judiciaire.
Dans le cadre de cette instance, il tait parfaitement possible de prendre en compte la dimension
constitutionnelle des droits invoqus par la premire nation. Point nest besoin dinventer une
nouvelle rparation constitutionnelle . Le droit
administratif est suffisamment souple pour que le
tribunal accorde limportance voulue aux intrts
constitutionnels de la premire nation. De plus,
lincidence dune dcision administrative sur un
intrt dune communaut autochtone que cet
intrt fasse ou non partie dun droit reconnu par
lart. 35 savrerait pertinente au titre de lquit
procdurale, tout comme peut savrer pertinente
lincidence dune dcision sur toute autre communaut ou tout autre individu (y compris Larry
Paulsen).

C. Standard of Review

C. Norme de contrle

[48] In exercising his discretion under the Yukon


Lands Act and the Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act,
the Director was required to respect legal and constitutional limits. In establishing those limits no
deference is owed to the Director. The standard of
review in that respect, including the adequacy of the
consultation, is correctness. A decision maker who
proceeds on the basis of inadequate consultation
errs in law. Within the limits established by the law
and the Constitution, however, the Directors decision should be reviewed on a standard of reasonableness: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC
9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, and Canada (Citizenship
and Immigration) v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, [2009]
1 S.C.R. 339. In other words, if there was adequate
consultation, did the Directors decision to approve
the Paulsen grant, having regard to all the relevant
considerations, fall within the range of reasonable
outcomes?

[48] Dans lexercice des pouvoirs discrtionnaires que lui confrent la Loi sur les terres et la Loi
du Yukon sur les terres territoriales, le directeur
devait respecter les limites lgales et constitutionnelles. En ce qui a trait la dtermination de ces
limites, on na pas faire preuve de dfrence
lendroit du directeur. La norme de contrle cet
gard, y compris lgard du caractre adquat
de la consultation, est celle de la dcision correcte. Un dcideur qui rend une dcision fonde
sur une consultation inadquate commet une
erreur de droit. Dans les limites tablies par le
droit et la Constitution, toutefois, la dcision du
directeur doit tre examine selon la norme de la
raisonnabilit : Dunsmuir c. NouveauBrunswick,
2008 CSC 9, [2008] 1 R.C.S. 190, et Canada
(Citoyennet et Immigration) c. Khosa, 2009 CSC
12, [2009] 1 R.C.S. 339. En dautres mots, sil y a
eu consultation adquate, la dcision du directeur
dapprouver la concession de terres M. Paulsen
se situait-elle, compte tenu de toutes les considrations pertinentes, dans la gamme des rsultats
raisonnables?

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 31 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Binnie J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

D. The Role and Function of the LSCFN Treaty

D. Le rle et la fonction du trait PNLSC

[49] The territorial government and the LSCFN


have very different views on this point. This difference lies at the heart of their opposing arguments
on the appeal.

[49] Le gouvernement territorial et la PNLSC ont


des points de vue trs diffrents sur cette question.
Cette divergence dopinion se retrouve au centre
mme des arguments opposs quils ont invoqus
dans le cadre du pourvoi.

[50] The territorial government regards the role


of the LSCFN Treaty as having nailed down and
forever settled the rights and obligations of the
First Nation community as Aboriginal people. The
treaty recognized and affirmed the Aboriginal
rights surrendered in the land claim. From 1997
onwards, the rights of the Aboriginal communities
of the LSCFN, in the governments view, were limited to the treaty. To put the governments position
simplistically, what the First Nations negotiated as
terms of the treaty is what they get. Period.

[50] Pour le gouvernement territorial, le trait


PNLSC a fix de faon dfinitive les droits et les
obligations de la premire nation en tant que peuple
autochtone. Le trait a reconnu et confirm les
droits ancestraux cds dans le cadre de la revendication territoriale. partir de 1997, les droits des
communauts autochtones de la PNLSC, selon le
gouvernement, ont t limits ce qui est prvu par
le trait. Pour exprimer en termes simplistes la position du gouvernement, les premires nations obtiennent ce quelles ont ngoci comme termes des traits, un point cest tout.

[51] The LSCFN, on the other hand, considers as


applicable to the Yukon what was said by the Court
in Mikisew Cree, at para. 54:

[51] La PNLSC, pour sa part, juge applicable au


Yukon ce que la Cour a crit dans Premire nation
crie Mikisew, par. 54 :

Treaty making is an important stage in the long process


of reconciliation, but it is only a stage. What occurred at
Fort Chipewyan in 1899 was not the complete discharge
of the duty arising from the honour of the Crown, but a
rededication of it.

La conclusion de traits est une tape importante du


long processus de rconciliation, mais ce nest quune
tape. Ce qui sest pass Fort Chipewyan en 1899 ne
constituait pas un accomplissement parfait de lobligation dcoulant de lhonneur de la Couronne, mais une
ritration de celui-ci.

And so it is, according to the First Nation, with


the treaty-making process in the Yukon that led in
1997 to the ratification of the LSCFN Treaty.

Il en va de mme, selon la premire nation, du processus de conclusion de traits relatifs au Yukon


qui a conduit en 1997 la ratification du trait
PNLSC.

[52] I agree with the territorial government that


the LSCFN Treaty is a major advance over what
happened in Fort Chipewyan in 1899, both in the
modern treatys scope and comprehensiveness, and
in the fairness of the procedure that led up to it. The
eight pages of generalities in Treaty No. 8 in 1899
is not the equivalent of the 435 pages of the LSCFN
Treaty almost a century later. The LSCFN Treaty
provides a solid foundation for reconciliation, and
the territorial government is quite correct that the
LSCFN Treaty should not simply set the stage for
further negotiations from ground zero. Nor is that

[52] Je suis daccord avec le gouvernement territorial lorsquil dit que le trait PNLSC marque un progrs majeur par rapport ce qui sest produit Fort
Chipewyan en 1899, tant pour la porte et le caractre global du trait rcent que pour la justesse de la
procdure qui y a men. Les huit pages de considrations gnrales du Trait no 8 de 1899 ne peuvent
quivaloir aux 435 pages du trait PNLSC conclu
prs dun sicle plus tard. Le trait PNLSC procure
une assise solide la rconciliation, et le gouvernement territorial a tout fait raison de soutenir
que ce trait ne devrait pas simplement prparer le

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

134

Page 32 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks Le juge Binnie

135

the First Nations position. It simply relies on the


principle noted in Haida Nation that [t]he honour
of the Crown is always at stake in its dealings with
Aboriginal peoples (para. 16 (emphasis added)).
Reconciliation in the Yukon, as elsewhere, is not
an accomplished fact. It is a work in progress. The
complete code position advocated by the territorial government is, with respect, misconceived. As
the Court noted in Mikisew Cree: The duty to consult is grounded in the honour of the Crown . . . .
The honour of the Crown exists as a source of obligation independently of treaties as well, of course
(para. 51).

terrain pour dautres ngociations quon reprendrait


partir de zro. Telle nest pas du reste la position
dfendue par la premire nation. Elle sappuie simplement sur le principe signal dans Nation hada,
soit que [l]honneur de la Couronne est toujours
en jeu lorsque cette dernire transige avec les peuples autochtones (par. 16 (je souligne)). La rconciliation, au Yukon comme ailleurs, nest pas un fait
accompli, mais un chantier permanent. La thse
du code complet avance par le gouvernement
territorial est, mon avis, mal fonde. Comme la
observ la Cour dans Premire nation crie Mikisew :
Lobligation de consultation repose sur lhonneur
de la Couronne [. . .] Lhonneur de la Couronne
existe galement en tant que source dobligation
indpendante des traits, bien entendu (par. 51).

[53] On this point, Haida Nation represented a


shift in focus from Sparrow. Whereas the Court
in Sparrow had been concerned about sorting out
the consequences of infringement, Haida Nation
attempted to head off such confrontations by
imposing on the parties a duty to consult and (if
appropriate) accommodate in circumstances where
development might have a significant impact on
Aboriginal rights when and if established. In
Mikisew Cree, the duty to consult was applied to
the management of an 1899 treaty process to take
up (as in the present case) ceded Crown lands for
other purposes. The treaty itself was silent on the
process. The Court held that on the facts of that
case the content of the duty to consult was at the
lower end of the spectrum (para. 64), but that nevertheless the Crown was wrong to act unilaterally.

[53] Sur cette question, Nation hada marquait un


changement de perspective par rapport Sparrow.
Alors que dans Sparrow, la Cour stait employe
dgager les consquences de la violation, elle a
tent dans Nation hada de prvenir de tels affrontements en imposant aux parties une obligation de
consulter et (au besoin) daccommoder, dans des
circonstances o le dveloppement est susceptible davoir des consquences importantes sur les
droits ancestraux lorsque ceux-ci ont t tablis.
Dans Premire nation crie Mikisew, lobligation de
consulter a t applique la gestion dun processus
prvu par un trait de 1899, concernant la prise
(comme dans la prsente espce) pour d autres
objets , de terres cdes la Couronne. Le trait
lui-mme ne mentionnait aucunement le processus en question. La Cour a conclu que si, daprs
les faits de lespce, le contenu de lobligation de
consulter se situait au bas du continuum (par.
64), la Couronne nen avait pas moins eu tort dagir
de faon unilatrale.

[54] The difference between the LSCFN Treaty


and Treaty No. 8 is not simply that the former is
a modern comprehensive treaty and the latter is
more than a century old. Todays modern treaty
will become tomorrows historic treaty. The distinction lies in the relative precision and sophistication of the modern document. Where adequately
resourced and professionally represented parties
have sought to order their own affairs, and have

[54] La diffrence entre le trait PNLSC et le


Trait no 8 ne tient pas uniquement au fait que le
premier est un trait rcent global tandis que le
second a t conclu il y a plus dun sicle. Le trait
rcent daujourdhui deviendra le trait historique
de demain. La distinction rside plutt dans la prcision et la complexit relatives du document rcent.
Lorsque des parties bnficiant de ressources suffisantes et de laide de professionnels ont tent de

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 33 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Binnie J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

given shape to the duty to consult by incorporating


consultation procedures into a treaty, their efforts
should be encouraged and, subject to such constitutional limitations as the honour of the Crown,
the Court should strive to respect their handiwork:
Quebec (Attorney General) v. Moses, 2010 SCC 17,
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 557.

mettre de lordre dans leurs propres affaires et ont


donn forme lobligation de consulter en incorporant dans un trait la procdure de consultation, il
convient dencourager leurs efforts et, sous rserve
des limitations constitutionnelles comme le principe de lhonneur de la Couronne, la Cour devrait
essayer de respecter le fruit de leur travail : Qubec
(Procureur gnral) c. Moses, 2010 CSC 17, [2010]
1 R.C.S. 557.

[55] However, the territorial government presses


this position too far when it asserts that unless consultation is specifically required by the Treaty it
is excluded by negative inference. Consultation in
some meaningful form is the necessary foundation of a successful relationship with Aboriginal
people. As the trial judge observed, consultation
works to avoid the indifference and lack of respect
that can be destructive of the process of reconciliation that the Final Agreement is meant to address
(para. 82).

[55] Cependant, le gouvernement territorial


pousse trop loin cette thse lorsquil prtend que la
consultation qui nest pas spcifiquement requise
par le trait est exclue par infrence ngative. Une
consultation digne de ce nom demeure le fondement
ncessaire dune relation russie avec les peuples
autochtones. Comme le juge de premire instance
la pertinemment fait remarquer, la consultation
permet [traduCtion] dviter lindiffrence et le
manque de respect susceptibles danantir le processus de rconciliation que lentente dfinitive est
cense tablir (par. 82).

[56] The territorial government would have been


wrong to act unilaterally. The LSCFN had existing
treaty rights in relation to the land Paulsen applied
for, as set out in s. 16.4.2 of the LSCFN Treaty:

[56] Le gouvernement territorial aurait eu tort


dagir de faon unilatrale. La PNLSC avait des
droits existants issus dun trait lgard de la parcelle vise par la demande de M. Paulsen, comme
lindique lart. 16.4.2 du trait PNLSC :

Yukon Indian People shall have the right to harvest for


Subsistence within their Traditional Territory . . . all
species of Fish and Wildlife for themselves and their
families at all seasons of the year and in any numbers on Settlement Land and on Crown Land to which
they have a right of access pursuant to 6.2.0, subject
only to limitations prescribed pursuant to Settlement
Agreements.

Les Indiens du Yukon ont le droit de rcolter, des fins


de subsistance, dans les limites de leur territoire traditionnel [. . .] toute espce de poisson et danimal sauvage,
pour eux-mmes et pour leur famille, en toute saison et
sans limite de prises, sur des terres vises par un rglement et sur des terres de la Couronne o ils bnficient
dun droit daccs conformment la section 6.2.0, sous
rserve seulement des limites prvues par les ententes
portant rglement.

The Crown land was subject to being taken up for


other purposes (as in Mikisew Cree), including agriculture, but in the meantime the First Nation had a
continuing treaty interest in Crown lands to which
their members continued to have a treaty right of
access (including but not limited to the Paulsen
plot). It was no less a treaty interest because it was
defeasible.

Les terres de la Couronne pouvaient tre prises


dautres fins (comme dans Premire nation crie
Mikisew) et notamment des fins dagriculture,
mais entre-temps, la premire nation conservait un
intrt issu dun trait sur les terres de la Couronne
lgard desquelles ses membres avaient toujours
un droit daccs issu dun trait (y compris la parcelle de M. Paulsen). La possibilit que cet intrt
soit supprim nen faisait pas moins un intrt issu
dun trait.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

136

Page 34 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks Le juge Binnie

137

[57] The decision maker was required to take into


account the impact of allowing the Paulsen application on the concerns and interests of members
of the First Nation. He could not take these into
account unless the First Nation was consulted as
to the nature and extent of its concerns. Added to
the ordinary administrative law duties, of course,
was the added legal burden on the territorial government to uphold the honour of the Crown in its
dealings with the First Nation. Nevertheless, given
the existence of the treaty surrender and the legislation in place to implement it, and the decision of
the parties not to incorporate a more general consultation process in the LSCFN Treaty itself, the
content of the duty of consultation (as found by the
Court of Appeal) was at the lower end of the spectrum. It was not burdensome. But nor was it a mere
courtesy.

[57] Le dcideur tait tenu de prendre en compte


les consquences quaurait le fait daccorder la
demande de M. Paulsen sur les proccupations et
les intrts des membres de la premire nation. Or,
il ne pouvait pas le faire sans que la premire nation
ne soit consulte au sujet de la nature et de la porte
de ses proccupations. Sajoutait bien sr aux obligations habituelles ressortissant au droit administratif, lobligation lgale du gouvernement territorial de prserver lhonneur de la Couronne dans ses
relations avec la premire nation. Nanmoins, tant
donn lexistence de la cession opre par le trait
et les textes lgislatifs adopts en vue de la mise
en uvre de celui-ci, ainsi que la dcision des parties de ne pas incorporer dans le trait PNLSC luimme un processus de consultation dun caractre
plus gnral, le contenu de lobligation de consultation se situait (comme la conclu la Cour dappel)
au bas du continuum. Il ne sagissait pas dune obligation exigeante. Mais ce ntait pas non plus une
simple affaire de courtoisie.

E. The Source of the Duty to Consult Is External


to the LSCFN Treaty

E. La source de lobligation de consulter est


extrinsque au trait PNLSC

[58] The LSCFN Treaty dated July 21, 1997, is a


comprehensive lawyerly document. The territorial
government argues that the document refers to the
duty to consult in over 60 different places but points
out that none of them is applicable here (although
the implementation of Chapter 12, which was left
to subsequent legislative action, did not foreclose
the possibility of such a requirement).

[58] Le trait PNLSC, dat du 21 juillet 1997, est


un document caractre juridique des plus dtaill.
Le gouvernement territorial fait valoir quil est fait
mention de lobligation de consulter plus de 60
endroits diffrents dans ce document, mais quaucun
de ces cas nest applicable en lespce (mme si la
mise en uvre du chapitre 12, laisse en suspens
dans lattente dune mesure lgislative, ncartait
pas la possibilit dune telle obligation).

[59] There was considerable discussion at the bar


about whether the duty to consult, if it applies at
all, should be considered an implied term of the
LSCFN Treaty or a duty externally imposed as a
matter of law.

[59] On a longuement dbattu, laudience, la


question de savoir si lobligation de consulter,
supposer quelle soit applicable dune quelconque
faon, devrait tre considre comme une clause
implicite du trait PNLSC ou comme une obligation juridique extrieure au trait.

[60] The territorial government takes the view


that terms cannot be implied where the intention
of the parties is plainly inconsistent with such an
outcome. In this case, it says, the implied term is
negated by the parties treatment of consultation
throughout the treaty and its significant absence

[60] Pour le gouvernement territorial, il ne saurait


y avoir de clause implicite qui serait lvidence
incompatible avec lintention des parties. En lespce, plaide-t-il, la clause implicite est contredite
par la manire dont les parties ont abord la consultation dans lensemble du trait et par labsence

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 35 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Binnie J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

in the case of land grants. The necessary negative inference, argues the territorial government,
is that failure to include it was intentional.

significative de celle-ci dans le cas de la concession


de terres. La ncessaire infrence ngative , soutient le gouvernement territorial, est que le fait de
ne pas prvoir la consultation tait intentionnel.

[61] I think this argument is unpersuasive. The


duty to consult is treated in the jurisprudence as
a means (in appropriate circumstances) of upholding the honour of the Crown. Consultation can be
shaped by agreement of the parties, but the Crown
cannot contract out of its duty of honourable dealing with Aboriginal people. As held in Haida
Nation and affirmed in Mikisew Cree, it is a doctrine that applies independently of the expressed or
implied intention of the parties.

[61] Cet argument ne me parat pas convaincant. Lobligation de consulter est considre, dans
la jurisprudence, comme un moyen de prserver
lhonneur de la Couronne (lorsque cela savre indiqu). Les parties ont la possibilit de sentendre sur
les modalits de la consultation, mais la Couronne
ne peut pas se soustraire son obligation de traiter
honorablement avec les Autochtones. Cette doctrine,
comme nous lavons affirm dans Nation hada et
confirm dans Premire nation crie Mikisew, sapplique indpendamment de lintention expresse ou
implicite des parties.

[62] The argument that the LSCFN Treaty is a


complete code is untenable. For one thing, as
the territorial government acknowledges, nothing
in the text of the LSCFN Treaty authorizes the
making of land grants on Crown lands to which
the First Nation continues to have treaty access
for subsistence hunting and fishing. The territorial
government points out that authority to alienate
Crown land exists in the general law. This is true,
but the general law exists outside the treaty. The
territorial government cannot select from the general law only those elements that suit its purpose.
The treaty sets out rights and obligations of the
parties, but the treaty is part of a special relationship: In all its dealings with Aboriginal peoples,
from the assertion of sovereignty to the resolution of claims and the implementation of treaties,
the Crown must act honourably (Haida Nation,
at para. 17 (emphasis added)). As the text of s.
35(3) makes clear, a modern comprehensive land
claims agreement is as much a treaty in the eyes
of the Constitution as are the earlier pre- and postConfederation treaties.

[62] Largument suivant lequel le trait PNLSC


est un code complet ne tient pas. Dune part,
comme le reconnat le gouvernement territorial, le
texte du trait PNLSC nautorise daucune manire
loctroi de terres de la Couronne lgard desquelles
la premire nation continue de jouir, en vertu du
trait, dun droit daccs des fins de chasse et de
pche de subsistance. Le gouvernement territorial
souligne que le pouvoir daliner des terres de la
Couronne existe selon le droit commun. Cest vrai,
mais le droit commun existe lextrieur du trait.
Le gouvernement territorial ne peut pas retenir
uniquement, dans le droit commun, les lments
qui lui conviennent. Le trait nonce les droits
et les obligations des parties, tout en sinscrivant
dans une relation spciale : Dans tous ses rapports avec les peuples autochtones, quil sagisse
de laffirmation de sa souverainet, du rglement
de revendications ou de la mise en uvre de traits, la Couronne doit agir honorablement (Nation
hada, par. 17 (je souligne)). Comme il ressort clairement du texte du par. 35(3), une entente rcente
relative des revendications globales constitue, du
point de vue de la Constitution, un trait au mme
titre que les anciens traits conclus avant et aprs
la Confdration.

[63] At the time the Paulsen application was


pending, the implementation of the LSCFN Treaty
was in transition. It contemplates in Chapter 12

[63] Au moment o la demande de M. Paulsen


tait ltude, la mise en uvre du trait PNLSC
tait dans une phase de transition. Le chapitre 12

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

138

Page 36 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks Le juge Binnie

139

the enactment of a development assessment process to implement the treaty provisions. This
was ultimately carried into effect in the Yukon
Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment
Act, S.C. 2003, c. 7 (YESAA). The territorial government acknowledges that the YESAA would have
applied to the Paulsen application. Part 2 of the Act
(regarding the assessment process) did not come
into force until after the Paulsen application was
approved (s. 134). The treaty required the government to introduce the law within two years of the
date of the settlement legislation (s. 12.3.4). This
was not done. The subsequent legislative delay did
not empower the territorial government to proceed
without consultation.

envisage ladoption dun processus dvaluation


des activits de dveloppement en vue de la mise
en uvre des dispositions du trait. Cette mise en
uvre a finalement t accomplie par la Loi sur
lvaluation environnementale et socioconomi
que au Yukon, L.C. 2003, ch. 7 ( LESY ). Le
gouvernement territorial reconnat que la LESY
se serait applique la demande de M. Paulsen.
La partie 2 de cette loi (concernant le processus dvaluation) nest entre en vigueur quaprs
lapprobation de la demande en question (art.
134). Le gouvernement tait tenu, aux termes
du trait, ddicter une mesure lgislative dans
les deux ans suivant lentre en vigueur de la loi
de mise en uvre (art. 12.3.4). Il ne la pas fait.
Le retard lgislatif subsquent ne donnait pas au
gouvernement territorial le pouvoir dagir sans
consultation.

[64] The purpose of the YESAA is broadly stated


to [give] effect to provisions of the Umbrella Final
Agreement respecting assessment of environmental and socio-economic effects by way of a comprehensive, neutrally conducted assessment process (s. 5) where an authorization or the grant of
an interest in land would be required (s. 47(2)(c)).
The neutral assessor is the Yukon Environmental
and Socio-economic Assessment Board, to which
(excluding the chair) the Council for Yukon Indians
would nominate half the members and the territorial government the other half. The Minister, after
consultation, would appoint the chair.

[64] La LESY vise dune manire gnrale


met[tre] en uvre diverses dispositions de
laccord-cadre relatives lvaluation des effets
sur lenvironnement ou la vie socioconomique par linstauration dun processus complet et impartial dvaluation (art. 5) lorsque
lautorisation [. . .] ou lattribution [. . .] de
droits fonciers serait ncessaire (al. 47(2)c)).
Lvaluateur neutre est lOffice dvaluation environnementale et socioconomique du Yukon, dont
les membres (sauf le prsident) seraient nomms
pour moiti par le Conseil des Indiens du Yukon et
pour lautre moiti par le gouvernement territorial.
Le ministre nommerait le prsident aprs consultation.

[65] The territorial government contends that this


new arrangement is intended to satisfy the requirement of consultation on land grants in a way that is
fair both to First Nations and to the other people of
the Yukon. Assuming (without deciding) this to be
so, the fact remains that no such arrangement was
in place at the relevant time.

[65] Selon le gouvernement territorial, ce nouveau


rgime vise rpondre lexigence de consultation
au sujet de la concession de terres dune faon quitable la fois pour les premires nations et pour
les autres habitants du Yukon. En supposant que tel
soit le cas (je ne me prononce pas sur la question), il
nen demeure pas moins que le rgime en question
ntait pas en vigueur lpoque en cause.

[66] In the absence of the agreed arrangement,


consultation was necessary in this case to uphold
the honour of the Crown. It was therefore imposed
as a matter of law.

[66] En labsence du rgime sur lequel on stait


entendu, la consultation tait ncessaire en lespce
pour prserver lhonneur de la Couronne. Elle tait
donc impose par le droit.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 37 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Binnie J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

F. The LSCFN Treaty Does Not Exclude the Duty


to Consult and, if Appropriate, Accommodate

F. Le trait PNLSC nexclut pas lobligation de


consulter et, au besoin, daccommoder

[67] When a modern treaty has been concluded,


the first step is to look at its provisions and try to
determine the parties respective obligations, and
whether there is some form of consultation provided for in the treaty itself. If a process of consultation has been established in the treaty, the scope
of the duty to consult will be shaped by its provisions.

[67] Lorsquun trait rcent a t conclu, la premire tape consiste en examiner les dispositions
et tenter de dterminer les obligations respectives
des parties et lexistence, dans le trait lui-mme,
dune forme quelconque de consultation. Si un processus de consultation a t tabli dans le trait, les
dispositions du trait indiqueront la porte de lobligation de consulter.

[68] The territorial government argues that a


mutual objective of the parties to the LSCFN
Treaty was to achieve certainty, as is set out in the
preamble:

[68] Le gouvernement territorial plaide que la


certitude constituait un objectif mutuel des parties
au trait PNLSC, comme lindique le prambule :

. . . the parties to this Agreement wish to achieve certainty with respect to the ownership and use of lands
and other resources of the Little Salmon/Carmacks
First Nation Traditional Territory;

. . . les parties la prsente entente dsirent dfinir avec


certitude les droits de proprit et dutilisation des terres
et autres ressources du territoire traditionnel de la premire nation de Little Salmon/Carmacks;

the parties wish to achieve certainty with respect to


their relationships to each other . . . .

les parties la prsente entente dsirent dfinir avec certitude leurs rapports les unes avec les autres . . .

Moreover the treaty contains an entire agreement


clause. Section 2.2.15 provides that

Qui plus est, le trait renferme une clause du type


intgralit de lentente , soit lart. 2.2.15 :

Settlement Agreements shall be the entire agreement


between the parties thereto and there shall be no representation, warranty, collateral agreement or condition affecting those Agreements except as expressed in
them.

Chaque entente portant rglement constitue lentente


complte intervenue entre les parties cette entente et
il nexiste aucune autre assertion, garantie, convention
accessoire ou condition touchant cette entente que celles
qui sont exprimes dans cette dernire.

[69] However, as stated, the duty to consult is not


a collateral agreement or condition. The LSCFN
Treaty is the entire agreement, but it does not
exist in isolation. The duty to consult is imposed as
a matter of law, irrespective of the parties agreement. It does not affect the agreement itself.
It is simply part of the essential legal framework
within which the treaty is to be interpreted and performed.

[69] Toutefois, lobligation de consulter ne constitue pas, comme je lai indiqu, une convention
accessoire ou condition . Le trait PNLSC constate
effectivement l entente complte , mais il nexiste
pas isolment. Lobligation de consulter est impose
par le droit sans gard l entente conclue entre
les parties. Elle ne touche pas lentente ellemme. Elle fait simplement partie du cadre juridique essentiel dans lequel le trait doit tre interprt
et excut.

[70] The First Nation points out that there is an


express exception to the entire agreement clause
in the case of existing or future constitutional
rights, at s. 2.2.4:

[70] La premire nation souligne quune exception la clause de l entente complte est expressment prvue lart. 2.2.4, pour les droits constitutionnels existants ou futurs :

Subject to 2.5.0, 5.9.0, 5.10.1 and 25.2.0, Settlement


Agreements shall not affect the ability of aboriginal

Sous rserve des sections 2.5.0, 5.9.0 et 25.2.0 et de larticle 5.10.1, les ententes portant rglement nont pas pour

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

140

Page 38 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

141

c. little salmon/CarmaCks Le juge Binnie

people of the Yukon to exercise, or benefit from, any


existing or future constitutional rights for aboriginal
people that may be applicable to them.

effet de porter atteinte la capacit des peuples autochtones du Yukon dexercer des droits constitutionnels
existants ou futurs qui sont reconnus aux peuples
autochtones et qui sappliquent eux ou de tirer parti de
tels droits.

Section 2.2.4 applies, the LSCFN argues, because


the duty of consultation is a new constitutional duty
and should therefore be considered a future constitutional right within the scope of the section.

Larticle 2.2.4 sapplique, soutient la PNLSC, parce


que lobligation de consultation est une nouvelle
obligation constitutionnelle et devrait donc tre
considre comme un droit constitutionnel futur
tombant dans le champ dapplication de cet article.

[71] As discussed, the applicable existing or


future constitutional right is the right of the
Aboriginal parties to have the treaty performed
in a way that upholds the honour of the Crown.
That principle is readily conceded by the territorial government. However, the honour of the Crown
may not always require consultation. The parties
may, in their treaty, negotiate a different mechanism which, nevertheless, in the result, upholds the
honour of the Crown. In this case, the duty applies,
the content of which will now be discussed.

[71] Comme nous lavons vu, le droit constitu


tionnel existant ou futur applicable est le droit des
parties autochtones ce que le trait soit excut
dune manire propre prserver lhonneur de la
Couronne. Ce principe est admis volontiers par le
gouvernement territorial. Toutefois, lhonneur de
la Couronne peut ne pas toujours exiger la consul
tation. Les parties peuvent, dans leur trait, ngocier un mcanisme diffrent qui permet malgr
tout, dans son rsultat, de prserver lhonneur de
la Couronne. En lespce, lobligation sapplique, et
jen viens maintenant lexamen de son contenu.

G. The Content of the Duty to Consult

G. Le contenu de lobligation de consulter

[72] The adequacy of the consultation was the


subject of the First Nations cross-appeal. The adequacy of what passed (or failed to pass) between
the parties must be assessed in light of the role and
function to be served by consultation on the facts
of the case and whether that purpose was, on the
facts, satisfied.

[72] Le pourvoi incident de la premire nation


porte sur le caractre adquat de la consultation.
Ce qui sest pass (ou ne sest pas pass) entre les
parties doit tre valu la lumire du rle et de la
fonction de la consultation au regard des faits de
lespce, et de la question de savoir si cet objectif a
t rempli au regard des faits.

[73] The Yukon Lands Act and the Territorial


Lands (Yukon) Act created a discretionary authority to make grants but do not specify the basis on
which the discretion is to be exercised. It was clear
that the Paulsen application might potentially have
an adverse impact on the LSCFN Treaty right to
have access to the 65 hectares for subsistence harvesting of fish and wildlife, and that such impact
would include the First Nations beneficial use of
the surrounding Crown lands to which its members have a continuing treaty right of access. There
was at least the possibility that the impact would
be significant in economic and cultural terms. The
Director was then required, as a matter of both

[73] La Loi sur les terres du Yukon et la Loi du


Yukon sur les terres territoriales ont institu un pouvoir discrtionnaire de concession de terres, mais
sans prciser la base sur laquelle ce pouvoir discrtionnaire doit tre exerc. Il ne faisait de doute que
la demande de M. Paulsen tait susceptible davoir
des incidences ngatives sur le droit daccs aux
65 hectares confr par le trait PNLSC pour la
rcolte de poissons et danimaux sauvages des
fins de subsistance, incidences comprenant lusage
bnficiaire par la premire nation des terres de
la Couronne avoisinantes auxquelles ses membres
continuent davoir un droit daccs en vertu du
trait. Il existait au moins une possibilit que ces

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 39 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Binnie J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

compliance with the legal duty to consult based on


the honour of the Crown and procedural fairness to
be informed about the nature and severity of such
impacts before he made a decision to determine
(amongst other things) whether accommodation
was necessary or appropriate. The purpose of consultation was not to reopen the LSCFN Treaty or to
renegotiate the availability of the lands for an agricultural grant. Such availability was already established in the Treaty. Consultation was required
to help manage the important ongoing relationship between the government and the Aboriginal
community in a way that upheld the honour of the
Crown.

incidences soient importantes sur les plans conomique et culturel. Le directeur tait par consquent
tenu, pour se conformer lobligation juridique de
consulter fonde sur lhonneur de la Couronne et au
nom de lquit procdurale, dtre inform de la
nature et de la gravit de telles incidences avant de
prendre une dcision, pour dterminer (entre autres
choses) si des accommodements taient ncessaires ou appropris. La consultation navait pas pour
objet de rouvrir le trait PNLSC ou de rengocier la
possibilit de concder les terres des fins agricoles. Cette possibilit tait dj prvue au trait. La
consultation tait requise afin de faciliter la gestion
de la relation importante entre le gouvernement et
la communaut autochtone en conformit avec la
prservation de lhonneur de la Couronne.

[74] This lower end of the spectrum approach is


consistent with the LSCFN Treaty itself which sets
out the elements the parties themselves regarded as
appropriate regarding consultation (where consultation is required) as follows:

[74] Cette approche au bas du continuum est


conforme au trait PNLSC lui-mme, qui prcise
les lments considrs par les parties elles-mmes
comme constituant une consultation approprie
(lorsquune consultation est ncessaire) :

Consult or Consultation means to provide:

consulter ou consultation La procdure selon


laquelle :

(a) to the party to be consulted, notice of a matter


to be decided in sufficient form and detail to
allow that party to prepare its views on the
matter;

a)

un avis suffisamment dtaill concernant la


question trancher doit tre communiqu la
partie devant tre consulte afin de lui permettre de prparer sa position sur la question;

(b) a reasonable period of time in which the party


to be consulted may prepare its views on the
matter, and an opportunity to present such
views to the party obliged to consult; and

b)

la partie devant tre consulte doit se voir


accorder un dlai suffisant pour lui permettre
de prparer sa position sur la question, ainsi
que loccasion de prsenter cette position la
partie oblige de tenir la consultation;

(c) full and fair consideration by the party obliged


to consult of any views presented.

c)

la partie oblige de tenir la consultation doit


procder un examen complet et quitable de
toutes les positions prsentes.

(LSCFN Treaty, Chapter 1)

(Trait PNLSC, chapitre 1)

At the hearing of this appeal, counsel for the First


Nation contended that the territorial government
has to work with the Aboriginal people to understand what the effect will be, and then they have to
try and minimize it (transcript, at p. 48 (emphasis
added)). It is true that these treaties were negotiated prior to Haida Nation and Mikisew Cree, but
it must have been obvious to the negotiators that

Lors de laudition du pourvoi, lavocat de la premire nation a soutenu que le gouvernement territorial doit [traduCtion] sefforcer, de concert avec
les peuples autochtones, de comprendre quels seront
les effets, et ensuite il doit essayer de les rduire au
minimum (transcription, p. 48 (je souligne)). Il est
vrai que ces traits ont t ngocis avant les arrts
Nation hada et Premire nation crie Mikisew, mais

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

142

Page 40 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks Le juge Binnie

143

there is a substantial difference between imposing


on a decision maker a duty to provide full and fair
consideration of the First Nations views and (on
the other hand) an obligation to try to understand
what the effect will be, and then . . . to try and minimize it. It is the former formulation which the
parties considered sufficient and appropriate. Even
in the absence of treaty language, the application of
Haida Nation and Mikisew Cree would have produced a similar result.

il devait tre vident pour les ngociateurs quil


existe une diffrence substantielle entre, dune part,
le fait dimposer un dcideur une obligation de
procder un examen complet et quitable des
positions de la premire nation, et, dautre part,
une obligation de sefforcer [traduCtion] de
comprendre quels seront les effets, et ensuite [. . .]
essayer de les rduire au minimum . Cest la premire de ces obligations que les parties ont considre comme suffisante et approprie. Mme en labsence de clauses au trait, lapplication des arrts
Nation hada et Premire nation crie Mikisew
aurait produit un rsultat semblable.

[75] In my view, the negotiated definition is a


reasonable statement of the content of consultation
at the lower end of the spectrum. The treaty does
not apply directly to the land grant approval process, which is not a treaty process, but it is a useful
indication of what the parties themselves considered fair, and is consistent with the jurisprudence
from Haida Nation to Mikisew Cree.

[75] mon avis, la dfinition ngocie constitue


un nonc raisonnable du contenu de la consultation au bas du continuum . Le trait ne rgit pas
directement le processus dapprobation des concessions de terres, qui ne relve pas dun trait, mais
il indique de faon utile ce que les parties ellesmmes jugeaient quitable, et il est conforme la
jurisprudence des arrts Nation hada et Premire
nation crie Mikisew.

H. There Was Adequate Consultation in This


Case

H. Il y a eu une consultation adquate en lespce

[76] The First Nation acknowledges that it


received appropriate notice and information. Its
letter of objection dated July 27, 2004, set out its
concerns about the impact on Trapline #143, a
cabin belonging to Roger Rondeau (who was said
in the letter to have no concerns with the application) as well as Johnny Sams cabin, and potential areas of heritage and cultural interest that
had not however been researched or identified.
The letter recommended an archaeological survey
for this purpose (this was subsequently performed
before the Paulsen application was considered and
approved by the Director). Nothing was said in
the First Nations letter of objection about possible
inconsistency with the FWMP, or the need to preserve the 65 hectares for educational purposes.

[76] La premire nation reconnat avoir reu un


avis suffisant et linformation utile. Sa lettre dopposition date du 27 juillet 2004 faisait tat de ses proccupations au sujet des incidences de la concession
de la parcelle sur le territoire de pigeage no 143,
sur une cabane appartenant Roger Rondeau (chez
qui, daprs la lettre, [traduCtion] la demande
[ne suscitait] aucune inquitude ) ainsi que sur la
cabane de Johnny Sam, et sur [traduCtion] des
zones pouvant prsenter un intrt patrimonial et
culturel mais qui navaient pas t identifies
ou navaient pas fait lobjet de recherches . La
lettre recommandait quon procde cette fin
une reconnaissance archologique (reconnaissance
qui a eu lieu par la suite, avant lexamen et lapprobation, par le directeur, de la demande de M.
Paulsen). Nulle part dans la lettre dopposition
de la premire nation ntait-il fait mention dune
possible non-conformit avec le PGRHF, ou de la
ncessit de prserver les 65 hectares des fins
ducatives.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 41 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Binnie J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

[77] The concerns raised in the First Nations letter


of objection dated July 27, 2004, were put before
the August 13, 2004 meeting of LARC (which the
First Nation did not attend) and, for the benefit of
those not attending, were essentially reproduced in
the minutes of that meeting. The minutes noted that
[t]here will be some loss of wildlife habitat in the
area, but it is not significant. The minutes pointed
out that Johnny Sam was entitled to compensation
under the LSCFN Treaty to the extent the value of
Trapline #143 was diminished. The minutes were
available to the LSCFN as a member of LARC.

[77] Les proccupations souleves dans la lettre


dopposition de la premire nation date du 27 juillet
2004 ont t voques lors de la runion du CEDAT
tenue le 13 aot 2004 ( laquelle la premire nation
ntait pas reprsente) et ont t dcrites, pour lessentiel, dans le procs-verbal de cette runion,
lintention des personnes qui taient absentes. Il est
mentionn dans le procs-verbal qu[traduCtion]
[i]l y aura une certaine perte au plan de lhabitat
faunique dans la rgion, mais elle nest pas importante. Il y est galement soulign que Johnny Sam
avait droit une indemnisation en vertu du trait
PNLSC dans la mesure o la valeur du territoire de
pigeage no 143 se trouvait diminue. La PNLSC,
en tant que membre du CEDAT, pouvait consulter
le procs-verbal.

[78] The First Nation complains that its concerns


were not taken seriously. It says, for example, the
fact that Johnny Sam is eligible for compensation
ignores the cultural and educational importance of
Trapline #143. He wants the undiminished trapline,
not compensation. However, Larry Paulsen also had
an important stake in the outcome. The Director
had a discretion to approve or not to approve and he
was not obliged to decide this issue in favour of the
position of the First Nation. Nor was he obliged as
a matter of law to await the outcome of the FWMP.
The Director had before him the First Nations concerns and the response of other members of LARC.
He was entitled to conclude that the impact of the
Paulsen grant on First Nations interests was not
significant.

[78] La premire nation se plaint de ce que ses


proccupations naient pas t prises au srieux.
Elle dit par exemple que le fait que Johnny Sam ait
droit une indemnisation tmoigne dune incomprhension de limportance du territoire de pigeage
no 143 aux plans culturel et ducatif. Il veut conserver le territoire de pigeage dans son intgralit, et
non toucher une indemnisation. Lenjeu tait cependant important pour Larry Paulsen galement. Le
directeur avait le pouvoir discrtionnaire dapprouver ou de ne pas approuver sa demande et il ntait
pas oblig de trancher la question en faveur de la
position dfendue par la premire nation. Il ntait
pas non plus lgalement tenu dattendre le rsultat
du PGRHF. Le directeur connaissait les proccupations de la premire nation et la rponse des autres
membres du CEDAT. Il tait en droit de conclure
que la concession M. Paulsen de la parcelle en
question navait pas dincidences importantes sur
les intrts de la premire nation.

[79] It is important to stress that the First Nation


does not deny that it had full notice of the Paulsen
application, and an opportunity to state its concerns
through the LARC process to the ultimate decision maker in whatever scope and detail it considered appropriate. Moreover, unlike the situation in
Mikisew Cree, the First Nation here was consulted
as a First Nation through LARC and not as members of the general public. While procedural fairness is a flexible concept and takes into account the

[79] Il importe de signaler que la premire nation


ne nie pas avoir reu un avis suffisant de la demande
de M. Paulsen, et avoir eu loccasion dexposer, dans
toute lampleur et la prcision juges appropries,
ses proccupations au dcideur ultime dans le cadre
des procdures du CEDAT. De plus, contrairement
la situation en cause dans laffaire Premire nation
crie Mikisew, la premire nation en lespce a t
consulte dans le cadre du CEDAT en tant que pre
mire nation et non en tant que membre du grand

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

144

Page 42 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks Le juge Binnie

145

Aboriginal dimensions of the decision facing the


Director, it is nevertheless a doctrine that applies as
a matter of administrative law to regulate relations
between the government decision makers and all
residents of the Yukon, Aboriginal as well as nonAboriginal, Mr. Paulsen as well as the First Nation.
On the record, and for the reasons already stated,
the requirements of procedural fairness were met,
as were the requirements of the duty to consult.

public. Si lquit procdurale est une notion souple


et prend en compte les aspects qui, dans la dcision
que doit prendre le directeur, touchent directement
les Autochtones, il nen demeure pas moins que cette
doctrine sapplique en droit administratif pour encadrer les relations entre les dcideurs gouvernementaux et tous les habitants du Yukon, Autochtones
comme non-Autochtones, et M. Paulsen comme la
premire nation. Au vu du dossier et pour les raisons
exposes prcdemment, les exigences de lquit
procdurale ont t respectes, tout comme celles
de lobligation de consulter.

[80] It is impossible to read the record in this case


without concluding that the Paulsen application
was simply a flashpoint for the pent-up frustration
of the First Nation with the territorial government
bureaucracy. However, the result of disallowing the
application would simply be to let the weight of this
cumulative problem fall on the head of the hapless
Larry Paulsen (who still awaits the outcome of an
application filed more than eight years ago). This
would be unfair.

[80] Il est impossible de parcourir le dossier


de cette affaire sans voir dans la demande de M.
Paulsen la petite tincelle qui allait faire clater le
mcontentement accumul par la premire nation
face la bureaucratie du gouvernement territorial.
Le rejet de cette demande, cependant, ferait simplement porter le poids de ce problme cumulatif
linfortun Larry Paulsen (qui attend toujours lissue dune demande prsente il y a plus de huit ans).
Ce rsultat serait injuste.

I.

I.

The Duty to Accommodate

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Lobligation daccommoder

[81] The First Nations argument is that in this


case the legal requirement was not only procedural consultation but substantive accommodation. Haida Nation and Mikisew Cree affirm that
the duty to consult may require, in an appropriate
case, accommodation. The test is not, as sometimes seemed to be suggested in argument, a duty
to accommodate to the point of undue hardship
for the non-Aboriginal population. Adequate consultation having occurred, the task of the Court is
to review the exercise of the Directors discretion
taking into account all of the relevant interests and
circumstances, including the First Nation entitlement and the nature and seriousness of the impact
on that entitlement of the proposed measure which
the First Nation opposes.

[81] La premire nation avance que dans la prsente affaire, il y avait une obligation juridique non
seulement de tenir une consultation au plan procdural, mais doffrir des mesures concrtes daccommodement. Il est prcis dans Nation hada et dans
Premire nation crie Mikisew que lobligation de
consulter peut, dans certains cas, exiger des accommodements. Le critre ne consiste pas, comme on
a parfois sembl le soutenir dans largumentation,
dans une obligation daccommoder jusquau point
o la population non autochtone subit une contrainte
excessive. Une consultation adquate ayant eu lieu,
il incombe la Cour dexaminer la faon dont le
directeur a exerc son pouvoir discrtionnaire,
compte tenu de lensemble des circonstances et
des intrts pertinents, y compris les droits de la
premire nation ainsi que la nature et la gravit de
lincidence, sur ces droits, de la mesure propose
laquelle la premire nation soppose.

[82] The 65-hectare plot had already been reconfigured at government insistence to accommodate

[82] La parcelle de 65 hectares avait dj t redlimite la demande pressante du gouvernement

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 43 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Binnie J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

various concerns. The First Nation did not suggest any alternative configuration that would be
more acceptable (although it suggested at one point
that any farming should be organic in nature). In
this case, in its view, accommodation must inevitably lead to rejection of the Paulsen application.
However, with respect, nothing in the treaty itself
or in the surrounding circumstances gave rise to
a requirement of accommodation. The government
was taking up surrendered Crown land for agricultural purposes as contemplated in the treaty.

pour tenir compte de certaines proccupations. La


premire nation na suggr aucune autre dlimitation qui lui aurait t plus acceptable (bien quelle
ait mentionn un certain moment que toute activit agricole devait tre de nature biologique). Dans
le cas prsent, laccommodement doit invitablement, ses yeux, entraner le rejet de la demande
de M. Paulsen. Toutefois, le trait lui-mme ou lensemble des circonstances ne donnent en aucun cas
ouverture une obligation daccommodement. Le
gouvernement prenait des terres de la Couronne
cdes pour quelles servent lagriculture, ce que
le trait envisageait.

[83] The concerns raised by the First Nation were


important, but the question before the Director was
in some measure a policy decision related to the
1991 Agricultural Policy as well as to whether, on
the facts, the impact on the First Nation interests
were as serious as claimed. He then had to weigh
those concerns against the interest of Larry Paulsen
in light of the governments treaty and other legal
obligations to Aboriginal people. It is likely that
many, if not most, applications for grants of remote
land suitable for raising livestock will raise issues
of wildlife habitat, and many grants that interfere
with traplines and traditional economic activities
will also have a cultural and educational dimension.
The First Nation points out that the Paulsen proposed building would trigger a no-shooting zone
that would affect Johnny Sams use of his cabin (as
well as his trapline). However, where development
occurs, shooting is necessarily restricted, and the
LSCFN Treaty is not an anti-development document.

[83] Les proccupations souleves par la premire


nation taient certes importantes, mais la question
soumise au directeur constituait dans une certaine
mesure une dcision touchant la Politique agricole pour 1991 ainsi qu la question de savoir si,
daprs les faits, les incidences sur les intrts de
la premire nation taient aussi graves que celle-ci
le prtendait. Il devait alors mettre dans la balance
ces proccupations et lintrt de Larry Paulsen la
lumire des obligations juridiques (issues de traits
ou non) du gouvernement envers les Autochtones.
Bon nombre, sinon la plupart, des demandes de
concession de terres loignes propres llevage
du btail susciteront des proccupations au chapitre
de lhabitat faunique, et de nombreuses concessions
de terres nuisant aux territoires de pigeage et aux
activits conomiques traditionnelles auront aussi
une dimension culturelle et ducative. La premire
nation souligne que le btiment propos par M.
Paulsen entranerait la cration dune [traduCtion]
zone dinterdiction de chasse qui entraverait
lutilisation par Johnny Sam de sa cabane (et de son
territoire de pigeage). Cependant, le dveloppement a ncessairement pour consquence des restrictions en matire de chasse, et le trait PNLSC
nest pas un document anti-dveloppement.

[84] Somebody has to bring consultation to an


end and to weigh up the respective interests, having
in mind the Yukon public policy favouring agricultural development where the rigorous climate of the
Yukon permits. The Director is the person with the
delegated authority to make the decision whether to
approve a grant of land already surrendered by the

[84] Il doit y avoir quelquun qui met un terme


la consultation et soupse les intrts respectifs
en jeu en tenant compte de la politique du Yukon
favorable au dveloppement de lagriculture l o
le climat rigoureux le permet. Or, le directeur est la
personne qui a t dlgu le pouvoir de dcider
sil y a lieu dapprouver la concession de terres dj

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

146

Page 44 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

147

First Nation. The purpose of the consultation was


to ensure that the Directors decision was properly
informed.

cdes par la premire nation. La consultation avait


pour but de garantir que la dcision du directeur
tait prise en connaissance de cause.

[85] The Director did not err in law in concluding that the consultation in this case with the First
Nation was adequate.

[85] Le directeur na pas commis derreur de droit


en concluant quen lespce, la consultation avec la
premire nation tait adquate.

[86] The advice the Director received from his


officials after consultation is that the impact would
not be significant. There is no evidence that he
failed to give the concerns of the First Nation full
and fair consideration. The material filed by the
parties on the judicial review application does not
demonstrate any palpable error of fact in his conclusion.

[86] Selon lavis reu de ses fonctionnaires par


le directeur aprs la consultation, les incidences
ne seraient pas importantes. Rien nindique que les
proccupations de la premire nation nont pas fait
lobjet dun examen complet et quitable de sa
part. Les documents dposs par les parties lors
de la demande de contrle judiciaire ne rvlent
lexistence daucune erreur de fait manifeste dans
sa conclusion.

[87] It seems the Director was simply not content to put Mr. Paulsens interest on the back burner
while the government and the First Nation attempted
to work out some transitional rough spots in their
relationship. He was entitled to proceed as he did.

[87] Il semble que le directeur tait simplement


mcontent de mettre en veilleuse le cas de M.
Paulsen alors que le gouvernement et la premire
nation tentaient daplanir certaines difficults lies
la transition dans le cadre de leur relation. Il avait
le droit dagir comme il la fait.

[88] Whether or not a court would have reached a


different conclusion on the facts is not relevant. The
decision to approve or not to approve the grant was
given by the Legislature to the Minister who, in the
usual way, delegated the authority to the Director.
His disposition was not unreasonable.

[88] Le fait quun tribunal judiciaire aurait ventuellement pu arriver une conclusion diffrente
partir des mmes faits nest pas pertinent. La dcision dapprouver ou de ne pas approuver la concession de la parcelle de terre a t confie par lassemble lgislative au ministre qui, de la faon
habituelle, a dlgu ce pouvoir au directeur. La
dcision prise par ce dernier ntait pas draisonnable.

IV. Conclusion

IV. Conclusion

[89] I would dismiss the appeal and cross-appeal,


with costs.

[89] Je suis davis de rejeter le pourvoi et le pourvoi incident, avec dpens.

English version of the reasons of LeBel and


Deschamps JJ. delivered by

Les motifs des juges LeBel et Deschamps ont t


rendus par

[90] deschamps J. The Court has on numerous occasions invited governments and Aboriginal
peoples to negotiate the precise definitions of
Aboriginal rights and the means of exercising them.
To protect the integrity of the negotiation process,
the Court developed, on the basis of what was

[90] la juge deschamps La Cour a maintes


fois invit les gouvernements et les peuples autochtones ngocier la dfinition prcise et les modalits dexercice des droits ancestraux de ces peuples.
Afin de protger lintgrit du processus de ngociation, la Cour a formul, partir de ce qui ntait

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 45 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

originally just one step in the test for determining


whether infringements of Aboriginal rights are justifiable, a duty to consult that must be discharged
before taking any action that might infringe asyet-undefined rights. It later expanded the minimum obligational content of a treaty that is silent
regarding how the Crown might exercise those of
its rights under the treaty that affect rights granted
to the Aboriginal party in the same treaty.

lorigine quune tape de la justification des atteintes aux droits ancestraux, une obligation de consultation pralable la prise de mesures pouvant porter
atteinte ces droits non encore dfinis. Plus tard,
elle a largi le contenu obligationnel minimal dun
trait lorsque celui-ci omettait de prvoir la faon
dont la Couronne peut exercer les droits que lui
reconnat un trait et qui ont une incidence sur ceux
confrs la partie autochtone par ce mme trait.

[91] In Yukon, the parties sat down to negotiate.


An umbrella agreement and 11 specific agreements
were reached between certain First Nations, the
Yukon government and the Government of Canada.
Through these agreements, the First Nations concerned have taken control of their destiny. The
agreements, which deal in particular with land and
resources, are of course not exhaustive, but they are
binding on the parties with respect to the matters
they cover. The Crowns exercise of its rights under
the treaty is subject to provisions on consultation.
To add a further duty to consult to these provisions would be to defeat the very purpose of negotiating a treaty. Such an approach would be a step
backward that would undermine both the parties
mutual undertakings and the objective of reconciliation through negotiation. This would jeopardize the negotiation processes currently under way
across the country. Although I agree with Binnie
J. that the appeal and cross-appeal should be dismissed, my reasons for doing so are very different.

[91] Au Yukon, les parties se sont assises ensemble. Un accord-cadre et 11 ententes particulires ont
t conclus par des premires nations, le gouvernement du Yukon et le gouvernement du Canada. Ces
ententes constituent la concrtisation de la prise en
charge par les premires nations concernes de leur
destine. Il va de soi que tout nest pas prvu dans
ces ententes, qui portent tout particulirement sur
les terres et les ressources. En revanche, ce qui lest
lie les parties. Lexercice par la Couronne des droits
qui lui sont confrs par le trait fait lobjet dans
celui-ci de dispositions concernant la consultation.
Cest faire affront lobjectif mme de la ngociation dun trait que dajouter ces dispositions une
obligation additionnelle de consultation. Une telle
approche constitue un recul, qui a pour effet de
saper les engagements pris par les parties lune
lgard de lautre et de miner lobjectif de rconciliation par la ngociation. Cet affront met en pril
les processus de ngociation actuellement en cours
dun bout lautre du pays. Si, linstar du juge
Binnie, je suis davis de rejeter lappel principal et
lappel incident, je le fais cependant pour des motifs
fort diffrents.

[92] Mr. Paulsens application constituted a


project to which the assessment process provided
for in Chapter 12 of the Little Salmon/Carmacks
First Nation Final Agreement (Final Agreement)
applied. Although that process had not yet been
implemented, Chapter 12, including the transitional legal rules it contains, had been. Under those
rules, any existing development assessment process
would remain applicable. The requirements of the
processes in question included not only consultation with the First Nation concerned, but also its
participation in the assessment of the project. Any
such participation would involve a more extensive

[92] La demande de M. Paulsen constituait un


projet soumis au processus dvaluation prvu au
chapitre 12 de lEntente dfinitive de la Premire
nation de Little Salmon/Carmacks ( Entente dfinitive ). Ce processus navait pas t mis en uvre,
mais le chapitre 12 lavait t, y compris les rgles
de droit provisoire y figurant. En vertu de ces rgles,
tout processus existant dvaluation des activits de
dveloppement demeurait en vigueur. Ces processus prvoyaient non seulement la consultation de la
nation autochtone concerne, mais aussi sa participation lvaluation du projet. Une telle participation impliquait un niveau de consultation suprieur

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

148

Page 46 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

149

consultation than would be required by the common


law duty in that regard. Therefore, nothing in this
case can justify resorting to a duty other than the
one provided for in the Final Agreement.

celui qui aurait t fond sur lobligation faite par


la jurisprudence cet gard. En consquence, rien,
en lespce, ne saurait justifier le recours une obligation externe celle prvue par lEntente dfinitive.

[93] The Crowns constitutional duty to specifically consult Aboriginal peoples was initially recognized as a factor going to the determination of
whether an Aboriginal right was infringed (Guerin
v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335), and was later
established as one component of the test for determining whether infringements of Aboriginal rights
by the Crown were justified: R. v. Sparrow, [1990]
1 S.C.R. 1075. The Court was subsequently asked
in Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of
Forests), 2004 SCC 73, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511, and
Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia
(Project Assessment Director), 2004 SCC 74, [2004]
3 S.C.R. 550, whether such a duty to consult could
apply even before an Aboriginal or treaty right is
proven to exist. The Courts affirmative answer
was based on a desire to encourage the Crown and
Aboriginal peoples to negotiate treaties rather than
resorting to litigation.

[93] Lobligation constitutionnelle qui incombe


la Couronne de consulter de faon spciale les
Autochtones est apparue lorigine comme facteur dvaluation dune atteinte un droit autochtone (Guerin c. La Reine, [1984] 2 R.C.S. 335), puis
a t tablie en tant que composante du critre de
vrification du caractre justifi des atteintes portes par la premire aux droits constitutionnels des
seconds : R. c. Sparrow, [1990] 1 R.C.S. 1075. Les
affaires Nation hada c. ColombieBritannique
(Ministre des Forts), 2004 CSC 73, [2004] 3
R.C.S. 511, et Premire nation Tlingit de Taku
River c. ColombieBritannique (Directeur dva
luation de projet), 2004 CSC 74, [2004] 3 R.C.S.
550, ont ensuite pos la question de savoir si une
telle obligation de consultation pouvait tre mise en
uvre avant que soit tablie lexistence dun droit
ancestral ou issu de trait. La rponse positive qua
donne notre Cour tait fonde sur une volont de
favoriser la ngociation de traits entre la Couronne
et les peuples autochtones plutt que le recours aux
tribunaux.

[94] I disagree with Binnie J.s view that the


common law constitutional duty to consult applies
in every case, regardless of the terms of the treaty
in question. And I also disagree with the appellants assertion that an external duty to consult
can never apply to parties to modern comprehensive land claims agreements and that the Final
Agreement constitutes a complete code. In my view,
Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of
Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69, [2005] 3 S.C.R.
388, stands for the proposition that the common
law constitutional duty to consult Aboriginal peoples applies to the parties to a treaty only if they
have said nothing about consultation in respect of
the right the Crown seeks to exercise under the
treaty. Moreover, it is essential to understand that
in this context, the signature of the treaty entails
a change in the nature of the consultation. When
consultation is provided for in a treaty, it ceases to

[94] Si, contrairement au juge Binnie, je ne dis pas


que lobligation constitutionnelle de consultation
dgage par la jurisprudence sapplique dans tous les
cas, peu importe les stipulations du trait en cause,
je ne dis pas non plus, comme le font les appelants,
quon peut affirmer quune obligation externe de
consultation ne saurait jamais sappliquer aux parties un accord moderne de rglement de revendication territoriale globale et que lEntente dfinitive
constitue un code complet. mon avis, il ressort
de larrt Premire nation crie Mikisew c. Canada
(Ministre du Patrimoine canadien), 2005 CSC 69,
[2005] 3 R.C.S. 388, que lobligation constitutionnelle de consultation des Autochtones tablie par la
jurisprudence ne sapplique aux parties un trait
que si celles-ci ont t silencieuses cet gard relativement au droit que la Couronne cherche exercer
en vertu du trait. En outre, il est capital de signaler
que, dans un tel contexte, un pas est franchi et que

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 47 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

be a measure to prevent the infringement of one or


more rights, as in Haida Nation, and becomes a
duty that applies to the Crowns exercise of rights
granted to it in the treaty by the Aboriginal party.
This means that where, as in Mikisew, the common
law duty to consult applies to treaty rights despite
the existence of the treaty because the parties to
the treaty included no provisions in this regard it
represents the minimum obligational content.

la consultation change alors de sens. Lorsquelle est


prvue par les dispositions dun trait, la consultation ne constitue plus une mesure visant prvenir des atteintes un ou plusieurs droits, comme
dans laffaire Nation hada, mais plutt une obligation touchant les modalits dexercice, par la
Couronne, des droits que la partie autochtone lui
reconnat par trait. Cela veut donc dire que dans
les cas o, comme dans Mikisew, lobligation jurisprudentielle de consultation intervient relativement
des droits issus dun trait nonobstant lexistence
de celui-ci en raison du dfaut des parties ce
trait davoir stipul cet gard , cest titre de
contenu obligationnel minimal.

[95] Binnie J. has set out the facts. I will return


to them only to make some clarifications I consider necessary. For now, I will simply mention that the appellants position is based on the
fact that this case concerns a modern treaty. The
appellants argue that in a case involving a modern
treaty, the duty to consult is strictly limited to the
terms expressly agreed on by the parties and there
is no such duty if none has been provided for. In
their view, a duty to consult can be found to exist
only if the parties have expressly provided for one.
The appellants seek not a reversal of the Court of
Appeals ultimate conclusion, but a declaration
on the scope of the duty to consult. The respondents, who are also cross-appellants, are asking us
to overturn the Court of Appeals decision and
affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of the
Yukon Territory quashing the decision to approve
the grant of land to Mr. Paulsen. The respondents submit that the source of the Crowns duty
to consult them lies outside the treaty, that is, that
the duty derives exclusively from constitutional
values and common law principles. According
to the respondents, the treaty does not purport to
define their constitutional relationship with the
Crown, nor does the constitutional duty apply in
order to fill a gap in the treaty (R.F., at para. 11).
They submit that the common law duty to consult
applies because Mr. Paulsens application would
affect their interests. They invoke three interests:
a right of access for subsistence harvesting purposes to the land in question in the application,
their interest under the treaty in fish and wildlife

[95] Le juge Binnie a expos les faits. Je ny


reviendrai que pour y ajouter les prcisions qui me
paratront simposer. Pour linstant, il suffit de rappeler que la thse des appelants repose sur le fait
quil sagit dun trait moderne. Ils soutiennent que,
en prsence dun tel trait, lobligation de consultation se limite strictement aux modalits dont les
parties ont expressment convenu, et que si rien na
t prvu, il ny a pas dobligation. Selon eux, pour
pouvoir conclure lexistence dune obligation de
consulter, il faut que celle-ci ait t explicitement
formule par les parties. Les appelants ne demandent pas linfirmation de la conclusion ultime de
la Cour dappel, mais plutt une dclaration sur la
porte de lobligation de consulter. Les intims, qui
sont aussi appelants incidents, sollicitent pour leur
part la cassation du jugement de la Cour dappel. Ils
voudraient que soit confirm le jugement de la Cour
suprme du Yukon qui a cass la dcision autorisant la cession de la terre M. Paulsen. Les intims
soutiennent que lobligation qua la Couronne de les
consulter puise sa source lextrieur du trait, soit
exclusivement dans les valeurs constitutionnelles et
les principes de la common law. Pour eux, le trait
na pas pour objet de dfinir leurs relations constitutionnelles avec la Couronne et lobligation constitutionnelle ne sert pas combler un hiatus dans le
trait (m.i., par. 11). Ils soutiennent que lobligation
jurisprudentielle de consultation sapplique parce
que la demande de M. Paulsen affecte leurs intrts.
Ils invoquent trois intrts : un droit daccs aux
fins de rcolte non commerciale la terre faisant
lobjet de la demande, leur intrt dans la gestion

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

150

Page 48 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

151

management, and the reduced value of the trapline


of the respondent Johnny Sam.

des ressources halieutiques et fauniques prvue au


trait et la diminution de valeur de la ligne de pigeage que dtient lintim Johnny Sam.

[96] In my view, the answers to the questions


before the Court can be found first in the general
principles of Aboriginal law and then in the terms
of the treaty. To explain my conclusion, I must
review the origin, the nature, the function and the
specific purpose of the duty being relied on, after
which I will discuss what can be learned from a
careful review of the treaty.

[96] mon avis, la rponse aux questions qui sont


poses la Cour se trouve dabord dans les principes gnraux du droit relatif aux Autochtones puis
dans les stipulations du trait. Pour expliquer ma
conclusion, je dois revenir sur lorigine, la nature,
la fonction ainsi que lobjet prcis de lobligation
invoque et sur ce quune lecture attentive du trait
rvle.

I.

I.

General Principles

Principes gnraux

[97] In Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998]


2 S.C.R. 217, at paras. 48-82, this Court identified four principles that underlie the whole of our
constitution and of its evolution: (1) constitutionalism and the rule of law; (2) democracy; (3) respect
for minority rights; and (4) federalism. These four
organizing principles are interwoven in three basic
compacts: (1) one between the Crown and individuals with respect to the individuals fundamental rights and freedoms; (2) one between the
non-Aboriginal population and Aboriginal peoples
with respect to Aboriginal rights and treaties with
Aboriginal peoples; and (3) a federal compact
between the provinces. The compact that is of particular interest in the instant case is the second one,
which, as we will see, actually incorporates a fifth
principle underlying our Constitution: the honour
of the Crown.

[97] loccasion du Renvoi relatif la scession


du Qubec, [1998] 2 R.C.S. 217, par. 48-82, notre
Cour a dgag quatre principes qui sous-tendent
lensemble de notre Constitution et de son volution : (1) le constitutionnalisme et la primaut du
droit; (2) la dmocratie; (3) le respect des droits des
minorits; (4) le fdralisme. Ces quatre principes
structurants sarticulent dans trois pactes fondamentaux : (1) pacte entre ltat et les personnes au
sujet des droits et liberts fondamentaux de ces dernires; (2) pacte entre la population allochtone et les
peuples autochtones sur le respect des droits ancestraux des seconds et des traits conclus avec eux;
(3) pacte fdratif entre les provinces. Le pacte
qui nous intresse tout spcialement en lespce est
le deuxime, dont nous verrons quil est, dans les
faits, porteur dun cinquime principe sous-jacent
notre Constitution : lhonneur de la Couronne.

[98] The Aboriginal and treaty rights of the


Aboriginal peoples of Canada are recognized and
affirmed in s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The framers of the Constitution also considered it
advisable to specify in s. 25 of that same Act that
the guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms
to persons and citizens must not be considered to
be inherently incompatible with the recognition
of special rights for Aboriginal peoples. In other
words, the first and second compacts should be
interpreted not in a way that brings them into conflict with one another, but rather as being complementary. Finally, s. 35(4) provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of the Constitution

[98] Notre Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, par.


35(1), reconnat et confirme les droits ancestraux
et issus de traits des peuples autochtones du
Canada. Le constituant a galement jug bon de
prciser, lart. 25 de cette mme loi, que le fait
quil reconnaisse des droits et liberts fondamentaux aux personnes et citoyens ne devait pas tre
jug en soi incompatible avec la reconnaissance de
droits spciaux aux peuples autochtones. Autrement
dit, lorsquon interprte les premier et deuxime
pactes, il ne faut pas le faire de sorte quils entrent
en conflit, mais plutt quils se compltent. Enfin,
le par. 35(4) confirme que, nonobstant toute autre
disposition de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982,

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 49 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

Act, 1982, the Aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed in s. 35(1) are guaranteed
equally to male and female persons. The compact
relating to the special rights of Aboriginal peoples
is therefore in harmony with the other two basic
compacts and with the four organizing principles
of our constitutional system.

les droits ancestraux ou issus de traits reconnus


et confirms par le par. 35(1) sont garantis galement aux personnes des deux sexes . Le pacte
relatif aux droits spciaux des peuples autochtones
sharmonise donc avec les deux autres pactes fondamentaux et avec les quatre principes structurants
de notre ordre constitutionnel.

[99] In the case at bar, all the parties are, in one


way or another, bound by the Final Agreement,
which settles the comprehensive land claim of the
Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation. Section 35(3)
of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that in subsection (1) the expression treaty rights includes
rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. The appellants position is based on one such agreement.

[99] En lespce, les parties sont toutes, dune


manire ou dune autre, lies par lEntente dfinitive qui porte rglement de la revendication territoriale globale de la Premire nation de Little Salmon/
Carmacks. Justement, le par. 35(3) de la Loi consti
tutionnelle de 1982 prcise que les droits issus
de traits , dont il est fait mention au paragraphe (1) , comprennent les droits existants issus
daccords sur des revendications territoriales ou
ceux susceptibles dtre ainsi acquis. Les appelants assoient leur position sur un tel accord.

[100] The respondents, intending to rely on


Mikisew, invoke only the Crowns common law
duty to consult Aboriginal peoples, and not the
agreement, which, as can be seen from the transcript of the hearing (at p. 46), they do not allege
has been breached; they submit that the purpose of
the agreement in the instant case was not to define
the parties constitutional duties.

[100] Entendant bien sappuyer sur larrt Mikisew,


les intims ninvoquent quant eux que lobligation
jurisprudentielle qua la Couronne de consulter les
Autochtones et non laccord, lgard duquel ils
nallguent aucune violation, selon ce que rvle la
transcription de laudience (p. 46), et prtendent, en
lespce, quil navait pas pour objet de dfinir les
obligations constitutionnelles des parties.

[101] Prior consultation was used originally as a


criterion to be applied in determining whether an
Aboriginal right had been infringed (Guerin, at p.
389), and then as one factor in favour of finding
that a limit on a constitutional right whether an
Aboriginal or a treaty right of the Aboriginal
peoples in question was justified (Sparrow, at p.
1119). The Crown failed to consult Aboriginal peoples at its own risk, so to speak, if it took measures
that, should Aboriginal title or an Aboriginal or
treaty right be proven to exist, infringed that right.

[101] lorigine, la consultation pralable a t


utilise comme critre dvaluation de la violation
dun droit autochtone (Guerin, p. 389), puis comme
un facteur militant en faveur du caractre justifi
de la restriction apporte au droit constitutionnel
ancestral ou issu de trait des Autochtones
concerns (Sparrow, p. 1119). Si la Couronne ne
consultait pas les Autochtones, ctait pour ainsi
dire ses risques et prils si les mesures quelle prenait devait, en cas de preuve de lexistence dun titre
aborigne ou dun droit ancestral ou issu de trait,
se rvler attentatoires ce droit.

[102] Then, in Haida Nation and Taku River, it


was asked whether such a duty to consult exists
even though the existence of an Aboriginal right
has not been fully and definitively established
in a court proceeding or the framework for exercising such a right has not been established in a

[102] Les affaires Nation hada et Taku River ont


ensuite pos la question de lexistence dune telle
obligation de consultation, indpendamment de
ltablissement complet et dfinitif dun droit ancestral au terme dune instance judiciaire ou dun processus damnagement de ses modalits dexercice

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

152

Page 50 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

153

treaty. Had the answer to this question been no,


this would have amounted, in particular, to denying that under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982,
the rights of Aboriginal peoples are protected by
the Constitution even if no court has yet declared
that those rights exist and no undertaking has yet
been given to exercise them only in accordance
with a treaty. A negative answer would also have
had the effect of increasing the recourse to litigation rather than to negotiation, and the interlocutory injunction would have been left as the only
remedy against threats to Aboriginal rights where
the framework for exercising those rights has yet to
be formally defined. It was just such a scenario that
the Court strove to avoid in Haida Nation and Taku
River, as the Chief Justice made clear in her reasons
in Haida Nation (paras. 14 and 26).

dans un trait. Une rponse ngative cette question aurait notamment eu pour effet de nier que, en
vertu de lart. 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982,
les droits ancestraux des peuples autochtones bnficient de la protection de la Constitution, mme
sils nont pas encore fait lobjet dune dclaration
judiciaire ou dun engagement ntre exercs que
conformment aux stipulations dun trait. Une
rponse ngative aurait aussi eu pour consquence
daccrotre le recours aux tribunaux plutt qu la
ngociation et de ne laisser que linjonction interlocutoire comme seul remde en cas de menace
des droits ancestraux dont les modalits dexercice
nont pas encore t formellement dfinies. Cest un
tel scnario qua rsolument voulu carter la Cour
dans Nation hada et Taku River. Ce qui prcde se
dgage clairement des motifs rdigs par la Juge en
chef dans laffaire Nation hada (par. 14 et 26).

[103] Thus, the constitutional duty to consult


Aboriginal peoples involves three objectives: in
the short term, to provide interim or interlocutory protection for the constitutional rights of
those peoples; in the medium term, to favour negotiation of the framework for exercising such rights
over having that framework defined by the courts;
and, in the longer term, to assist in reconciling
the interests of Aboriginal peoples with those of
other stakeholders. As one author recently noted,
the raison dtre of the constitutional duty to consult Aboriginal peoples is to some extent, if not
primarily, to contribute to attaining the ultimate
objective of reconciliation through the negotiation of treaties, and in particular of comprehensive
land claims agreements (D. G. Newman, The Duty
to Consult: New Relationships with Aboriginal
Peoples (2009), at pp. 18 and 41). This objective
of reconciliation of course presupposes active participation by Aboriginal peoples in the negotiation
of treaties, as opposed to a necessarily more passive role and an antagonistic attitude in the context
of constitutional litigation (Haida Nation, at para.
14; S. Grammond, Amnager la coexistence: Les
peuples autochtones et le droit canadien (2003),
at p. 247). The duty to consult can be enforced in
different ways. However, the courts must ensure
that this duty is not distorted and invoked in a way
that compromises rather than fostering negotiation.

[103] Lobligation constitutionnelle de consulter les Autochtones vise donc trois objectifs :
court terme, assurer la protection provisoire
ou interlocutoire des droits constitutionnels des
peuples autochtones; moyen terme, favoriser la
ngociation des modalits dexercice de tels droits
plutt que leur dfinition par les tribunaux; enfin,
plus long terme, permettre la rconciliation des
intrts respectifs des Autochtones et des autres
parties concernes. Comme la dailleurs rcemment soulign un auteur, lobligation constitutionnelle de consultation des Autochtones a notamment, sinon principalement, pour raison dtre de
contribuer lobjectif ultime de rconciliation par
la ngociation de traits, en particulier daccords
de rglement de revendications territoriales globales (D. G. Newman, The Duty to Consult : New
Relationships with Aboriginal Peoples (2009), p. 18
et 41). Cet objectif de rconciliation suppose bien
entendu lexercice, par les Autochtones, dun rle
actif de nature constituante lors de la ngociation de
traits plutt quun rle forcment plus passif et une
attitude antagoniste en cas de contentieux constitutionnel (Nation hada, par. 14; S. Grammond,
Amnager la coexistence : Les peuples autochtones
et le droit canadien (2003), p. 247). Lobligation
de consultation peut faire lobjet dune forme ou
une autre dexcution force. Les tribunaux doivent toutefois veiller ce que cette obligation de

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 51 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

That, in my view, would be the outcome if we were


to accept the respondents argument that the treaties, and the Final Agreement in particular, do not
purport to define the parties constitutional duties,
including what the Crown party must do to consult
the Aboriginal party before exercising its rights
under the treaty.

consultation ne soit pas dnature et invoque dune


manire qui compromette la ngociation au lieu de
la favoriser. Cest ce qui se produirait, mon avis,
si on retenait largument des intims selon lequel
les traits, et plus particulirement lEntente dfinitive, nont pas pour objet de dfinir les obligations
constitutionnelles des parties, y compris les modalits de la consultation de la partie autochtone par
la partie tatique avant lexercice par cette dernire
des droits que lui reconnat le trait.

[104] The short-, medium- and long-term objectives of the constitutional duty to consult Aboriginal
peoples are all rooted in the same fundamental
principle with respect to the rights of Aboriginal
peoples, namely the honour of the Crown, which
is always at stake in relations between the Crown
and Aboriginal peoples (R. v. Van der Peet, [1996]
2 S.C.R. 507, at para. 24). Obviously, when these
relations involve the special constitutional rights
of Aboriginal peoples, the honour of the Crown
becomes a source of constitutional duties and rights,
such as the Crowns duty to consult Aboriginal peoples with respect to their Aboriginal or treaty rights
(R. v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 483, at
para. 6).

[104] Les diffrents objectifs court, moyen


et long terme de lobligation constitutionnelle de
consultation des Autochtones procdent tous dun
mme principe fondamental en ce qui concerne
les droits des peuples autochtones : lhonneur de
la Couronne, qui est toujours en jeu dans les rapports entre ltat et les peuples autochtones (R. c.
Van der Peet, [1996] 2 R.C.S. 507, par. 24). De toute
vidence, lorsque ces rapports portent sur les droits
constitutionnels spciaux de ces peuples, lhonneur
de la Couronne devient alors source dobligations
et de droits constitutionnels, comme cest le cas
pour lobligation de la Couronne de consulter les
Autochtones relativement aux droits ancestraux ou
issus de traits de ces derniers (R. c. Kapp, 2008
CSC 41, [2008] 2 R.C.S. 483, par. 6).

[105] This Court has, over time, substituted the


principle of the honour of the Crown for a concept the fiduciary duty that, in addition to
being limited to certain types of relations that did
not always concern the constitutional rights of
Aboriginal peoples, had paternalistic overtones
(St. Anns Island Shooting and Fishing Club Ltd.
v. The King, [1950] S.C.R. 211, at p. 219; Guerin;
Sparrow; Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada
(National Energy Board), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 159, at
p. 183; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3
S.C.R. 1010; Haida Nation; Taku River Tlingit First
Nation; Mitchell v. M.N.R., 2001 SCC 33, [2001] 1
S.C.R. 911, at para. 9, per McLachlin C.J.; Mikisew,
at para. 51). Before being raised to the status of a
constitutional principle, the honour of the Crown
was originally referred to as the sanctity of the
word of the white man (R. v. White (1964), 50
D.L.R. (2d) 613 (B.C.C.A.), at p. 649, affd (1965),
52 D.L.R. (2d) 481 (S.C.C.); see also R. v. Sioui,

[105] Dans notre jurisprudence, le principe de


lhonneur de la Couronne tend se substituer une
notion qui possde la fois une porte se limitant
certains types de rapports nintressant pas toujours les droits constitutionnels des Autochtones et
des relents de paternalisme, savoir lobligation de
fiduciaire (St. Anns Island Shooting and Fishing
Club Ltd. c. The King, [1950] R.C.S. 211, p. 219;
Guerin; Sparrow; Qubec (Procureur gnral)
c. Canada (Office national de lnergie), [1994]
1 R.C.S. 159, p. 183; Delgamuukw c. Colombie
Britannique, [1997] 3 R.C.S. 1010; Nation hada;
Premire nation Tlingit de Taku River; Mitchell c.
M.R.N., 2001 CSC 33, [2001] 1 R.C.S. 911, par. 9,
la juge en chef McLachlin; Mikisew, par. 51). Avant
dtre lev au rang de principe constitutionnel,
lhonneur de la Couronne sest dabord entendu du
caractre sacr de la [traduCtion] parole de
lhomme blanc (R. c. White (1964), 50 D.L.R. (2d)
613 (C.A.C.-B.), p. 649, conf. par (1965), 52 D.L.R.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

154

Page 52 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

155

[1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025, at p. 1041, and Province of


Ontario v. Dominion of Canada (1895), 25 S.C.R.
434, at pp. 511-12, per Gwynne J. (dissenting)). The
honour of the Crown thus became a key principle
for the interpretation of treaties with Aboriginal
peoples (R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771, at para.
41; R. v. Sundown, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 393, at paras. 24
and 46; R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456, at para.
78, per McLachlin J. (as she then was), dissenting,
but not on this issue; Mikisew, at para. 51).

(2d) 481 (C.S.C.); voir galement R. c. Sioui, [1990]


1 R.C.S. 1025, p. 1041, et Province of Ontario c.
Dominion of Canada (1895), 25 R.C.S. 434, p.
511-512, le juge Gwynne (dissident)). Lhonneur
de la Couronne est ainsi devenu un principe cardinal dinterprtation des traits conclus avec les
Autochtones (R. c. Badger, [1996] 1 R.C.S. 771,
par. 41; R. c. Sundown, [1999] 1 R.C.S. 393, par.
24 et 46; R. c. Marshall, [1999] 3 R.C.S. 456, par.
78, la juge McLachlin (maintenant Juge en chef),
dissidente, mais non sur cette question; Mikisew,
par. 51).

[106] Associating the honour of the Crown with


the observance of duly negotiated treaties implies
that some value is placed on the treaty negotiation
process. But for the treaty to have legal value, its
force must be such that neither of the parties can
disregard it. The principle of the honour of the
Crown does not exempt the Aboriginal party from
honouring its own undertakings. What is in question here is respect for the ability of Aboriginal
peoples to participate actively in defining their special constitutional rights, and for their autonomy of
judgment.

[106] Associer lhonneur de la Couronne au respect des traits dment ngocis suppose une certaine valorisation du processus de ngociation de
ces traits. Or, la valeur juridique mme du trait
dpend de la capacit de celui-ci dtre respect
par les deux parties. Le principe de lhonneur de la
Couronne ne dispense pas la partie autochtone de
lobligation dhonorer ses propres engagements. Il
en va du respect de la capacit des peuples autochtones de prendre une part active la dfinition de
leurs droits constitutionnels spciaux, du respect de
leur autonomie de jugement.

[107] To allow one party to renege unilaterally


on its constitutional undertaking by superimposing further rights and obligations relating to matters already provided for in the treaty could result
in a paternalistic legal contempt, compromise the
national treaty negotiation process and frustrate
the ultimate objective of reconciliation. This is
the danger of what seems to me to be an unfortunate attempt to take the constitutional principle of
the honour of the Crown hostage together with the
principle of the duty to consult Aboriginal peoples
that flows from it.

[107] Permettre une partie de revenir unilatralement sur son engagement constitutionnel en y
superposant des droits et obligations additionnels
portant sur des matires dj prvues au trait risque
de se traduire par un mpris juridique paternaliste,
de compromettre le processus national de ngociation de traits et de nuire la poursuite de lobjectif
ultime de rconciliation. Voil le pril auquel nous
expose ce qui me semble tre une malheureuse prise
en otage du principe constitutionnel de lhonneur de
la Couronne et du principe en dcoulant, lobligation de consulter les Autochtones.

[108] The Crown does indeed act honourably when


it negotiates in good faith with an Aboriginal nation
to conclude a treaty establishing how that nation is
to exercise its special rights in its traditional territory. Adhering to the principle of the honour of the
Crown also requires that in the course of negotiations the Crown consult the Aboriginal party, to an
extent that can vary, and in some cases find ways to
accommodate it, before taking steps or making

[108] La Couronne se montre assurment honorable lorsquelle ngocie de bonne foi avec une nation
autochtone un trait prcisant les modalits dexercice des droits spciaux de celle-ci sur son territoire
traditionnel. Le respect du principe de lhonneur de
la Couronne exige aussi que, en cas de ngociation,
cette dernire consulte avec une intensit variable
la partie autochtone et, dans certains cas, trouve le
moyen de l accommoder avant de prendre des

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 53 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

decisions that could infringe special constitutional


rights in respect of which the Crown has already
agreed to negotiate a framework for exercising
them (Haida Nation; Taku River). Since the honour
of the Crown is more a normative legal concept
than a description of the Crowns actual conduct,
it implies a duty on the part of the Crown to consult Aboriginal peoples not only with respect to the
Aboriginal rights to which the negotiations actually
relate, but also with respect to any Aboriginal right
the potential existence of which the Crown can be
found to have constructive knowledge, provided,
of course, that what it plans to do might adversely
affect such rights (Haida Nation, at para. 35). As
we have seen, this principle also requires that the
Crown keep its word and honour its undertakings
after a treaty has been signed.

mesures ou dcisions susceptibles dattenter des


droits constitutionnels spciaux dont elle a justement accept de ngocier les modalits dexercice
(Nation hada; Taku River). En ralit, tant davantage un concept juridique normatif quun concept
descriptif de laction relle de la Couronne, lhonneur de la Couronne implique lobligation pour
celle-ci de consulter les Autochtones non seulement
au sujet des droits ancestraux effectivement viss
par les ngociations, mais galement au sujet de
tout droit ancestral dont la connaissance ou lexistence potentielle peut lui tre impute, pour autant,
bien entendu, que les dispositions quelle envisage
de prendre seraient susceptibles davoir un effet
prjudiciable sur de tels droits (Nation hada, par.
35). Ce mme principe commande aussi, comme
nous lavons vu, que la Couronne tienne parole
et respecte ses engagements une fois un trait
conclu.

[109] In concluding a treaty, the Crown does not


act dishonourably in agreeing with an Aboriginal
community on an elaborate framework involving
various forms of consultation with respect to the
exercise of that communitys rights: consultation
in the strict sense, participation in environmental
and socio-economic assessments, co-management,
etc. Nor, in such cases which are the norm since
the signing of the James Bay and Northern Qubec
Agreement in 1975 does the Crown act dishonourably in concluding a land claim agreement based
on Aboriginal rights if it requires the Aboriginal
party to agree that no parallel mechanism relating
to a matter covered by the treaty will enable that
party to renege on its undertakings. Legal certainty
is the primary objective of all parties to a comprehensive land claim agreement.

[109] Dans le cadre de la conclusion dun trait, il


ny a rien de dshonorant pour la Couronne sentendre avec une communaut autochtone sur un
rgime dtaill et multiforme de consultation relative lexercice des droits de cette communaut :
consultation au sens strict, participation lvaluation environnementale et socioconomique, cogestion, etc. En outre, dans un tel cas et cest normalement ce qui se produit depuis la signature de la
Convention de la BaieJames et du Nord qubcois
en 1975 lors de la conclusion de tout accord de
rglement dune revendication territoriale fonde
sur des droits ancestraux, il ny a rien non plus de
dshonorant de la part de la Couronne exiger de la
partie autochtone quaucun rgime parallle relatif
une matire prvue au trait ne permette celle-ci
de revenir sur ses engagements. En effet, la scurit
juridique est lobjectif premier de toutes les parties
un accord portant rglement de revendication territoriale globale.

[110] It has sometimes been asserted, incorrectly in my opinion, that in treaty negotiations, the
Crown and Aboriginal parties have deeply divergent points of view respecting this objective of legal
certainty, which only the Crown is really interested
in pursuing. Excessive weight should not be given
to the arguments of the parties to this case, as their

[110] On a parfois affirm, tort selon moi, que,


dans la ngociation dun trait, la partie tatique
et la partie autochtone divergeaient profondment
dopinions relativement cet objectif de scurit
juridique, ou certitude , dont seul ltat aurait
cur la poursuite. Il ne faut pas accorder un poids
dmesur aux thses avances par les parties en

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

156

Page 54 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

157

positions have clearly become polarized as a result


of the adversarial context of this proceeding.

lespce, qui ont arrt des positions sans nul doute


polarises par le contexte contradictoire de la prsente instance.

[111] In fact, according to studies commissioned


by the United Nations, (1) lack of precision with
respect to their special rights continues to be the
most serious problem faced by Aboriginal peoples,
and (2) Aboriginal peoples attach capital importance to the conclusion of treaties with the Crown
(M. Saint-Hilaire, La proposition dentente de
principe avec les Innus: vers une nouvelle gnration de traits? (2003), 44 C. de D. 395, at pp.
397-98). It is also wrong, in my opinion, to say that
Aboriginal peoples relational understanding of
the treaty is incompatible with the pursuit of the
objective of legal certainty. On this understanding, that of treaty making, the primary purpose
of these instruments is to establish a relationship
that will have to evolve (M. L. Stevenson, Visions
of Certainty: Challenging Assumptions, in Law
Commission of Canada, ed., Speaking Truth to
Power: A Treaty Forum (2001), 113, at p. 121; R. A.
Williams, Linking Arms Together (1997)). The concept of an agreement that provides certainty is not
synonymous with that of a final agreement, or
even with that of an entire agreement. Legal certainty cannot be attained if one of the parties to a
treaty can unilaterally renege on its undertakings
with respect to a matter provided for in the treaty
where there is no provision for its doing so in the
treaty. This does not rule out the possibility of there
being matters not covered by a treaty with respect
to which the Aboriginal party has not surrendered
possible Aboriginal rights. Nor does legal certainty
imply that an equitable review mechanism cannot
be provided for in a treaty.

[111] En effet, des travaux commands par lOrganisation des Nations Unies ont rvl que (1) le
dficit de prcision de leurs droits spciaux demeurait le problme le plus important pour les peuples
autochtones, en mme temps que (2) limportance
capitale que revt aux yeux de ces peuples la conclusion de traits avec les tats (M. Saint-Hilaire, La
proposition dentente de principe avec les Innus :
vers une nouvelle gnration de traits? (2003), 44
C. de D. 395, p. 397-398). On fait galement fausse
route, mon avis, lorsquon affirme que la conception relationnelle que se font les Autochtones des
traits est incompatible avec la poursuite dun
objectif de scurit juridique. Suivant cette conception de la [TRADUCTION] ngociation de traits
( treaty making ), ces instruments viseraient principalement tablir une relation qui serait appele
voluer (M. L. Stevenson, Visions de certitude :
question dhypothses , dans Commission du droit
du Canada, dir., Parlons franchement propos des
traits (2001), 123, p. 132; R. A. Williams, Linking
Arms Together (1997)). Or, la notion d accord sr
ne concide pas avec celle d accord dfinitif , ni
mme avec celle d accord complet . Il ne saurait
y avoir de scurit juridique si une des parties un
trait pouvait unilatralement et sans que cela ne
soit prvu au trait revenir sur ses engagements
lgard dune matire prvue ce trait. Cela ne veut
pas dire quil ne peut pas exister de matires dont
les parties nauront pas trait et lgard desquelles
la partie autochtone pourra ne pas avoir renonc
dventuels droits ancestraux. La scurit juridique
nexclut pas non plus la possibilit de prvoir, dans
un trait, un mcanisme quitable de rexamen.

[112] Thus, it should be obvious that the best


way for a court to contribute to ensuring that a
treaty fosters, in the words of Binnie J., a positive long-term relationship between Aboriginal and
non-Aboriginal communities (at para. 10) consists first and foremost in ensuring that the parties cannot unilaterally renege on their undertakings. And once legal certainty has been pursued
as a common objective at the negotiation stage, it

[112] En ce sens, il devrait tre vident que la


meilleure faon pour les tribunaux de contribuer
ce quun trait favorise, comme le souhaite le juge
Binnie, une relation long terme harmonieuse
entre les collectivits autochtones et non autochtones (par. 10), consiste dabord et avant tout
sassurer que les parties ne puissent revenir unilatralement sur leurs engagements. Et il se trouve que,
en aval de sa poursuite en tant quobjectif partag

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 55 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

cannot become a one-way proposition at the stage


of implementation of the treaty. On the contrary,
certainty with respect to one partys rights implies
that the party in question must discharge its obligations and respect the other partys rights. Having
laboured so hard, in their common interest, to substitute a well-defined legal system for an uncertain
normative system, both the Aboriginal party and
the Crown party have an interest in seeing their
efforts bear fruit.

ltape de la ngociation, la scurit juridique ne saurait, ltape de la mise en uvre dun trait, oprer
sens unique. Au contraire, la scurit des droits
dune partie implique ncessairement que celle-ci
sacquitte de ses obligations et respecte les droits
de lautre partie. Stant toutes deux chines, dans
leur intrt commun, substituer un systme juridique prcis un rgime normatif incertain, la partie
autochtone et la partie tatique ont toutes deux intrt ce que leur uvre produise ses effets.

[113] Except where actions are taken that are


likely to unilaterally infringe treaty rights of an
Aboriginal people, it is counterproductive to assert,
as the respondents do, that the common law duty to
consult continues to apply in all cases, even where
a treaty exists. However, the appellants argument
goes much too far. As I explain more fully below,
the fact that a treaty has been signed and that it is
the entire agreement on some aspects of the relationship between an Aboriginal people and the
non-Aboriginal population does not imply that it
is a complete code that covers every aspect of that
relationship. It is in fact because the agreement in
issue does provide that the Aboriginal party has a
right to various forms of consultation with respect
to the rights the Crown wishes to exercise in this
case that rights and obligations foreign to the
mechanism provided for in the treaty must not be
superimposed on it, and not simply, as the appellants submit, because this is a modern treaty constituting a land claims agreement.

[113] Sauf en ce qui concerne la prise de mesures susceptibles denfreindre unilatralement des
droits reconnus par trait un peuple autochtone,
il est contre-productif daffirmer, comme le font les
intims, que lobligation de consultation de rgime
jurisprudentiel demeure toujours applicable, mme
en prsence dun trait. Cela dit, la thse des appelants va beaucoup trop loin. Comme je lexplique
plus amplement ci-dessous, le fait quun trait ait
t sign et quil sagisse de lentente complte sur
certains aspects de la relation des Autochtones avec
les non-Autochtones ne signifie pas quil sagit dun
code complet couvrant tous les aspects de cette relation. En lespce, cest justement parce que laccord
en cause traite bel et bien des diffrentes formes de
consultation auxquelles a droit la partie autochtone
concernant les droits que la Couronne veut exercer
quil faut se garder de superposer ce rgime des
droits et obligations qui lui sont trangers, et non
pas simplement, comme le prtendent les appelants,
parce quil sagit dun trait moderne constituant
un accord portant rglement de revendications territoriales.

[114] It is true that s. 35(3) of the Constitution


Act, 1982 recognizes the existence of a category
of treaties, called land claims agreements, which,
in constitutional law, create treaty rights within
the meaning of s. 35(1). Thus, although the courts
will certainly take the context of the negotiation of
each treaty into consideration, they will avoid, for
example, developing rules specific to each category
of treaty identified in the legal literature or by the
government (e.g., peace and friendship treaties,
pre-Confederation treaties, numbered treaties
and modern treaties).

[114] Il est vrai que le par. 35(3) de la Loi constitu


tionnelle de 1982 reconnat lexistence dune catgorie de traits, appels accords sur des revendications territoriales , dont la loi constitutionnelle
confirme quils crent des droits issus de traits
viss au par. 35(1). Cela dit, les tribunaux prendront
certes acte du contexte des ngociations de chaque
trait, mais ils viteront, par exemple, de dgager
des rgles particulires pour chaque catgorie de
traits reconnue par la doctrine ou ladministration
publique (p. ex. traits de paix et damiti , traits prconfdratifs , traits numrots , traits modernes ).

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

158

Page 56 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

159

[115] In Quebec (Attorney General) v. Moses,


2010 SCC 17, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 557, LeBel J. and I
rejected the date of signature as the criterion for
determining the rules of interpretation applicable
to treaties entered into with Aboriginal peoples:
. . . the issue relates to the context in which an
agreement was negotiated and signed, not to the
date of its signature (para. 114). We arrived at that
conclusion because we did not believe that distinct
legal meanings flowed from the identification in
the legal literature and by the government of various categories of treaties on the basis of the historical periods in which the treaties were signed. This
approach was also taken by McLachlin J., dissenting on a different issue, in Marshall, as she said
that each treaty must be considered in its unique
historical and cultural context, which suggests
that the practice of slot[ting] treaties into different
categories, each with its own rules of interpretation . . . should be avoided (para. 80).

[115] Dans Qubec (Procureur gnral) c. Moses,


2010 CSC 17, [2010] 1 R.C.S. 557, le juge LeBel et
moi avons rejet la date de conclusion comme critre dterminant les rgles dinterprtation des traits conclus avec les Autochtones : . . . le choix de
la mthode dinterprtation se rattache au contexte
de la ngociation et de la signature dun accord, et
non la date laquelle il a t sign (par. 114).
Cette conclusion procdait dun refus de reconnatre une signification juridique autonome ou immdiate aux diverses catgories de traits que la doctrine et ladministration publique ont tablies sur la
base dun dcoupage historique. Cette approche a
aussi t dfendue par la juge McLachlin, dissidente
sur une autre question, qui a affirm, dans larrt
Marshall, que chaque trait doit tre examin la
lumire de son contexte historique et culturel particulier , principe qui tend indiquer que la
pratique consistant classer les traits en diverses
catgories, dont chacune aurait ses propres rgles
dinterprtation [. . .] devrait tre vite (par. 80).

[116] If, in a given case, a court feels freer to


maintain a certain critical distance from the words
of a treaty and can as a result interpret them in a
manner favourable to the Aboriginal party, this
will be because it has been established on the evidence, including historical and oral evidence, that
the written version of the exchange of promises
probably does not constitute an accurate record
of all the rights of the Aboriginal party and all
the duties of the Crown that were created in that
exchange. It is true that, where certain time periods are concerned, the context in which the agreements were reached will more readily suggest that
the words are not faithful. But this is a question
that relates more to the facts than to the applicable
law, which is, in the final analysis, concerned with
the common intention of the parties. From a legal
standpoint, a comprehensive land claim agreement
is still a treaty, and nothing, not even the fact that
the treaty belongs to a given category, exempts
the court from reading and interpreting the treaty
in light of the context in which it was concluded
in order to identify the parties common intention.
This Court has had occasion to mention that, even
where the oldest of treaties are involved, the interpretation must be realistic and reflect the intention

[116] Dans les cas o les tribunaux se sentiront


davantage libres de prendre une certaine distance
critique par rapport au texte dun trait et pourront,
de ce fait, linterprter dune manire favorable
la partie autochtone, ce sera parce que la preuve,
y compris la preuve historique et orale, aura tabli
quil est probable que la version crite de lchange
de promesses ne consigne pas fidlement tous les
droits de la partie autochtone et toutes les obligations de la Couronne qua crs cet change. Il est
vrai que, pour certaines poques, le contexte de
conclusion des accords suggrera plus facilement
lexistence dune telle infidlit du texte. Mais cela
ressortit davantage aux faits quau droit applicable,
lequel sattache en dernire analyse lintention
commune des parties. Du point de vue juridique,
les accords de rglement de revendications territoriales globales demeurent des traits. Et rien, pas
mme lappartenance du trait une catgorie
donne, ne dispense de lire et dinterprter ce trait
la lumire du contexte de sa conclusion afin de
dgager lintention commune des parties. La Cour
a dailleurs eu loccasion de rappeler que, mme
lorsquil sagit de traits plus anciens, linterprtation doit tre raliste et reflter lintention des
deux parties et non seulement celle [de la premire

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 57 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

of both parties, not just that of the [First Nation]


(Sioui, at p. 1069). I would even say that it would
be wrong to think that the negotiating power of
Aboriginal peoples is directly related to the time
period in which the treaty was concluded, as certain Aboriginal nations were very powerful in the
early years of colonization, and the European newcomers had no choice but to enter into alliances
with them.

nation] (Sioui, p. 1069). Je dirais mme quil serait


erron de penser que le pouvoir de ngociation des
Autochtones est directement fonction de lpoque
du trait, car certaines nations autochtones taient
trs puissantes au dbut de la colonisation et les
arrivants europens ne pouvaient se passer dalliances avec elles.

[117] My finding with regard to the interpretation


of treaties is equally applicable to the relationship
between treaties and the law external to them or, in
other words, to the application to treaties of the rules
relating to conflicting legislation: the mere fact that
a treaty belongs to one category or another cannot
mean that a different set of rules applies to it in this
regard. The appellants invitation must therefore be
declined: even when the treaty in issue is a land
claims agreement, the Court must first identify the
common intention of the parties and then decide
whether the common law constitutional duty to
consult applies to the Aboriginal party.

[117] Ma conclusion au sujet de linterprtation


des traits vaut tout autant en ce qui concerne
la relation entre ceux-ci et le droit qui leur est
extrieur, autrement dit, au sujet de lapplication aux traits des rgles relatives aux conflits
de lois : le simple fait quun trait appartienne
lune ou lautre des catgories ne saurait assujettir celui-ci un rgime distinct cet gard.
Linvitation des appelants doit donc tre dcline :
mme lorsque le trait en cause est un accord portant rglement de revendications territoriales, la
Cour doit dabord dgager lintention commune
des parties; elle se prononcera ensuite sur lapplication, la partie autochtone, du rgime jurisprudentiel relatif lobligation constitutionnelle de
consultation.

[118] Thus, the basis for distinguishing this case


from Mikisew is not the mere fact that the treaty in
issue belongs to the category of modern land claims
agreements. As Binnie J. mentions in the case at bar
(at para. 53), the treaty in issue in Mikisew was silent
on how the Crown was to exercise its right under
the treaty to require or take up tracts from time
to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading
or other purposes. This constituted an omission,
as, without guidance, the exercise of such a right
by the Crown might have the effect of nullifying
the right of the Mikisew under the same treaty to
pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping
and fishing. Therefore, where there is a treaty, the
common law duty to consult will apply only if the
parties to the treaty have failed to address the issue
of consultation.

[118] Cest donc sur une autre base que la simple


appartenance du trait en cause la catgorie des
accords modernes de rglement de revendications
territoriales que la prsente affaire se distingue de
laffaire Mikisew. Comme le rappelle en lespce
le juge Binnie (par. 53), le trait en cause dans
Mikisew tait silencieux sur les modalits dexercice du droit reconnu la Couronne de requrir
ou prendre des terrains de temps autre [. . .]
pour des fins dtablissements, de mine, doprations forestires, de commerce ou autres objets .
Il sagissait l dune omission, car, en labsence de
balises, lexercice dun tel droit par la Couronne
risquait de rendre inoprant le droit des Mikisew
de se livrer leurs occupations ordinaires de
la chasse au fusil, de la chasse au pige et de la
pche que le mme trait leur reconnaissait par
ailleurs. Par consquent, en prsence dun trait,
lobligation jurisprudentielle de consultation ne
sappliquera quen cas domission des parties au
trait davoir prvu cette matire.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

160

Page 58 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

161

[119] Moreover, where, as in Mikisew, the


common law duty to consult must be discharged
to remedy a gap in the treaty, the duty undergoes
a transformation. Where there is a treaty, the function of the common law duty to consult is so different from that of the duty to consult in issue in
Haida Nation and Taku River that it would be misleading to consider these two duties to be one and
the same. It is true that both of them are constitutional duties based on the principle of the honour
of the Crown that applies to relations between the
Crown and Aboriginal peoples whose constitutional Aboriginal or treaty rights are at stake.
However, it is important to make a clear distinction
between, on the one hand, the Crowns duty to consult before taking actions or making decisions that
might infringe Aboriginal rights and, on the other
hand, the minimum duty to consult the Aboriginal
party that necessarily applies to the Crown with
regard to its exercise of rights granted to it by the
Aboriginal party in a treaty. This, in my opinion,
is the exact and real meaning of the comment in
Mikisew that the honour of the Crown exists as
a source of obligation independently of treaties as
well (para. 51). This is also the exact meaning of
the comment in Haida Nation that the jurisprudence of this Court supports the view that the duty
to consult and accommodate is part of a process
of fair dealing and reconciliation that begins with
the assertion of sovereignty and continues beyond
formal claims resolution (para. 32).

[119] Par ailleurs, lorsque, comme dans laffaire


Mikisew, lobligation de consultation de rgime
jurisprudentiel doit tre mobilise afin de combler
une lacune du trait, cette obligation connat alors
un phnomne de diffrenciation. En effet, en prsence dun trait, lobligation jurisprudentielle de
consultation remplit une fonction bien distincte de
celle de lobligation de consultation en cause dans
les affaires Nation hada et Taku River, si bien quil
serait trompeur dassimiler ces deux obligations.
Certes, il sagit dans les deux cas dune obligation
constitutionnelle, fonde sur le principe de lhonneur de la Couronne qui doit prsider aux relations
entre celle-ci et les peuples autochtones lorsque les
droits constitutionnels ancestraux ou issus de
traits des seconds sont en jeu. Cependant, il
est important de bien distinguer, dune part, lobligation de consultation qui simpose la Couronne
pralablement la prise de mesures ou dispositions
qui risquent denfreindre les droits ancestraux dun
peuple autochtone et, dautre part, lobligation minimale en matire de consultation de la partie autochtone qui sapplique imprativement la Couronne
relativement lexercice par celle-ci des droits que
la premire lui a reconnus par trait. Voil, mon
avis, la signification prcise et vritable du passage
suivant de larrt Mikisew, selon lequel l honneur
de la Couronne existe galement en tant que source
dobligation indpendante des traits (par. 51).
Cest dans ce sens prcis que doit tre galement
compris le passage suivant de larrt Nation hada
selon lequel la jurisprudence de la Cour taye le
point de vue selon lequel lobligation de consulter
et daccommoder fait partie intgrante du processus de ngociation honorable et de conciliation qui
dbute au moment de laffirmation de la souverainet et se poursuit au-del du rglement formel des
revendications (par. 32).

[120] Where the Crown unilaterally limits a right


granted to an Aboriginal people in a treaty in taking
an action that does not amount to an exercise of one
of its own rights under that treaty, the infringement
is necessarily a serious one, and the Crowns duty
is one of reasonable accommodation. This principle is very similar to that of minimal impairment,
with respect to which a duty to consult was held to
exist in Sparrow.

[120] Lorsque, autrement que dans lexercice


dun droit dcoulant dun trait, la Couronne restreint unilatralement un droit confr par ce trait
un peuple autochtone, une telle atteinte est forcment grave et lobligation qua alors la Couronne
consiste prendre des mesures daccommodement
raisonnable. Et cette norme rejoint dailleurs celle
de latteinte minimale, contexte dans lequel larrt
Sparrow a reconnu lobligation de consulter.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 59 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

[121] The consultation that must take place if the


Crowns exercise of its own rights under a treaty
impairs a right of the Aboriginal party will consist in either: (1) the measures provided for in
the treaty in this regard; or (2) if no such measures are provided for in the treaty, the consultation
required under the common law framework, which
varies with the circumstances, and in particular
with the seriousness of any potential effects on the
Aboriginal partys rights under the treaty (Haida
Nation, at para. 39; Mikisew).

[121] La consultation requise en vue de lexercice de droits reconnus la Couronne par un trait,
lorsquil y a atteinte un droit des Autochtones,
comportera : (1) soit les mesures prvues par le
trait cet gard; (2) soit, dfaut de telles mesures dans le trait, au degr de consultation que le
rgime jurisprudentiel tablit et qui est fonction
des circonstances, notamment la gravit des effets
potentiels sur les droits que le trait reconnat la
partie autochtone (Nation hada, par. 39; Mikisew).

[122] One thing must be made clear at this point,


however. Where a treaty provides for a mechanism
for consulting the Aboriginal party when the Crown
exercises its rights under the treaty one example
would be the participation of the Aboriginal party
in environmental and socio-economic assessments
with respect to development projects what the
treaty does is to override the common law duty to
consult the Aboriginal people; it does not affect the
general administrative law principle of procedural
fairness, which may give rise to a duty to consult
rights holders individually. The constitutional duty
to consult Aboriginal peoples is rooted in the principle of the honour of the Crown, which concerns
the special relationship between the Crown and
Aboriginal peoples as peoples (Rio Tinto Alcan
Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC
43, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 650, at paras. 59-60). It is as a
result of this special relationship, originally based
on the recognition of Aboriginal institutions that
existed before the Crown asserted its sovereignty,
that Aboriginal peoples, as peoples, can enter
into treaties with the Crown. The general rules of
administrative law do not normally form part of the
matters provided for in comprehensive land claims
agreements.

[122] Une prcision importante doit toutefois tre


apporte ici. Lorsquun trait tablit des mesures
de consultation de la partie autochtone en vue de
lexercice par la partie tatique des droits que lui
reconnat ce trait, par exemple la participation de
la partie autochtone concerne lvaluation environnementale et socioconomique des projets de
dveloppement, ce que le trait a pour effet dcarter
dans un tel cas est bien lobligation jurisprudentielle
de consultation du peuple autochtone, non pas toute
obligation de consulter individuellement le titulaire
dun droit pouvant dcouler du principe gnral
du droit administratif quest lquit procdurale.
Lobligation constitutionnelle de consultation des
Autochtones procde du principe de lhonneur de
la Couronne, lequel concerne la relation toute particulire quentretiennent avec ltat les Autochtones
en tant que peuples (Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. c. Conseil
tribal Carrier Sekani, 2010 CSC 43, [2010] 2 R.C.S.
650, par. 59-60). Cest dailleurs cette relation particulire, fonde lorigine sur la reconnaissance
dordres autochtones prexistants laffirmation
par la Couronne de sa souverainet, qui explique
que, en tant que peuples, les Autochtones peuvent
conclure des traits avec ltat. Les rgles gnrales du droit administratif ne font normalement pas
partie des matires prvues dans les accords de
rglement de revendications territoriales globales.

[123] When all is said and done, the fatal flaw in


the appellants argument that the duty to consult
can never apply in the case of a modern treaty is
that they confuse the concept of an agreement that
provides certainty with that of an entire agreement. The imperative of legal certainty that is
central to the negotiation of a modern treaty and

[123] Au fond, lerreur qui vicie la thse des appelants selon laquelle tout trait moderne carte, de par
sa nature, lobligation jurisprudentielle de consultation est quils confondent la notion d accord sr
et celle d accord complet . Limpratif de scurit juridique qui est la base de la ngociation dun
trait moderne et qui appelle au respect de la volont

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

162

Page 60 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

163

that requires a court to defer to the will of the parties must not blind the courts to omissions by the
parties. That an agreement is complete cannot be
presumed; it must be found to be complete.

des parties ne saurait rendre les tribunaux aveugles


aux omissions de ces dernires. La compltude dun
accord ne se prsume pas, elle se constate.

[124] The Court obviously cannot bind itself in


future cases by assuming that every modern treaty
is free of omissions or other gaps with respect to
consultation. The possibility of so important a
matter being omitted from a modern treaty may
at first blush seem unlikely, but as can be seen
from the instant case, it is very real. Were it not
for the transitional law provisions in Chapter 12,
there would probably have been a gap in this case
and, on an exceptional basis, in the legal context of
the modern treaty, the common law duty to consult could duly have been applied to fill that gap.
But no such gap can be found in this case. Yet it
is in fact just such a procedural gap that Binnie
J. finds (at para. 38) to be confirmed here, but he
reaches this conclusion without considering the
treatys transitional law provisions, which, in my
view, contain the answers to the questions raised in
this case. I disagree with the argument that such a
procedural gap exists in this case, and I also disagree with superimposing the common law duty to
consult on the treaty. These, therefore, are the basic
differences between us.

[124] La Cour ne peut videmment pas se lier pour


lavenir et tenir pour acquis que tout trait moderne
ne comporte aucune omission ou autre lacune en
matire de consultation. La possibilit que, dans un
trait moderne, on ait pu omettre une matire aussi
importante peut sembler premire vue tonnante,
mais nous verrons que la prsente affaire dmontre
quune telle ventualit est pourtant bien relle. En
effet, si ce ntait des dispositions de droit provisoire que contient le chapitre 12, il y aurait probablement eu lacune en lespce et, titre exceptionnel dans lunivers juridique des traits modernes au
point de vue empirique, lobligation jurisprudentielle de consultation aurait pu dment sappliquer
pour combler cette lacune. Mais aucune lacune de
ce genre ne peut tre constate dans la prsente
affaire. Il se trouve que cest prcisment une telle
lacune procdurale ( procedural gap , par. 38)
que le juge Binnie affirme tre confirme en lespce, et ce, sans se pencher sur le droit provisoire
prvu au trait, dispositions qui, selon moi, apportent la rponse aux questions poses par les pourvois. Rejetant la thse de lexistence, en lespce,
dun tel hiatus procdural, je ne souscris pas davantage la surimposition au trait du rgime jurisprudentiel de lobligation de consultation. Voil donc
ce qui nous spare pour lessentiel.

[125] Yukon also submits that the existence of a


duty to consult may be inferred from a treaty only
in accordance with its express terms. Once again,
this is an argument that goes too far and is in no
way consistent with the general principles of interpretation of treaties with Aboriginal peoples, even
when those principles are applied to modern treaties. As we will see, the treaty itself contains interpretive provisions to the effect that an interpretation should not be limited to the express terms of
the treaty, and in particular that its provisions must
be read together and that any ambiguities should
be resolved in light of the objectives set out at the
beginning of each chapter.

[125] Dans son appel, le Yukon prtend en outre


que lexistence dune obligation de consultation ne
pourra tre infre dun trait que suivant les stipulations expresses de celui-ci. Une fois de plus,
il sagit dun argument qui va trop loin et ne correspond daucune manire aux principes gnraux
dinterprtation des traits avec les peuples autochtones, mme lorsque ces principes sont appliqus
aux traits modernes. Comme nous le verrons, le
trait lui-mme contient des dispositions interprtatives qui prcisent quil ne faut pas sen tenir aux stipulations expresses, et notamment quil faut lire ses
dispositions en corrlation et, au besoin, rsoudre
les ambiguts la lumire des objectifs noncs au
dbut de chaque chapitre.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 61 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

[126] These general considerations alone would


form a sufficient basis for dismissing the appeal.
But the provisions of the Final Agreement also
confirm this conclusion, and they must, in any
event, be reviewed in order to assess the respondents argument.

[126] Il serait possible, sur la seule base des


considrations dordre gnral qui prcdent, de
rejeter lappel principal. Cependant, les dispositions
de lEntente dfinitive confirment elles aussi cette
conclusion. Leur examen est dailleurs ncessaire
pour valuer la thse des intims.

II. Treaty in Issue

II. Trait en cause

[127] The analysis of the treaty that must be conducted in this case has three steps. To begin, it will
be necessary to review the general framework of
the treaty and highlight its key concepts. The next
step will be to identify the substantive treaty rights
that are in issue here, namely, on the one hand, the
Crowns right the exercise of which raises the issue
of consultation and, on the other hand, the right or
rights of the Aboriginal party, which could be limited by the exercise of the Crowns right. Finally,
and this is the determining factor, it will be necessary to discuss the formal rights and duties that
result from the consultation process provided for in
the treaty.

[127] Lanalyse du trait que requiert la prsente


affaire comporte trois volets. Il faudra dabord
en discerner le rgime gnral et en dgager les
notions cls. Il sagira ensuite de dterminer les
droits matriels issus de traits qui sont ici en jeu,
cest--dire, dune part, le droit de la partie tatique
dont lexercice soulve la question de la consultation et, dautre part, le droit ou les droits de la partie
autochtone qui, du fait de cet exercice risque de se
retrouver limits par celui du droit de la Couronne.
Enfin, lment dterminant, il sera question des
droits et obligations formels qui rsultent du processus de consultation prvu au trait.

A. General Framework

A. Rgime gnral

[128] Comprehensive Aboriginal land claims


agreements form part of the corpus of our constitutional law. And the effect of the implementing
legislation of such agreements is that they are usually binding on third parties. The agreements are
most often the fruit of many years of intense negotiations. The documents in which they are set out
therefore command the utmost respect.

[128] Les accords portant rglement de revendications territoriales autochtones dites globales
font partie de notre corpus constitutionnel. Qui
plus est, par leffet de leur loi de mise en uvre,
ces accords lient normalement les tiers. Ils sont
dhabitude le fruit de nombreuses annes dintenses ngociations. Les documents qui les consignent
commandent donc le plus grand respect.

[129] This Court was recently asked to interpret


the James Bay and Northern Qubec Agreement
for the first time, some 35 years after it was signed
in 1975. Since that year, 19 other similar agreements have been concluded across the country.
Subsequently, to take the most striking example,
although only one comprehensive claim in British
Columbia has resulted in a final settlement and
only seven others in that province are currently at
relatively advanced stages of negotiation, no fewer
than 52 other claims there have been accepted for
negotiation by the Treaty Commission.

[129] Notre Cour a rcemment t appele interprter pour la premire fois la Convention de la
BaieJames et du Nord qubcois, quelque 35 ans
aprs sa signature en 1975. Or, depuis cette date,
cest 19 autres accords du genre qui ont t conclus
travers le pays. Ensuite, et pour prendre lexemple le plus fort, si ce jour une seule revendication globale a fait lobjet dun accord de rglement
dfinitif en Colombie-Britannique et si sept autres
seulement y sont un stade plus ou moins avanc
de ngociation, en revanche pas moins de 52 autres
revendications y ont t acceptes pour ngociation
par la Commission des traits.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

164

Page 62 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

165

[130] It was after 20 years of negotiations that the


Umbrella Final Agreement between the Government
of Canada, the Council for Yukon Indians and the
Government of the Yukon (Umbrella Agreement)
was signed on May 29, 1993. At that time, the Little
Salmon/Carmacks First Nation was a member of
the Council for Yukon Indians, and it still is today,
along with nine other First Nations. The Umbrella
Agreement provided for the conclusion, in accordance with its terms, of specific agreements with the
various Yukon First Nations (s. 2.1.1).

[130] Cest au terme dune vingtaine dannes


de ngociations que, le 29 mai 1993, tait sign
lAccord-cadre dfinitif entre le gouvernement
du Canada, le Conseil des Indiens du Yukon et le
gouvernement du Yukon ( Accord-cadre ). La
Premire nation de Little Salmon/Carmacks tait
alors membre du Conseil des Indiens du Yukon. Elle
lest toujours, avec neuf autres premires nations.
LAccord-cadre prvoyait la conclusion, suivant ses
stipulations, dententes particulires avec les diverses premires nations du Yukon (art. 2.1.1).

[131] Although the Umbrella Agreement does


not create or affect any legal rights (s. 2.1.2), it
provides that Settlement Agreements shall be
land claims agreements within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (s. 2.2.1).
Moreover, according to the Umbrella Agreement,
[a] Yukon First Nation Final Agreement shall
include the provisions of the Umbrella Final
Agreement and the specific provisions applicable
to that Yukon First Nation (s. 2.1.3). It can be seen
from the final agreements in question that the parties have given effect to this undertaking. Even the
numbering of the Umbrella Agreements provisions
has been reproduced in the 11 final agreements
that have been concluded under it so far. These
11 final agreements represent over half of all the
comprehensive land claims agreements (that is,
agreements resulting from claims that Aboriginal
rights exist) signed across the country. The Final
Agreement in issue here was signed near Carmacks
on July 21, 1997 and was subsequently ratified and
implemented by enacting legislation; this last step
was a condition of validity (ss. 2.2.11 and 2.2.12).

[131] Tandis que lAccordcadre na pas pour


effet de crer des droits lgaux ou de porter atteinte
de tels droits (art. 2.1.2), en revanche [l]es
ententes portant rglement constituent des accords
sur des revendications territoriales au sens de larticle 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 (art.
2.2.1). De plus, lAccord-cadre prcise que [t]oute
entente dfinitive conclue par une premire nation
du Yukon doit inclure les dispositions de lAccordcadre dfinitif ainsi que les dispositions spcifiques
applicables cette premire nation du Yukon (art.
2.1.3). La lecture des ententes dfinitives en question rvle que cet engagement a t tenu par les
parties. On a mme repris, dans les 11 ententes
dfinitives conclues jusqu maintenant conformment lAccord-cadre, la numrotation des dispositions de cet accord. Ces 11 ententes reprsentent
ainsi plus de la moiti de la totalit des accords de
rglement de revendications territoriales globales (cest--dire fonde sur lallgation de droits
ancestraux) conclus au pays. LEntente dfinitive
qui nous intresse a t signe prs de Carmacks,
le 21 juillet 1997, et ultrieurement ratifie et mise
en uvre par des lois, dernire tape qui constituait
une condition de validit (art. 2.2.11 et 2.2.12).

[132] The Umbrella Agreement, as a whole,


is founded on a few basic concepts. It should be
noted from the outset that this agreement applies
to a larger territory than the land claims settlement concluded under it actually does. The agreement refers to Settlement Land, which is defined
as Category A Settlement Land, Category B
Settlement Land or Fee Simple Settlement Land,
and to Non-Settlement Land, which is defined
as all land and water in the Yukon other than

[132] Certaines notions structurent lensemble


de lAccord-cadre. Soulignons dentre de jeu que
celui-ci vise un territoire plus grand que ne le fait,
comme tel, le rglement des revendications dont il
est porteur. En effet, il y est question, outre dune
terre vise par le rglement ou terre vise par un
rglement ( Settlement Land ) concidant avec,
[s]elon le cas, les terres vises par le rglement
de catgorie A, les terres vises par le rglement
de catgorie B ou les terres vises par le rglement

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 63 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

Settlement Land and as including Mines and


Minerals in Category B Settlement Land and Fee
Simple Settlement Land, other than Specified
Substances (Chapter 1). The nature of this distinction will be helpful in our analysis of the provisions
relating to legal certainty (Division 2.5.0). But one
point that should be made here is that the framework provided for in the agreement varies considerably depending on which of these two broad categories the land in question belongs to. It should also
be pointed out that, under the agreement, Crown
land such as the land in issue here that was
transferred to Mr. Paulsen on October 18, 2004
is land that, as defined, is not settlement land.
Another concept used in the Umbrella Agreement
is that of traditional territory, which transcends
the distinction between settlement land and nonsettlement land (Chapter 1 and Division 2.9.0). This
concept of traditional territory is relevant not
only to the possibility of overlapping claims of various Yukon First Nations, but also to the extension
of claims beyond the limits of Yukon and to the
negotiation of transboundary agreements (Division
2.9.0). As we will see, it is also central to the fish
and wildlife co-management system established in
Chapter 16 of the Final Agreement. The land that
was in question in the decision of the Director of
Agriculture dated October 18, 2004 in respect of
Mr. Paulsens application is located within the traditional territory of the Little Salmon/Carmacks
First Nation, and more specifically in the northern
part of that territory, in a portion that overlaps with
the traditional territory of the Selkirk First Nation.

dtenues en fief simple , dune terre non vise


par un rglement ou terre non vise par le rglement ( NonSettlement Land ), expression qui
sentend ici de terres et deaux du Yukon qui ne
sont pas des terres vises par un rglement ainsi
que des mines et [des] minraux lexclusion
des matires spcifies des terres vises par le
rglement de catgorie B et des terres vises par le
rglement dtenues en fief simple (chapitre 1). La
nature de cette distinction sera utile lorsque nous
examinerons les dispositions relatives la scurit
juridique ou certitude (section 2.5.0). Mais signalons
dj que le rgime prvu par laccord varie considrablement selon quil est question de terres relevant
de lune ou lautre de ces deux grandes catgories.
Il convient aussi de souligner que, aux termes de
laccord, une terre de la Couronne telle celle
dont la cession M. Paulsen le 18 octobre 2004 est
ici en cause est une terre qui, par dfinition, nest
pas une terre vise par le rglement. LAccord-cadre
utilise aussi la notion de territoire traditionnel
qui dpasse lopposition entre les terres vises par
le rglement de la revendication et celles qui ne le
sont pas (chapitre 1 et section 2.9.0). Cette notion de
territoire traditionnel nintresse pas seulement
la question du possible chevauchement des revendications de diffrentes premires nations du Yukon,
mais aussi de leur dbordement au-del des limites du Yukon et de la ngociation daccords transfrontaliers (section 2.9.0). Comme nous le verrons,
cette notion est galement au cur du rgime de
cogestion des ressources halieutiques et fauniques
instaur par le chapitre 16 de lentente dfinitive.
La terre qui, le 18 octobre 2004, faisait lobjet de la
dcision du directeur de lagriculture relativement
la demande de M. Paulsen se situe lintrieur
du territoire traditionnel de la Premire nation de
Little Salmon/Carmacks, plus prcisment dans sa
partie nord, sur une portion qui chevauche le territoire traditionnel de la Premire nation de Selkirk.

[133] The appellants argument is based entirely


on the principle that the agreement provides certainty. More precisely, it is based on an interpretation
according to which that principle is indistinguishable from the principle of the entire agreement.
As a result, they have detached a key general provision of the Final Agreement from its context and

[133] La thse des appelants repose entirement


sur le principe de l accord sr . Plus exactement,
elle repose sur une interprtation impermable ce
qui le distingue de celui d accord complet . Cest
ce qui explique comment ils en arrivent dtacher de son contexte une disposition gnrale fort
importante de lentente dfinitive pour en donner

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

166

Page 64 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

167

interpreted it in a way that I do not find convincing. The entire agreement clause (s. 2.2.15), the
actual source of which is the Umbrella Agreement
and on which the appellants rely, provides that
Settlement Agreements shall be the entire agreement between the parties thereto and [that] there
shall be no representation, warranty, collateral
agreement or condition affecting those Agreements
except as expressed in them. This clause is consistent with the out-of-court settlement aspect of
comprehensive land claims agreements. But it is
not the only one, which means that such clauses
must be considered in the broader context of the
Final Agreement, and in particular of the provisions respecting legal certainty, which are set out
under the heading Certainty (Division 2.5.0).

une interprtation qui ne me convainc pas. La


clause de l entente complte ( entire agreement
clause ) (art. 2.2.15), dont la source matrielle est
lAccordcadre et sur laquelle les appelants se fondent, est rdige ainsi : Chaque entente portant
rglement constitue lentente complte intervenue
entre les parties cette entente et il nexiste aucune
autre assertion, garantie, convention accessoire ou
condition touchant cette entente que celles qui sont
exprimes dans cette dernire. Il sagit ici de la
dimension transaction ou rglement lamiable
des accords portant rglement de revendications
territoriales globales. Or, celle-ci nest pas la seule,
de sorte quil faut replacer une telle clause dans
le contexte plus gnral de lentente dfinitive, et
notamment de ses dispositions relatives la scurit juridique ou certitude ou, comme ici,
relative aux Prcisions (section 2.5.0).

[134] On this key issue of legal certainty, the


Umbrella Agreement and, later, all the final agreements negotiated under it were entered into in
accordance with the 1986 federal policy on comprehensive claims (Saint-Hilaire, at pp. 407-8, note
45). It is actually possible to refer to the 1993 policy,
as the 1986 policy was not modified on this point.
Since 1986, the official federal policy has stated
in this respect that rights with respect to land that
are consistent with the agreement and Aboriginal
rights which are not related to land and resources
or to other subjects under negotiation will not be
affected by the exchange (Indian and Northern
Affairs Canada, Federal Policy for the Settlement of
Native Claims (1993), at p. 9). In short, in the 1986
policy, the government announced that its conduct
would be honourable in that it would aim for equitable, or [TRANSLATION] orthodox, exchanges
(Saint-Hilaire, at p. 407). In other words, the principle endorsed in the federal policy since 1986 has
involved a distinction between the agreement that
provides certainty and the entire agreement. So
much for the general principle behind the division
of the agreement in issue entitled Certainty. Let
us now consider in greater detail the specific provisions applicable to the exchange of rights established in the Final Agreement.

[134] Sur cette question essentielle de la scurit


juridique, lAccordcadre et, par la suite, toutes les
ententes dfinitives ngocies suivant les stipulations de celui-ci, ont t conclus conformment
la politique fdrale de 1986 sur les revendications
globales (Saint-Hilaire, p. 407-408, note 45). En fait,
on peut ici se reporter la politique de 1993, puisque sur cette question celle-ci napportait aucune
modification la politique de 1986. Depuis 1986, la
politique fdrale officielle indique cet gard que
ne seront pas touchs par lchange les droits
de nature foncire qui sont compatibles avec laccord ni les droits ancestraux qui ne sont pas lis
aux terres et aux ressources ou dautres points
ngocis (Affaires indiennes et du Nord Canada,
Politique du gouvernement fdral en vue du rgle
ment des revendications autochtones (1993), p. 10).
En somme, la politique de 1986 annonait un comportement honorable en visant des changes quitables cest--dire orthodoxes (Saint-Hilaire, p.
407). Autrement dit, le principe promu par la politique fdrale depuis 1986 tablit une distinction
entre la notion d accord sr et celle d accord
complet . Voil pour le principe gnral qui prside la section relative aux Prcisions de laccord qui nous occupe. Voyons maintenant plus en
dtail les modalits prcises de lchange de droits
tabli par lEntente dfinitive.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 65 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

[135] The Umbrella Agreement provides (in s.


2.5.1) that, in consideration of the promises, terms,
conditions and provisos in a Yukon First Nations
final agreement,

[135] LAccordcadre prvoit (art. 2.5.1) que, en


contrepartie des promesses, conditions et rserves
prvues par lentente dfinitive conclue par une premire nation du Yukon :

2.5.1.1

2.5.1.1

2.5.1.2

subject to 5.14.0 [which sets out a procedure for


designating Site Specific Settlement Land
to which s. 2.5.0 will not apply], that Yukon
First Nation and all persons who are eligible
to be Yukon Indian People it represents, as of
the Effective Date of that Yukon First Nations
Final Agreement, cede, release and surrender
to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada,
all their aboriginal claims, rights, titles, and
interests, in and to,

sous rserve de la section 5.14.0 [qui prvoit


une procdure de dsignation de sites spcifiques auxquels la section 2.5.0 ne sappliquera
pas], cette premire nation du Yukon et toutes
les personnes qui sont admissibles en tant quIndiens du Yukon reprsentes par cette premire
nation la date dentre en vigueur de cette
entente dfinitive renoncent, en faveur de
Sa Majest la Reine du chef du Canada, lensemble de leurs revendications, droits, titres et
intrts ancestraux :

(a) Non-Settlement Land and all other


land and water including the Mines
and Minerals within the sovereignty
or jurisdiction of Canada, except the
Northwest Territories, British Columbia and Settlement Land,

a)

concernant les terres non vises par le


rglement et les autres terres et eaux
y compris les mines et les minraux
relevant de la souverainet ou de la
comptence du Canada, lexception
des Territoires du Nord-Ouest, de la
Colombie-Britannique et des terres
vises par le rglement;

(b) the Mines and Minerals within all


Settlement Land, and

b)

concernant les mines et les minraux


se trouvant lintrieur des terres
vises par le rglement;

(c) Fee Simple Settlement Land; [and]

c)

concernant les terres vises par le


rglement dtenues en fief simple;

that Yukon First Nation and all persons eligible to be Yukon Indian People it represents,
as of the Effective Date of that Yukon First
Nations Final Agreement, cede, release and
surrender to Her Majesty the Queen in Right
of Canada all their aboriginal claims, rights,
titles and interests in and to Category A and
Category B Settlement Land and waters
therein, to the extent that those claims, rights,
titles and interests are inconsistent or in conflict with any provision of a Settlement Agreement . . .

According to the agreement settling its comprehensive land claim, the Little Salmon/Carmacks First
Nation therefore surrender[ed] any Aboriginal
rights it might have in respect of land, water, mines
and minerals, (1) subject to the procedure for designating site specific settlement land (of which

2.5.1.2

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

168

cette premire nation du Yukon et toutes les


personnes admissibles en tant quIndiens
du Yukon reprsentes par cette premire
nation la date de cette entente dfinitive renoncent, en faveur de Sa Majest
la Reine du chef du Canada, lensemble de
leurs revendications, droits, titres et intrts
ancestraux lgard des terres vises par le
rglement de catgorie A et de catgorie B
et des eaux qui sy trouvent, dans la mesure
o ces revendications, droits, titres et intrts sont incompatibles ou entrent en conflit
avec quelque disposition dune entente portant
rglement . . .

Aux termes de laccord portant rglement de sa


revendication globale, la Premire nation de Little
Salmon/Carmacks a donc renonc[] tous ses
possibles droits ancestraux relatifs aux terres, eaux,
mines et minraux, (1) sous rserve de la procdure de dsignation de sites spcifiques dont

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 66 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

169

two parcels were located near the land in question


in Mr. Paulsens application), (2) except insofar as
those rights extended into the Northwest Territories
or British Columbia, and (3) except for those relating to settlement land and waters therein, but only
to the extent that the rights in question were not
inconsistent with the settlement and provided that
they extended neither to land held in fee simple
nor to mines and minerals as is specified in the
definition of non-settlement lands. For greater certainty, the Final Agreement accordingly adds that

deux se situent proximit de la terre faisant lobjet de la demande de Paulsen , (2) sauf dans la
mesure o ces droits stendraient aux Territoires
du Nord-Ouest ou la Colombie-Britannique et (3)
lexception de ceux qui porteraient sur des terres
et eaux vises par le rglement, mais cela dans la
seule mesure o ils ne seraient pas incompatibles
avec celui-ci et ne stendraient ni des terres dtenues en fief simple ni aux mines et minraux ce
qui prcise la dfinition des terres non vises par
un rglement. Pour plus de sret, lEntente dfinitive ajoute quen consquence :

2.5.1.4

2.5.1.4

neither that Yukon First Nation nor any person


eligible to be a Yukon Indian Person it represents, their heirs, descendants and successors,
shall, after the Effective Date of that Yukon
First Nations Final Agreement, assert any
cause of action, action for declaration, claim
or demand of whatever kind or nature, which
they ever had, now have, or may hereafter
have against Her Majesty the Queen in Right
of Canada, the Government of any Territory or
Province, or any person based on,

ni cette premire nation du Yukon ni aucune


personne admissible en tant quIndien du
Yukon reprsente par cette premire nation,
ou leurs hritiers, descendants et successeurs,
ne feront valoir ou prsenteront, selon le cas,
aprs la date dentre en vigueur de cette
entente dfinitive, quelque cause daction,
action dclaratoire, rclamation ou demande
de quelque nature que ce soit passe,
actuelle ou future lencontre soit de Sa
Majest la Reine du chef du Canada, soit du
gouvernement dun territoire ou dune province, ou de quelque autre personne, et qui
serait fonde, selon le cas :

(a) any aboriginal claim, right, title or


interest ceded, released or surrendered
pursuant to 2.5.1.1 and 2.5.1.2; [or]

a)

sur quelque revendication, droit, titre


ou intrt ancestral vis par la renonciation prvue aux articles 2.5.1.1 et
2.5.1.2;

(b) any aboriginal claim, right, title or


interest in and to Settlement Land,
lost or surrendered in the past, present
or future . . .

b)

sur quelque revendication, droit, titre


ou intrt ancestral relatif des terres
vises par le rglement qui a t ou
sera perdu, ou qui a fait, fait ou fera
lobjet dune renonciation . . .

[136] It is also important to consider general


provision 2.2.4, which reflects the new orthodox
exchange principle introduced by the 1986 federal policy that applied to the negotiation of the
Umbrella Agreement:

[136] Il est galement important de souligner la


disposition gnrale 2.2.4, qui reprend le nouveau
principe des changes orthodoxes introduit par la
politique fdrale de 1986, laquelle a prsid la
ngociation de lAccordcadre :

Subject to 2.5.0, 5.9.0 [effects of the registration, granting, declaration or expropriation of any interest in a
Parcel of Settlement Land less than the entire interest],
5.10.1 [effects of the registration, granting or expropriation of the fee simple title in a Parcel of Settlement
Land] and 25.2.0 [negotiation of the transboundary
aspect of claims], Settlement Agreements shall not
affect the ability of aboriginal people of the Yukon to

Sous rserve des sections 2.5.0, 5.9.0 [effets de lenregistrement, de loctroi, de la dclaration ou de lexpropriation dun intrt infrieur lintrt complet dans
une parcelle de terre vise par le rglement] et 25.2.0
[ngociation de la dimension transfrontalire des revendications] et de larticle 5.10.1 [effets de lenregistrement, de loctroi ou de lexpropriation du titre en fief
simple dans une parcelle de terre vise par le rglement],

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 67 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

exercise, or benefit from, any existing or future constitutional rights for aboriginal people that may be applicable to them.

les ententes portant rglement nont pas pour effet de


porter atteinte la capacit des peuples autochtones du
Yukon dexercer des droits constitutionnels existants
ou futurs qui sont reconnus aux peuples autochtones et qui sappliquent eux ou de tirer parti de tels
droits.

[137] The spirit of the Final Agreement is apparent on the very face of these provisions respecting
legal certainty: except where otherwise provided
in the agreement itself, the agreement replaces the
common law Aboriginal rights framework with the
one it establishes for the matters it covers. But that
is not all.

[137] Lesprit de lEntente dfinitive ressort dj


la lecture de ces dispositions relatives lobjectif de
scurit juridique : sauf exception prvue par lentente elle-mme, celle-ci substitue au rgime jurisprudentiel relatif aux droits ancestraux celui quelle
instaure pour les matires dont elle dispose. Mais
il y a plus.

[138] The Final Agreement also includes general


and interpretive provisions, such as general provision 2.2.5, which, like so many others, is reproduced
from the Umbrella Agreement. This provision
states that Settlement Agreements shall not affect
the rights of Yukon Indian People as Canadian citizens and their entitlement to all of the rights, benefits and protection of other citizens applicable from
time to time. There are also relevant provisions in
Division 2.6.0 of the Umbrella Agreement:

[138] LEntente dfinitive comporte galement des dispositions gnrales et interprtatives,


notamment la disposition gnrale 2.2.5, qui a
comme tant dautres t reprise de lAccordcadre
et qui prcise que [l]es ententes portant rglement
ne portent pas atteinte aux droits des Indiens du
Yukon en tant que citoyens canadiens ni leur droit
de jouir de tous les droits, avantages et protections
reconnus aux autres citoyens. La section 2.6.0 de
lAccordcadre contient elle aussi des dispositions
pertinentes :

2.6.1

The provisions of the Umbrella Final Agreement, the specific provisions of the Yukon
First Nation Final Agreement and Transboundary Agreement applicable to each Yukon First
Nation shall be read together.

2.6.1

Les dispositions de lAccord-cadre dfinitif,


les dispositions spcifiques de lentente dfinitive conclue par une premire nation du Yukon
ainsi que laccord transfrontalier applicable
chaque premire nation du Yukon doivent tre
lus en corrlation.

2.6.2

Settlement Legislation shall provide that:

2.6.2

La loi de mise en uvre doit renfermer des dispositions portant que:

subject to 2.6.2.2 to 2.6.2.5, all federal, territorial and municipal Law


shall apply to Yukon Indian People,
Yukon First Nations and Settlement
Land;

2.6.2.1

sous rserve des articles 2.6.2.2


2.6.2.6, les rgles de droit fdrales,
territoriales et municipales sappliquent aux Indiens du Yukon, aux premires nations du Yukon et aux terres
vises par un rglement;

2.6.2.2 where there is any inconsistency or


conflict between any federal, territorial or municipal Law and a Settlement Agreement, the Settlement
Agreement shall prevail to the extent
of the inconsistency or conflict;

2.6.2.2

les dispositions dune entente portant


rglement lemportent sur les dispositions incompatibles dune rgle de
droit fdrale, territoriale ou municipale;

2.6.2.3 where there is any inconsistency or


conflict between the provisions of

2.6.2.3 les dispositions de lAccordcadre dfinitif lemportent sur les

2.6.2.1

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

170

Page 68 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

the Umbrella Final Agreement and


the specific provisions applicable
to a Yukon First Nation, the provisions of the Umbrella Final Agreement shall prevail to the extent of the
inconsistency or conflict; [and]

dispositions spcifiques incompatibles, applicables une premire


nation du Yukon;

2.6.2.4 where there is any inconsistency or


conflict between Settlement Legislation and any other Legislation, the
Settlement Legislation shall prevail
to the extent of the inconsistency or
conflict;

2.6.2.4

. . .
2.6.3

There shall not be any presumption that doubtful expressions in a Settlement Agreement be
resolved in favour of any party to a Settlement
Agreement or any beneficiary of a Settlement
Agreement.

171

les dispositions de la loi de mise en


uvre lemportent sur les dispositions
incompatibles de toute autre mesure
lgislative;

.
2.6.3

. . .

Il nexiste aucune prsomption que les expressions ambigus dune entente portant rglement
doivent tre interprtes en faveur soit dune
partie cette entente soit de quelque personne
en bnficiant.

2.6.5

Nothing in a Settlement Agreement shall be


construed to preclude any party from advocating before the courts any position on the
existence, nature or scope of any fiduciary or
other relationship between the Crown and the
Yukon First Nations.

2.6.5

Les ententes portant rglement nont pas pour


effet dempcher une partie de faire valoir,
devant les tribunaux, sa position quant lexistence, la nature ou ltendue des rapports
fiduciaires ou autres qui existeraient entre la
Couronne et les premires nations du Yukon.

2.6.6

Settlement Agreements shall be interpreted


according to the Interpretation Act, R.S.C.
1985, c. I-21, with such modifications as the
circumstances require.

2.6.6

Les ententes portant rglement sont interprtes conformment la Loi dinterprtation,


L.R.C. (1985) ch. I-21, avec les adaptations
ncessaires.

2.6.7

Objectives in Settlement Agreements are statements of the intentions of the parties to a Settlement Agreement and shall be used to assist
in the interpretation of doubtful or ambiguous
expressions.

2.6.7

Les objectifs figurant dans une entente portant


rglement constituent lnonc des intentions
des parties cette entente et doivent tre utiliss dans linterprtation des expressions douteuses ou ambigus.

2.6.8

Capitalized words or phrases shall have


the meaning assigned in the Umbrella Final
Agreement.

2.6.8

Les mots et expressions dfinis et utiliss dans


lAccord-cadre dfinitif ont le sens qui leur est
attribu dans la dfinition correspondante.

These interpretive provisions establish, inter alia, a


principle of equality between the parties (s. 2.6.3)
and a principle of contextual interpretation based
on the general scheme of the provisions, divisions
and chapters and of the treaty as a whole in accordance with its systematic nature (s. 2.6.1). The latter
principle is confirmed by the rule that in the event
of ambiguity, the provisions of the treaty are to

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

De ces stipulations interprtatives se dgagent


notamment le principe dgalit des parties (art.
2.6.3) et le principe dune interprtation contextuelle fonde sur lconomie gnrale des dispositions, sections, chapitres et de lensemble du trait
suivant sa nature systmatique (art. 2.6.1). Ce dernier principe est confirm par la rgle voulant que,
en cas dambigut, linterprtation des dispositions

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 69 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

be interpreted in light of the objectives stated at


the beginning of certain chapters of the treaty (s.
2.6.7). The systematic nature of the treaty is also
confirmed by the rule that when defined words and
phrases are used, they have the meanings assigned
to them in the definitions (s. 2.6.8). In other cases,
the rules set out in the federal Interpretation Act
apply (s. 2.6.6). This, then, is the framework for
interpretation agreed on by the parties to the treaty.
More precisely, this framework was first developed
by the parties to the Umbrella Agreement, and was
then incorporated by the parties into the various
final agreements concluded under the Umbrella
Agreement. Where there is any inconsistency or
conflict, the rules of this framework prevail over
the common law principles on the interpretation of
treaties between governments and Aboriginal peoples.

du trait tienne compte des objectifs noncs au


dbut de certains chapitres de celui-ci (art. 2.6.7).
Le caractre systmatique du trait est galement
confirm par la rgle selon laquelle les mots et
expressions dfinis sont porteurs de ces dfinitions
lorsquils sont utiliss (art. 2.6.8). Pour le reste, ce
sont les rgles tablies par la loi fdrale dinterprtation qui sappliquent (art. 2.6.6). Voil donc
le rgime interprtatif dont les parties au trait ont
elles-mmes convenu. Plus exactement, ce rgime a
dabord t labor par les parties lAccordcadre,
puis repris par les parties aux diffrentes ententes
dfinitives conclues conformment aux stipulations
de cet accord. Advenant toute incompatibilit, ce
rgime lemporte sur les principes dgags par la
jurisprudence en matire dinterprtation de traits conclus par les gouvernements et les peuples
autochtones.

[139] These general and interpretive provisions


also establish certain rules with respect to the relationships of the Umbrella Agreement and any final
agreement concluded under it, not only the relationship between them, but also that with the law
in general. One of these rules is that in the event of
inconsistency or conflict, the Umbrella Agreement
prevails over the agreements concluded under it
(s. 2.6.2.3). At first glance, this rule is surprising,
since the parties to the Umbrella Agreement were
very careful to specify that, on its own, that agreement does not create or affect any legal rights (s.
2.1.2). Section 2.6.2.3 is therefore somewhat imprecise. It can only refer to the provisions of the final
agreement whose substance (and not form) derives
from the Umbrella Agreement, and which prevail
over the specific provisions. The implementing
legislation, the Yukon First Nations Land Claims
Settlement Act, S.C. 1994, c. 34, provides that [i]n
the event of a conflict or inconsistency between provisions of the Umbrella Final Agreement incorporated in a final agreement that is in effect and provisions of the final agreement that are specific to the
first nation, the provisions of the Umbrella Final
Agreement prevail to the extent of the conflict or
inconsistency (s. 13(4)). The other provisions of the
treaty that relate to this issue of conflicting legislation have also been drawn from the federal implementing legislation (s. 13) and from its territorial

[139] Les dispositions interprtatives et gnrales que nous venons de voir posent aussi certaines normes relatives aux rapports quentretiennent
lAccordcadre et toute entente dfinitive conclue
conformment ses stipulations, non seulement
entre eux, mais avec le reste du droit galement. On
peut noter cet gard la norme nonant la prpondrance en cas dincompatibilit constate de
lAccordcadre sur les ententes conclues suivant
ses stipulations (art. 2.6.2.3). premire vue, cette
norme surprend, dans la mesure o les parties
lAccord-cadre ont bien pris soin de prciser que,
lui seul, ce dernier na pas pour effet de crer des
droits lgaux ou de porter atteinte de tels droits
(art. 2.1.2). Larticle 2.6.2.3 souffre donc dune
imprcision. Il ne peut sagir que des dispositions
de lentente dfinitive dont la source matrielle (et
non pas formelle) est lAccord-cadre, lesquelles ont
prsance sur les dispositions dites spcifiques .
La loi de mise en uvre, nommment la Loi sur le
rglement des revendications territoriales des pre
mires nations du Yukon, L.C. 1994, ch. 34, prcise dailleurs que ce sont [l]es dispositions de
laccord-cadre reprises dans un accord dfinitif en
vigueur [qui] lemportent sur les dispositions incompatibles qui sont propres la premire nation (par.
13(4)). Le reste des stipulations du trait relatives
cette question des conflits de loi est galement
repris dans la loi fdrale de mise en uvre (art. 13)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

172

Page 70 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

173

equivalent (s. 5). The rules can therefore be summarized in the principle that the Final Agreement
prevails over any other non-constitutional legal
rule, subject to the requirement that its provisions
not be so construed as to affect the rights of Yukon
Indian people as Canadian citizens and their entitlement to all the rights, benefits and protections
of other citizens (s. 2.2.5). In short, therefore, with
certain exceptions, the treaty overrides Aboriginal
rights related to the matters to which it applies, and
in cases of conflict or inconsistency, it prevails over
all other non-constitutional law.

ainsi que dans son quivalent territorial (art. 5). Les


rgles pertinentes peuvent donc tre rsumes par le
principe selon lequel lEntente dfinitive lemporte
sur toute autre rgle de droit infraconstitutionnel,
sous rserve du fait que ses dispositions ne doivent
pas tre interprtes dune manire portant atteinte
aux droits des Indiens du Yukon en tant que
citoyens canadiens ni leur droit de jouir de tous
les droits, avantages et protections reconnus aux
autres citoyens (art. 2.2.5). En somme, donc, sauf
exception le trait se substitue aux droits ancestraux relativement aux matires dont il dispose et il
a prsance, en cas dincompatibilit, sur le reste du
droit infraconstitutionnel.

[140] It should be noted that in certain circumstances, the principle applied in the treaty with
respect to particular non-constitutional legislation the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, where
reserves are concerned is that the treaty replaces
that legislation rather than prevailing over it (s.
4.1.2).

[140] Il importe de souligner ici que, dans certaines circonstances, le trait fait galement intervenir le principe de substitution plutt que le principe
de prsance lgard dun texte infraconstitutionnel donn, en loccurrence la Loi sur les Indiens,
L.R.C. 1985, ch. I-5, pour ce qui est des rserves
(art. 4.1.2).

[141] Regarding the relationship between the


treaty in issue and the rest of our constitutional
law other than the case law on Aboriginal rights,
such a treaty clearly cannot on its own amend the
Constitution of Canada within the meaning of s.
52 and Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982. Thus,
to give one example, it cannot on its own alter either
the protections of rights and freedoms provided for
in Part I of that Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms (support for this can be found in s.
2.2.5 of the Final Agreement, which was discussed
above), or the constitutional division of powers
established in Part VI of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Next, on the specific issue before us in the instant
case, since the right to be consulted that corresponds to the common law duty to consult (1) transcends the distinction between Aboriginal rights
and treaty rights, (2) is therefore not an Aboriginal
right and even less so an Aboriginal right related to
land and resources, and (3) accordingly cannot be
surrendered under Division 2.5.0, it must be asked
whether there is anything explicit in the treaty in
issue about how the parties intended to deal with
this duty. In other words, does the Final Agreement
contain provisions that affect the general principle

[141] En ce qui a trait la relation entre le trait


en cause et le reste de notre droit constitutionnel
au-del du seul rgime jurisprudentiel des droits
ancestraux, un tel trait ne saurait videmment lui
seul modifier la Constitution du Canada au sens
de lart. 52 et de la partie V de la Loi constitution
nelle de 1982. Il ne pourrait donc pas, par exemple,
modifier lui seul la protection des droits et liberts
prvue la partie I de cette dernire loi, cest--dire
la Charte canadienne des droits et liberts (ce qui
tend tre confirm par lart. 2.2.5 de lEntente dfinitive dont il a t question plus haut), ou la rpartition fdrative des comptences prvue la partie
VI de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867. Ensuite,
relativement la question qui nous intresse particulirement en lespce, dans la mesure o le droit
dtre consult qui est corrlatif de lobligation de
consultation de rgime jurisprudentiel (1) dpasse
lopposition entre droits ancestraux et droits issus
de trait, (2) quil nest donc pas un droit ancestral
et encore moins un droit ancestral aux terres et aux
ressources et (3) que, par consquent, il ne saurait
avoir fait lobjet dune renonciation en vertu de la
section 2.5.0, il convient de se demander si le trait
qui nous occupe contient quelque chose dexplicite

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 71 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

discussed above that the common law duty to consult will apply only where the parties have failed to
address this issue? I see none.

au sujet de la faon dont les parties entendent rgir


cette obligation. Autrement dit, lEntente dfinitive contient-elle des dispositions qui auraient une
incidence sur le principe gnral dgag plus haut,
selon lequel lobligation de consultation de rgime
jurisprudentiel ne sappliquera quen cas domission
des parties au trait davoir prvu cette matire? Je
ne vois aucune disposition cet effet.

[142] It should be borne in mind that an Aboriginal


people cannot, by treaty, surrender its constitutional right to be consulted before the Crown takes
measures in a manner not provided for in the treaty
that might violate, infringe or limit a right that
Aboriginal people is recognized as having in the
same treaty. By analogy, in contract law, such a surrender would constitute an unconscionable term.
But it is not this rule that is in issue here so much
as the minimum required content of the duty in the
context of treaties with Aboriginal peoples. As set
out above, s. 2.6.5 of the Final Agreement, which
was reproduced from the Umbrella Agreement,
provides that [n]othing in a Settlement Agreement
shall be construed to preclude any party from
advocating before the courts any position on the
existence, nature or scope of any fiduciary or other
relationship between the Crown and the Yukon
First Nations. However, the fiduciary duty is not
always constitutional in nature. Nor is it equivalent to the duty to consult implied by the principle
of the honour of the Crown that the Crown must
maintain in its relations with Aboriginal peoples as
holders of special constitutional rights. The fiduciary duty may arise, for example, from relations the
Crown maintains with Indians in managing reserve
lands and, more generally, in administering the
Indian Act (Guerin; Osoyoos Indian Band v. Oliver
(Town), 2001 SCC 85, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 746).

[142] Il est utile de rappeler quun peuple autochtone ne saurait, par trait, renoncer son droit
constitutionnel dtre consult avant la prise de
mesures tatiques dune manire non prvue par
un trait et susceptible de violer, denfreindre ou
de restreindre un droit reconnu aux Autochtones
par ce mme trait. Par analogie avec le droit des
contrats, une telle renonciation constituerait une
sorte de clause abusive. Or, ce nest pas tant cette
rgle comme telle qui est en cause ici que le contenu
minimal impratif de lobligation dans le cas de traits conclus avec les peuples autochtones. Comme
il a t soulign ci-dessus, lart. 2.6.5 de lEntente
dfinitive qui a t repris de lAccord-cadre
prcise que [l]es ententes portant rglement nont
pas pour effet dempcher une partie de faire valoir,
devant les tribunaux, sa position quant lexistence,
la nature ou ltendue des rapports fiduciaires ou autres qui existeraient entre la Couronne et
les premires nations du Yukon . Lobligation de
fiduciaire na cependant pas toujours un caractre
constitutionnel. De plus, elle ne concide pas avec
lobligation de consultation quimplique le principe de lhonneur de la Couronne que celle-ci se
doit de prserver dans ses relations avec les peuples
autochtones en leur qualit de titulaires de droits
constitutionnels spciaux. Par exemple, lobligation
de fiduciaire peut natre des rapports quentretient
la Couronne avec les Indiens dans sa gestion des
terres de rserve et, de faon plus gnrale, dans
ladministration de la Loi sur les Indiens (Guerin;
Bande indienne dOsoyoos c. Oliver (Ville), 2001
CSC 85, [2001] 3 R.C.S. 746).

[143] In actual fact, two points are made in s.


2.6.5. First, the settlement of an Aboriginal nations
comprehensive claim does not automatically entail
the settlement of any specific claim based not on
Aboriginal rights but rather on the Indian Act that

[143] En ralit, lart. 2.6.5 vise rappeler deux


choses. Premirement le rglement de la revendication globale dune nation autochtone nemporte pas
ncessairement rglement de toute revendication
particulire que pourrait avoir cette mme nation et

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

174

Page 72 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

175

this nation might have, generally on the strength of


the Crowns fiduciary duty. A specific claim could
also be based on a historical treaty. In the instant
case, however, the Little Salmon/Carmacks First
Nation expressly ceded, released and surrendered,
in the agreement to settle its comprehensive land
claim, namely the Final Agreement, any claims,
rights or causes of action which they may ever
have had, may now have or may have hereafter
as a result of Treaty 11 (ss. 2.5.1.3, 2.5.1.4(c) and
2.5.2). Finally, unlike a comprehensive claim, a
specific claim is not necessarily limited to land or
resources. It was therefore quite natural to specify
that the mere existence of a settlement of a Yukon
First Nations comprehensive land claim did not,
without further verification, support a conclusion
that any specific claim the First Nation might have
had been settled.

qui reposerait, par exemple, non pas sur des droits


ancestraux, mais sur la Loi sur les Indiens, le plus
souvent sur le fondement de lobligation de fiduciaire de la Couronne. Une revendication particulire pourrait aussi tre base sur un trait historique . En loccurrence cependant, la Premire
nation de Little Salmon/Carmacks a renonc expressment, dans laccord de rglement de sa revendication globale que constitue lEntente dfinitive,
tout ventuel rclamation, droit ou cause daction,
pass, actuel ou futur qui serait issu du Trait no
11 (art. 2.5.1.3, 2.5.1.4c) et 2.5.2). Enfin, contrairement une revendication globale, une revendication particulire ne porte pas toujours uniquement
sur des terres ou ressources. Il tait donc normal
de rappeler que la seule existence du rglement de
la revendication globale dune premire nation du
Yukon ne permet pas, sans autre forme de vrification, de conclure au rglement de toute revendication particulire que pourrait avoir cette premire
nation.

[144] Second, s. 2.6.5 also evokes a more general


principle. It provides that a final agreement does
not preclude any party from advocating before the
courts the existence of not only fiduciary, but also
other, relationships between the Crown and the
Yukon First Nations. This, in reality, is but one
manifestation of the equitable principle involving
a higher standard for exchanges of rights between
Aboriginal peoples and the Crown which the
Crown aimed to make more orthodox that was
first mentioned in the federal policy of 1986.

[144] Deuximement, larticle 2.6.5 vise aussi


rappeler un principe dordre plus gnral. En effet,
il prvoit quune entente dfinitive nempche pas
une partie de dfendre en justice lexistence de
rapports non seulement fiduciaires mais galement autres entre la Couronne et les premires nations du Yukon. Il ne sagit l en ralit que
dune manifestation du principe quitable visant
des changes dune qualit suprieure entre les peuples autochtones et la Couronne que celle-ci veut
plus orthodoxes qui a dabord t exprim dans
la politique fdrale de 1986.

[145] Thus, s. 2.6.5 of the Final Agreement is not


at all inconsistent with the general principle discussed above that the common law duty to consult,
in its minimum required obligational form, will
apply despite the existence of a treaty only if
the parties to the treaty have clearly failed to provide for it. This will depend on whether the parties
have come to an agreement on the issue, and if they
have, the treaty will unless, of course, the treaty
itself provides otherwise override the application
to the parties of any parallel framework, including
the common law framework.

[145] Larticle 2.6.5 de lEntente dfinitive nest


donc nullement incompatible avec le principe gnral qui a t dgag plus haut et suivant lequel,
comme contenu obligationnel minimal impratif,
lobligation de consultation de rgime jurisprudentiel ne sappliquera, nonobstant la prsence dun
trait, que dans les cas domission claire des parties ce trait davoir stipul cet gard. En effet,
tout dpendra de ce que les parties auront ou non
convenu sur la question, auquel cas le trait, sauf
bien sr renvoi leffet contraire dans celui-ci, aura
cart lapplication entre les parties de tout rgime
parallle, y compris le rgime jurisprudentiel.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 73 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

[146] In short, in providing in s. 2.2.4 that, subject to certain restrictions, Settlement Agreements
shall not affect the ability of aboriginal people of
the Yukon to exercise, or benefit from, any existing or future constitutional rights for aboriginal
people that may be applicable to them, the parties
could only have had an orthodox exchange of rights
in mind. They most certainly did not intend that
a consultation framework would apply in parallel
with the one they were in the process of establishing in the treaty. If the treaty in issue establishes
how the Crown is to exercise its rights under the
treaty by providing for a given form of consultation with the Aboriginal party, then the effect of
the entire agreement clause in s. 2.2.15 will be to
override any parallel framework, including the one
developed by this Court.

[146] En somme, en stipulant lart. 2.2.4 que,


sous certaines rserves, les ententes portant
rglement nont pas pour effet de porter atteinte
la capacit des peuples autochtones du Yukon
dexercer des droits constitutionnels existants
ou futurs qui sont reconnus aux peuples autochtones et qui sappliquent eux ou de tirer parti de
tels droits , les parties ne pouvaient avoir lesprit
quun change orthodoxe de droits. Elles navaient
assurment pas lintention de prvoir lapplication dun rgime de consultation parallle celui
quelles pouvaient tre en train dtablir par trait.
Si le trait qui nous occupe nonce les modalits dexercice par la Couronne des droits quil lui
confre en instaurant une forme ou une autre de
consultation de la partie autochtone, alors la clause
de lentente complte figurant lart. 2.2.15 aura
pour effet dcarter tout rgime parallle, y compris celui qui a t labor par la jurisprudence de
notre Cour.

B. Substantive Rights in Issue

B. Droits matriels en cause

(1) Right to Transfer and Right of Access to


Crown Land

(1) Droit de cession et droit daccs aux terres


de la Couronne

[147] In the case at bar, it is Chapter 6 on rights


of access that must be considered first in respect
of the right of the Crown the exercise of which
could affect the exercise of rights of the Aboriginal
party. As I mentioned above, the agreement in issue
establishes two broad categories of land: settlement
land and non-settlement land. The category of
non-settlement land includes Crown land, and the
land in question in Mr. Paulsens application was
Crown land. Chapter 6 is structured on the basis
of the principle that the Aboriginal party and third
parties have rights of access to unoccupied Crown
land, on the one hand, and that the Crown and third
parties have rights of access to undeveloped settlement land, on the other. This is a general principle
to which there may, of course, be exceptions.

[147] Cest le chapitre 6 sur les droits daccs


qui doit dabord retenir notre attention en lespce
relativement la question du droit de la Couronne
dont lexercice est susceptible daffecter lexercice
des droits de la partie autochtone. Jai mentionn
prcdemment que laccord en cause tablit deux
grandes catgories de terres, les terres vises par
le rglement ( Settlement Lands ) et les autres
( NonSettlement Lands ) qui comprennent les
terres de la Couronne, parmi lesquelles se trouvait
la terre faisant lobjet de la demande de M. Paulsen.
Le principe qui structure le chapitre 6 est celui des
droits daccs de la partie autochtone et des tiers
aux terres inoccupes de la Couronne dune part
( unoccupied Crown Land ) et des droits daccs
de la Couronne et des tiers aux terres vises par
le rglement qui nont pas t mises en valeur
( undeveloped Settlement Land ) de lautre. Il
sagit dun principe gnral qui peut certes connatre des exceptions.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

176

Page 74 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

177

[148] It is in Division 6.2.0 that the parties to


the Umbrella Agreement Canada, Yukon and
the Council for Yukon Indians provided for the
right of access to Crown land to be confirmed
in the final agreements of every Yukon Indian
person and Yukon First Nation. The effect of the
reproduction of that provision in the various final
agreements was to grant every Yukon Indian person
and Yukon First Nation to which those agreements
applied a right of access for non-commercial purposes (s. 6.2.1), which is the right being relied on
in this case. However, a review of that right leads
to the right of the Crown the exercise of which is in
issue here and which constitutes an exception to the
right of access.

[148] Cest la section 6.2.0 que les parties


lAccord-cadre, soit le Canada, le Yukon et le
Conseil des Indiens du Yukon, ont prvu la confirmation dans les ententes dfinitives du droit de
chaque Indien et premire nation du Yukon daccder aux terres de la Couronne. La reprise de cette
disposition dans les diverses ententes dfinitives a
pour effet de confrer chaque Indien et premire
nation du Yukon concern un droit daccs des
fins non commerciales (art. 6.2.1), droit qui est
invoqu ici. Or, cest en examinant ce droit quon
arrive cerner celui de la Couronne dont lexercice
est ici en cause et qui simpose comme une exception au premier.

[149] The right of access of First Nations to


Crown land for non-commercial purposes is subject
to strict limits, and also to conditions and exceptions. It is limited in that the access in question is
only casual and insignificant (s. 6.2.1.1), or is
for the purpose of Harvesting Fish and Wildlife in
accordance with Chapter 16 Fish and Wildlife
(s. 6.2.1.2), which is a chapter I will discuss below.
The applicable conditions are set out in s. 6.2.4
one example is a prohibition against significant
interference with the use and peaceful enjoyment
of the land by other persons. Finally, regarding the
exceptions that are relevant here, the right of access
in issue does not apply to Crown land where
access or use by the public is limited or prohibited
(s. 6.2.3.2), or which is subject to an agreement for
sale or a surface licence or lease, except to the
extent the surface licence or lease permits public
access or where the holder of the interest allows
access (s. 6.2.3.1 (emphasis added)).

[149] En effet, le droit des premires nations


daccder aux terres de la Couronne des fins non
commerciales est troitement limit, en plus dtre
assorti de conditions et dexceptions. Il est limit
en ce quil ne confre quun accs occasionnel et ngligeable (art. 6.2.1.1) ou ayant pour
but la rcolte de poissons ou danimaux sauvages conformment aux dispositions du Chapitre
16 Ressources halieutiques et fauniques (art.
6.2.1.2), chapitre sur lequel je reviendrai. Les
conditions applicables sont prvues lart. 6.2.4
par exemple, une interdiction de porter atteinte
de faon importante lutilisation et la jouissance paisible de ces terres par dautres personnes.
Enfin, au sujet des exceptions qui sont pertinentes
ici, le droit daccs en cause ne sapplique pas aux
terres de la Couronne dont laccs ou lutilisation par le public est restreint ou prohib (art.
6.2.3.2) ou faisant lobjet dun contrat de vente,
dun permis ou dun bail de surface , et ce, sauf
dans la mesure o le permis ou le bail de surface
accorde un droit daccs au public ou si le titulaire du contrat de vente ou encore du permis ou
du bail de surface en permet laccs (art. 6.2.3.1
(je souligne)).

[150] This last provision is the very one on which


the decision on Mr. Paulsens application was based.
It must therefore be determined whether the treaty
requires the Crown to consult the Aboriginal party
before exercising its right to transfer land belonging

[150] Cette dernire disposition est prcisment celle sur laquelle se fonde la dcision sur la
demande de M. Paulsen. Il sagit donc de vrifier
si, aux termes du trait, avant dexercer son droit
de cder des terres lui appartenant, dune manire

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 75 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

to it in a way that could limit one or more rights


granted to the Aboriginal party in the treaty. As I
explain below, there are provisions in the treaty in
question that govern this very issue.

susceptible de restreindre un ou plusieurs droits


que le trait reconnat la partie autochtone, la
Couronne doit au pralable consulter cette dernire. Comme je lexplique ci-dessous, le trait en
cause contient des dispositions rgissant prcisment cette question.

[151] The Crowns right is clear, however. This


exception to the right of access of First Nations
to Crown land obviously implies that the Crowns
general right to transfer land belonging to it continues to exist. Crown land, in respect of which
Yukons Aboriginal peoples have surrendered all
Aboriginal rights and all rights arising out of Treaty
No. 11, and which is not included in the land covered by the settlement of their comprehensive land
claims, is defined in the agreement itself as land
vested from time to time in Her Majesty in Right
of Canada, whether the administration and control
thereof is appropriated to the Commissioner of the
Yukon or not (Chapter 1). Ownership of property
implies, with some exceptions, the right to dispose
of the property. The Crowns right to transfer land
belonging to it is confirmed not only by s. 6.2.3.1 of
the treaty, but also by s. 6.2.7, which limits that right
by indicating that Government shall not alienate
Crown Land abutting any block of Settlement Land
so as to deprive that block of Settlement Land of
access from adjacent Crown Land or from a highway or public road. The treaty right being specifically invoked by the Little Salmon/Carmacks First
Nation in respect of access to Crown land clearly
ends where the Crowns right to transfer such land
begins.

[151] Le droit de la Couronne est cependant clair.


En effet, cette exception au droit daccs des premires nations aux terres de la Couronne suppose
de toute vidence le maintien du droit gnral de la
Couronne de cder des terres lui appartenant. Les
terres de la Couronne sur lesquelles les Autochtones
du Yukon ont renonc tout droit ancestral ou issu
du Trait no 11 et qui ne font pas partie des terres
vises par le rglement de leur revendication territoriale globale sont dfinies dans laccord mme
comme des terres dont la proprit est dvolue
Sa Majest du chef du Canada que le commissaire du Yukon ait ou non pleine autorit sur
celle-ci (chapitre 1). Or, sauf exception, la proprit dun bien implique le droit den disposer. Ce
droit de la Couronne de cder des terres lui appartenant est confirm non seulement par lart. 6.2.3.1
du trait, mais aussi par lart. 6.2.7 qui limite ce
droit en indiquant que [l]e gouvernement ne peut
aliner des terres de la Couronne attenantes une
pice de terres vises par un rglement si cela
aurait pour effet de couper cette pice de terres soit
des terres de la Couronne qui lui sont adjacentes,
soit dune route ou dun chemin public. Le droit
issu de trait quinvoque prcisment la Premire
nation de Little Salmon/Carmacks relativement
laccs aux terres de la Couronne sarrte clairement l o commence le droit de celle-ci de cder
de telles terres.

[152] Moreover, in invoking the right granted


in s. 6.2.1.2 to every Yukon Indian person and
Yukon First Nation, that of access to Crown land
for the purpose of Harvesting Fish and Wildlife
in accordance with Chapter 16, the respondents
are also engaging that chapter on fish and wildlife
management. They further submit that the transfer of the land in question would reduce the value
of the trapline held by one of them, Johnny Sam,
under the Wildlife Act, R.S.Y. 2002, c. 229, and
in a more direct, but certainly no less significant,

[152] Par ailleurs, en invoquant le droit que reconnat lart. 6.2.1.2 chaque Indien et premire nation
du Yukon daccder aux terres de la Couronne
pour sadonner la rcolte de poissons ou danimaux sauvages conformment aux dispositions du
Chapitre 16 , les intims font galement intervenir le chapitre relatif la gestion des ressources
halieutiques et fauniques. Ils soutiennent aussi que
la cession de terre en cause diminuerait la valeur de
la ligne de pigeage dont lun dentre eux, Johnny
Sam, est titulaire en vertu de la Loi sur la faune,

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

178

Page 76 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

manner under the same Chapter 16 of the Final


Agreement. Chapter 16 is accordingly in issue in
this case and will have to be considered in greater
detail.
(2) Fish and Wildlife Management

179

L.R.Y. 2002, ch. 229, et de manire plus immdiate, mais assurment non moins importante
de ce mme chapitre 16 de lEntente dfinitive. Ce
chapitre est donc en cause en lespce et il y a lieu
de lexaminer plus en dtail.
(2) Gestion des ressources halieutiques et
fauniques

[153] Chapter 16 of the Final Agreement establishes a co-management framework with respect to
fish and wildlife. It generally confirms the right of
Yukon Indian people

[153] Le chapitre 16 de lEntente dfinitive instaure un rgime de cogestion des ressources halieutiques et fauniques. Il vient confirmer de manire
gnrale le droit des Indiens du Yukon

to harvest for Subsistence within their Traditional


Territory, and with the consent of another Yukon First
Nation in that Yukon First Nations Traditional Territory,
all species of Fish and Wildlife for themselves and their
families at all seasons of the year and in any numbers
on Settlement Land and on Crown Land to which they
have a right of access pursuant to 6.2.0 . . . . [s. 16.4.2]

de rcolter, des fins de subsistance, dans les limites


de leur territoire traditionnel et, avec le consentement
de celle-ci, sur le territoire traditionnel dune autre premire nation du Yukon, toute espce de poisson et danimal sauvage, pour eux-mmes et pour leur famille, en
toute saison et sans limite de prises, sur des terres vises
par un rglement et sur des terres de la Couronne o ils
bnficient dun droit daccs conformment la section
6.2.0 . . . [art. 16.4.2]

However, the actual scope of this general principle is limited in that the same provision concludes with the following words: . . . subject only
to limitations prescribed pursuant to Settlement
Agreements (s. 16.4.2). Those limitations are significant and they go beyond the exception to the
right of access granted in Division 6.2.0, namely
the Crowns exercise of its right to transfer land
belonging to it. The exercise of the rights granted
to the Aboriginal party in Chapter 16 is subject to
limitations provided for not only in the final agreements, but also in Legislation enacted for purposes
of Conservation, public health or public safety (s.
16.3.3); limitations provided for in legislation must
be consistent with this chapter, reasonably required
to achieve those purposes and may only limit those
rights to the extent necessary to achieve those purposes (s. 16.3.3.1).

Cependant, la porte relle de ce principe gnral


est limite dans la mesure o la mme disposition
se termine par les mots suivants : . . . sous rserve
seulement des limites prvues par les ententes
portant rglement (art. 16.4.2). Ces limites sont
importantes et vont au-del de lexception au droit
daccs confr par la section 6.2.0 que constitue
lexercice par la Couronne de son droit de cder des
terres lui appartenant. Lexercice des droits reconnus la partie autochtone par le chapitre 16 est assujetti non seulement aux restrictions prvues par les
dispositions des ententes dfinitives, mais aussi aux
mesures lgislatives dictes des fins de conservation, de sant publique ou de scurit publique
(art. 16.3.3), mesures qui doivent tre compatibles
avec les dispositions du prsent chapitre, tre raisonnablement ncessaires la ralisation des fins
susmentionnes et ne limiter les droits en question
que dans la mesure ncessaire la ralisation de ces
fins (art. 16.3.3.1).

[154] There are other provisions in Chapter 16


of the Final Agreement, aside from s. 16.3.3, that
regulate, in various ways, the right of Yukon Indian
people to harvest fish and wildlife by, in particular,
authorizing the fixing of quotas referred to as

[154] Outre larticle 16.3.3, dautres dispositions


du chapitre 16 de lEntente dfinitive viennent
encadrer de diverses manires le droit des Indiens
du Yukon dexploiter les ressources halieutiques et
fauniques, notamment en permettant linstauration

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 77 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

total allowable harvest[s] [w]hen opportunities to harvest Freshwater Fish or Wildlife are limited for Conservation, public health or public safety
(s. 16.9.1.1). Chapter 16 also establishes principles
for sharing such harvests between Yukon Indian
People and other harvesters (s. 16.9.1). Overall, the
logic behind the principles used to allocate quotas is
to give priority to the Subsistence needs of Yukon
Indian People while providing for the reasonable
needs of other harvesters (s. 16.9.1.1).

de quotas, en loccurrence des rcolte[s] totale[s]


autorise[s] , [l]orsque les possibilits de rcolter du poisson deau douce ou des animaux sauvages sont limites pour des raisons de conservation,
de sant publique ou de scurit publique (art.
16.9.1.1). Ce mme chapitre prvoit aussi les principes de rpartition de ces rcoltes entre les Indiens
du Yukon et les autres personnes exerant des activits de rcolte (art. 16.9.1). Dans lensemble, la
logique prsidant aux principes de rpartition des
quotas vise satisfaire en priorit les besoins pour
fins de subsistance des Indiens du Yukon, tout en
rpondant aux besoins raisonnables des autres personnes qui sadonnent des activits de rcolte
(art. 16.9.1.1).

[155] Another goal of Chapter 16 of each of the


final agreements, in addition to the simple fixing
and allocation of quotas, is to regulate the exercise
by Yukon Indian people of their rights to harvest
fish and wildlife by setting up a multi-level management framework that combines the principle of
participation of the First Nations in question and
that of decentralization. Those with responsibilities in the context of that framework are, in each
case, the First Nation in question, the renewable
resources council (council), which has jurisdiction in respect of that First Nations traditional territory, the Fish and Wildlife Management Board
(Board) (and its Salmon Sub-Committee),
which has jurisdiction throughout the Yukon
Territory, and, finally, the Minister responsible
for the matter in issue. There is equal representation on the councils and the Board: thus, [s]ubject
to Transboundary Agreements and Yukon First
Nation Final Agreements, each Council shall be
comprised of six members consisting of three nominees of the Yukon First Nation and three nominees of the Minister (s. 16.6.2), and [t]he Board
shall be comprised of six nominees of Yukon First
Nations and six nominees of Government (s.
16.7.2). Regarding the composition of the councils,
the specific provisions of the final agreements add
only that the First Nation and the Minister may
each nominate one additional member as an alternate member (ss. 16.6.2.1 to 16.6.2.3). The chairperson of each council, and of the Board, is selected
from the membership of the body in question in

[155] Au-del des seules fins dtablissement et


de rpartition de quotas, le chapitre 16 de chacune
des ententes dfinitives entend encadrer lexercice
par les Indiens du Yukon de leurs droits dexploitation des ressources halieutiques et fauniques par la
mise en place dune structure de gestion plusieurs
niveaux conjuguant les principes de participation
des premires nations concernes et de dcentralisation. Les organes composant cette structure sont,
dans chaque cas, la premire nation concerne, le
conseil des ressources renouvelables ( conseil )
comptent sur le territoire traditionnel de cette premire nation, la Commission de gestion des ressources halieutiques et fauniques ( Commission )
(et son sous-comit du saumon) qui a comptence lchelle du territoire du Yukon et, enfin,
le ministre responsable de la matire en question.
Les conseils et la Commission sont des organismes paritaires; [s]ous rserve des dispositions
des accords transfrontaliers et des ententes dfinitives conclues par les premires nations du Yukon,
chaque conseil est form de six membres dont
trois sont choisis par la premire nation du Yukon
vise et trois par le ministre (art. 16.6.2), et [l]a
Commission est forme de six personnes choisies par les premires nations du Yukon et de six
autres choisies par le gouvernement (art. 16.7.2).
Relativement la composition des conseils, les dispositions spcifiques des ententes dfinitives ne font
quajouter la possibilit pour la premire nation et
le ministre de proposer chacun un membre supplmentaire titre de membre supplant (art. 16.6.2.1

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

180

Page 78 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

181

accordance with procedures it has established for


itself (ss. 16.6.3 and 16.7.3). If no chairperson is
selected within 30 days in the case of a council,
or 60 days in the case of the Board, the Minister
must, after consulting the council or the Board, as
the case may be, appoint one from its membership
(ss. 16.6.3.1 and 16.7.3.1).

16.6.2.3). Le prsident de chaque conseil et celui


de la Commission sont choisis parmi les membres
de lorgane en question, conformment la procdure de slection tablie par celui-ci (art. 16.6.3 et
16.7.3). Si cela nest pas fait dans un dlai de 30 ou
60 jours, suivant le cas et respectivement, le ministre, aprs consultation de lorgane concern, dsigne lun des membres de celui-ci comme prsident
(art. 16.6.3.1 et 16.7.3.1).

[156] There are very few instances in which the


organs referred to in Chapter 16, other than the
Minister, are given decision-making powers. In
one of the rare cases, the First Nation is given, for
Category 1 Traplines, the final allocation authority (ss. 16.11.10.6 and 16.5.1.2) I should mention
that this is not the category to which Johnny Sams
trapline belongs. The First Nation also has sole
authority to align, realign or group Category 1
Traplines where such alignments, realignments
or groupings do not affect Category 2 Traplines
(s. 16.5.1.3).

[156] Hormis le ministre, les organes prvus au


chapitre 16 sont trs rarement investis de pouvoirs
dcisionnels. Lun de ces rares cas est lattribution
la premire nation de la comptence en dernier ressort en ce qui concerne la rpartition des
lignes de pigeage de catgorie 1 (art. 16.11.10.6
et 16.5.1.2) signalons quil ne sagit pas de la
catgorie laquelle appartient la ligne de pigeage
de Johnny Sam. La premire nation est aussi seule
comptente pour tracer ou modifier le trac des
lignes de pigeage de catgorie 1 ou encore grouper
ces lignes de pigeage, si ces mesures nont aucune
incidence sur les lignes de pigeage de catgorie 2
(art. 16.5.1.3).

[157] More generally, the First Nation also has


the following decision-making powers:

[157] La premire nation dtient en outre, plus


gnralement, les pouvoirs dcisionnels suivants :

. . . [to] manage, administer, allocate or otherwise


regulate the exercise of the rights of Yukon Indian
People under 16.4.0 [concerning the harvesting of fish
and wildlife] within the geographical jurisdiction of
the Council established for that Yukon First Nations
Traditional Territory by,

. . . grer, administrer, rpartir ou rglementer de quelque autre faon que ce soit lexercice, par les personnes
numres ci-aprs, des droits des Indiens du Yukon
prvus par la section 16.4.0 [relativement au prlvement
des ressources halieutiques et fauniques], dans la rgion
qui relve de la comptence du conseil tabli pour son
territoire traditionnel :

(a) Yukon Indian People enrolled pursuant to that


Yukon First Nation Final Agreement,

a)

les Indiens du Yukon inscrits en application de


son entente dfinitive;

(b) other Yukon Indian People who are exercising


rights pursuant to 16.4.2, and

b)

les autres Indiens du Yukon qui exercent des


droits prvus par larticle 16.4.2;

(c) except as otherwise provided in a Transboundary Agreement, members of a transboundary


claimant group who are Harvesting pursuant to that Transboundary Agreement in that
Yukon First Nations Traditional Territory . . .
[s. 16.5.1.1]

c)

sauf disposition contraire dun accord transfrontalier, les membres dun groupe revendicateur transfrontalier qui exercent, sur son
territoire traditionnel, des activits de rcolte
conformment cet accord transfrontalier . . .
[art. 16.5.1.1]

However, the final paragraph of this provision contains the following clarification: . . . where not
inconsistent with the regulation of those rights by

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Or, le dernier alina de cette mme disposition


donne la prcision suivante : . . . en respectant les
mesures de rglementation de ces droits qui sont

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 79 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

Government in accordance with 16.3.3 and other


provisions of this chapter (s. 16.5.1.1, final portion). The reality is that, aside from the allocation
of individual rights from a group harvesting allocation, Chapter 16 mainly concerns management
activities that ultimately fall under the Ministers
authority. The organs mentioned in Chapter 16
other than the Minister have in most cases with
some exceptions where they are given a form of
decision-making authority a power limited to
holding consultations before a decision is made.

appliques par le gouvernement conformment


larticle 16.3.3 et aux autres dispositions du prsent chapitre (art. 16.5.1.1, in fine). Le fait est que,
sauf en matire de rpartition de droits individuels
partir dune allocation de prlvement de groupe,
il est surtout question au chapitre 16 dactivits de
gestion qui relvent, en fin de processus, du ministre. Les organes mentionns au chapitre 16 lexception du ministre se voient parfois confier un
pouvoir quasi dcisionnel, mais il ne sagit le plus
souvent que dun simple pouvoir consultatif prdcisionnel.

[158] It is in this context that the respondents


argument regarding the Communitybased Fish
and Wildlife Management Plan: Little Salmon/
Carmacks First Nation Traditional Territory, 2004
2009 (2004) must be considered. Management
plans such as this one are referred to in Chapter 16
of the various final agreements and more specifically, for our purposes, in ss. 16.6.10 and 16.6.10.1,
which read as follows:

[158] Cest dans ce contexte quil faut situer largument des intims relatif au plan de gestion des
ressources halieutiques et fauniques de la Premire
nation de Little Salmon/Carmacks Community
based Fish and Wildlife Management Plan :
Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation Traditional
Territory, 20042009 (2004). Il est question de tels
plans de gestion au chapitre 16 des diverses ententes
dfinitives et, plus particulirement, pour les fins
qui nous intressent, aux art. 16.6.10 et 16.6.10.1,
qui prvoient ce qui suit :

Subject to Yukon First Nation Final Agreements, and


without restricting 16.6.9 [on the Councils general
powers], each Council:

Sous rserve des dispositions des ententes dfinitives


conclues par les premires nations du Yukon et sans
restreindre la porte gnrale de larticle 16.6.9 [relatif
aux attributions gnrales des Conseils], chaque conseil
peut :

16.6.10.1 may make recommendations to the


Minister on the need for and the content
and timing of Freshwater Fish and
Wildlife management plans, including
Harvesting plans, Total Allowable
Harvests and the allocation of the
remaining Total Allowable Harvest [under
16.9.4], for species other than the species
referred to in 16.7.12.2 [species included
in international agreements, threatened
species declared by the Minister as being
of territorial, national or international
interest, and Transplanted Populations
and Exotic Species] . . .

16.6.10.1 prsenter au ministre des recommandations quant au besoin dtablir des plans
de gestion du poisson deau douce et des
animaux sauvages, la teneur de ces
plans et au moment de leur production,
notamment en ce qui concerne les plans
de rcolte, les rcoltes totales autorises et
la rpartition du reste de la rcolte totale
autorise [en vertu de larticle 16.9.4],
lgard des espces autres que celles vises
larticle 16.7.12.2 [espces vises par des
accords internationaux, espces menaces
ou dclares par le ministre comme tant
dintrt territorial, national ou international, populations transplantes et espces
exotiques] . . .

[159] A management plan such as the one relied


on by the respondents is a policy statement regarding proposed legal acts, in particular decision

[159] Un plan de gestion tel celui invoqu par les


intims constitue un nonc de politique faisant
tat dactes juridiques projets, le plus souvent des

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

182

Page 80 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

183

making and the making of regulations under statutory authority. As its title indicates, therefore, this
plan only sets out an administrative agreement
on how the partners plan to exercise their legal
powers.

dcisions ou des textes rglementaires devant tre


pris en vertu de la loi. Comme lindique son titre, ce
plan ne fait donc que consigner une entente administrative sur la faon dont les partenaires prvoient
exercer leurs pouvoirs juridiques.

[160] The passage from the management plan to


which the respondents refer reads as follows:

[160] Le passage pertinent du plan de gestion


auquel renvoient les intims est le suivant :

Concern: There is a need to protect the Yukon River


from Tatchun Creek to Minto as important habitat
for moose, salmon, and other wildlife.

[traduCtion] Proccupation : Il faut protger le


fleuve Yukon, de Tatchun Creek jusqu Minto,
puisquil sagit dun habitat important pour le
saumon, les orignaux et dautres animaux sauvages.

This section of the Yukon River contains a number of


sloughs and islands, and was identified as important
habitat for moose during calving, summer and winter.
Moose were commonly seen in this area back in the
1960s, but fewer have been seen in recent years. Dog
Salmon Slough was one area noted in particular as an
important habitat area. Bears use Dog Salmon Slough
for fishing. Moose might be staying away from river
corridors now with the increased river travel traffic
during summer. The review process for land applications in this area needs to consider the importance of
these habitat areas to fish and wildlife.

Cette partie du fleuve Yukon contient un certain nombre


de faux chenaux et dles, et elle est considre comme
un habitat important pour les orignaux pendant le vlage,
lt et lhiver. On y voyait couramment des orignaux
dans les annes 1960, alors quon en observe plus rarement au cours des dernires annes. Le faux chenal Dog
Salmon ( Dog Salmon Slough ) tait un endroit particulirement reconnu comme un habitat important. Les
ours pchent cet endroit. Cest peut-tre en raison de
laccroissement de la circulation maritime pendant lt
que les orignaux se tiennent loin des corridors fluviaux.
Il faut, dans le cadre du processus dexamen des demandes dalination de terres dans cette rgion, tenir compte
de limportance de ces habitats pour le poisson et les animaux sauvages.

Solution: Conserve the important moose and salmon


habitat along the Yukon River from Tatchun Creek
to Minto.

Solution : Conserver lhabitat important pour les


orignaux et le saumon le long du fleuve Yukon, de
Tatchun Creek jusqu Minto.

Pursue designating the area between Tatchun Creek and


Minto along the Yukon River as a Habitat Protection
Area under the Wildlife Act.

Demander la dsignation de la rgion entre Tatchun


Creek et Minto, le long du fleuve Yukon, comme rgion
de protection de lhabitat sous le rgime de la Loi sur la
faune.

The community and governments need to get together


to decide what kind of activities should happen in this
important wildlife habitat. This is an overlap area
with Selkirk First Nation, and the CRRC [Carmacks
Renewable Resource Council] needs to consult with
them. A [Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation] Game
Guardian could also assist in evaluating the area for
designation and providing management guidelines.
[pp. 32-33]

La communaut et les gouvernements doivent se concerter pour dcider quels types dactivits devraient tre
menes dans cet habitat faunique important. Il sagit
dun territoire qui chevauche celui de la Premire Nation
de Selkirk, et le CRRC [Conseil des ressources renouvelables de Carmacks] doit consulter cette premire nation.
Un garde-faune [de la Premire nation de Little Salmon/
Carmacks] pourrait aussi aider lvaluation de la rgion
devant tre dsigne et fournir des lignes directrices en
matire de gestion. [p. 32-33]

[161] Two concerns can therefore be identified:


the protection of fish and wildlife and the designation of areas. As I will explain below, the protection of fish and wildlife could be, and in fact

[161] Deux proccupations ressortent donc : la


protection du poisson et des animaux sauvages et
la dsignation des sites. Comme je lexpliquerai
plus loin, le processus menant la cession de terre

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 81 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

was, taken into consideration in the process leading to the transfer of land. As for the designation
of a protected area, which could have prevented
any transfer of the land in question in Mr. Paulsens
application from occurring, it was a complex process. Such a designation would have required that
three steps be completed successfully: (1) the
Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation would have
to recommend the designation after consulting the
Selkirk First Nation and the renewable resources
council, in accordance with the relevant provisions
of the management plan; (2) the Commissioner in
Executive Council would have to designate the area
by making a regulation under s. 187 of the Wildlife
Act, the effect of which would simply be to make
it possible to withdraw the lands in question from
disposition; and (3) the Commissioner in Executive
Council would have to actually withdraw the lands
from disposition by making an order under s. 7(1)(a)
of the Yukon Lands Act, R.S.Y. 2002, c. 132, which
would be done if the Commissioner in Executive
Council considered it advisable to do so in the
public interest. These steps had not yet been taken,
and in the meantime no provisional suspension of
the processing of applications for land in the area
in question had been agreed upon, despite the
fact that such a suspension had been suggested in
September 2004, a few weeks before the decision
on Mr. Paulsens application, at a meeting concerning an agricultural policy review that was attended
by representatives from the First Nation and the
Agriculture Branch.

pouvait prendre en considration la protection du


poisson et des animaux sauvages et, de fait, il le faisait. Pour ce qui est dune dsignation daire protge, ce qui aurait pu ventuellement conduire soustraire toute cession la terre vise par la demande
de M. Paulsen, il sagissait dun processus complexe. Une telle dsignation aurait requis que trois
tapes soient franchies avec succs : (1) une recommandation de dsignation formule par la Premire
nation de Little Salmon/Carmacks aprs consultation avec la Premire nation de Selkirk et le conseil
des ressources renouvelables conformment aux
dispositions pertinentes du plan de gestion; (2) une
dsignation effectue par le commissaire en conseil
excutif au moyen dun rglement pris en vertu de
lart. 187 de la Loi sur la faune, dsignation qui a
tout simplement pour effet douvrir la possibilit de
soustraire les terres la cession; (3) la soustraction
comme telle des terres la cession par dcret du
commissaire en conseil excutif pris en vertu de
lal. 7(1)a) de la loi du Yukon intitule Loi sur les
terres, L.R.Y. 2002, ch. 132, une telle mesure tant
prise dans les cas o ce dernier lestime conforme
lintrt public. De telles tapes restaient franchir
et, dans lintervalle, aucune suspension provisoire
du traitement des demandes portant sur des terres
de la rgion vise navait t convenue, malgr une
suggestion cet effet formule lors dune rencontre
qui avait eu lieu en septembre 2004, soit quelques
semaines avant la dcision sur la demande de M.
Paulsen, et qui portait sur la rvision de la politique
agricole et runissait des reprsentants de la premire nation et de la Direction de lagriculture.

[162] In sum, the provisions of Chapter 16 on fish


and wildlife management establish a framework
under which the First Nations are generally invited
to participate in fish and wildlife management at
the pre-decision stage. In particular, the invitation
they receive to propose fish and wildlife management plans can be regarded as consultation.

[162] En somme, les dispositions du chapitre 16


qui concernent la gestion des ressources halieutiques et fauniques instaurent un rgime par lequel les
premires nations sont gnralement invites participer la gestion des ressources halieutiques et fauniques sur une base prdcisionnelle. Notamment,
linvitation qui leur est faite de proposer des plans de
gestion des ressources halieutiques et fauniques peut
tre considre comme une consultation.

(3) Trapline

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

184

(3) Ligne de pigeage

[163] The respondents submit that the land transfer in issue will reduce the value of the trapline

[163] Les intims soutiennent que la cession de


terre en cause diminuera la valeur de la ligne de

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 82 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

185

held by Johnny Sam under the Wildlife Act, to


which Division 16.11.0 of the Final Agreement
on trapline management and use applies. In addition to the principles on the allocation of possible
quotas between the First Nations and other harvesters, Chapter 16 of the Yukon final agreements
includes specific rules for the trapping of furbearers. Division 16.11.0 incorporates, with necessary
changes, the framework for granting individual traplines, or concessions, established in the Wildlife
Act. The changes made to that general framework
in the final agreements relate primarily to the allocation of traplines in the First Nations traditional
territory.

pigeage dont est titulaire Johnny Sam en vertu de


la Loi sur la faune et laquelle se rapporte la section 16.11.0 de lEntente dfinitive relative la gestion et lutilisation des lignes de pigeage. Au-del
des principes relatifs la rpartition dventuels
contingents entre les premires nations et les autres
exploitants, le chapitre 16 des ententes dfinitives du
Yukon assujettit le pigeage danimaux fourrure
des rgles particulires. En fait, la section 16.11.0
renvoie avec les adaptations ncessaires au rgime
doctroi de lignes, ou concessions de pigeage
individuelles que prvoit la Loi sur la faune. Les
modifications quapportent les ententes dfinitives
ce rgime dapplication gnrale concernent pour
lessentiel la rpartition des lignes de pigeage au
sein du territoire traditionnel des premires nations
concernes.

[164] Section 16.11.2 of the final agreements


concluded with the Yukon First Nations under the
Umbrella Agreement reads as follows:

[164] En effet, lart. 16.11.2 des diverses ententes


dfinitives conclues aux termes de lAccord-cadre
avec les premires nations du Yukon stipule que :

In establishing local criteria for the management and


Use of Furbearers in accordance with 16.6.10.6 [which
delegates the authority to adopt bylaws under the
Wildlife Act] and 16.6.10.7 [which grants the authority
to make recommendations to the Minister and the First
Nation], the Councils shall provide for:

Dans ltablissement, conformment aux articles


16.6.10.6 [portant dlgation dun pouvoir rglementaire
en vertu de la Loi sur la faune] et 16.6.10.7 [attribuant un
pouvoir de recommandation auprs du ministre et de la
premire nation], des critres locaux en matire de gestion et dutilisation des animaux fourrure, les conseils
doivent viser les objectifs suivants :

16.11.2.1

the maintenance and enhancement of


the Yukons wild fur industry and the
Conservation of the fur resource; and

16.11.2.1 le maintien et la mise en valeur de lindustrie de la fourrure danimaux sauvages au Yukon et la conservation de cette
ressource;

16.11.2.2

the maintenance of the integrity of the


management system based upon individual trapline identity, including individual traplines within group trapping
areas.

16.11.2.2 le maintien de lintgrit du systme de


gestion fond sur lidentification des
lignes de pigeage individuelles, y compris des lignes de pigeage individuelles
situes dans des secteurs de pigeage
collectif.

[165] The Final Agreement contains a specific


provision concerning the allocation of traplines
between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people
in the traditional territory of the Little Salmon/
Carmacks First Nation, namely s. 16.11.4.1, which
provides that [t]he overall allocation of traplines
which have more than 50 percent of their area
in that portion of the Traditional Territory of the
Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation which is

[165] LEntente dfinitive contient une disposition spcifique relative la rpartition des lignes
de pigeage entre Autochtones et allochtones sur
le territoire traditionnel de la Premire nation de
Little Salmon/Carmacks. Il sagit de lart. 16.11.4.1,
qui prcise que [l]e nombre total de lignes de pigeage qui sont situes dans une proportion de plus
de 50 % dans la partie du territoire traditionnel
de la premire nation de Little Salmon/Carmacks

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 83 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

not overlapped by another Yukon First Nations


Traditional Territory is 11 traplines held by Yukon
Indian People and three traplines held by other
Yukon residents. This allocation does not apply to
Johnny Sams trapline, since it is located entirely
within the portion of the traditional territory of the
Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation that overlaps
the traditional territory of the Selkirk First Nation.

qui ne concide pas avec le territoire traditionnel


dune autre premire nation est de onze lignes de
pigeage dtenues par les Indiens du Yukon et de
trois lignes de pigeage dtenues par dautres rsidents du Yukon. La ligne de pigeage dont est
titulaire Johnny Sam nest pas vise par cette rpartition, dans la mesure o elle se situe entirement
dans cette portion du territoire traditionnel de la
Premire nation de Little Salmon/Carmacks qui
chevauche celui de la Premire nation de Selkirk.

[166] Furthermore, as I mentioned above, the


Final Agreement establishes two categories of traplines. After being granted to an individual, a trapline located in the traditional territory of a First
Nation may, with the written consent of its registered holder, be designated a Category 1 trapline
(s. 16.11.8). Otherwise, it will be a Category 2 trapline. Such a designation gives the First Nation the
authority particularly if the trapline is vacant
or underused to reallocate it (ss. 16.5.1.2 and
16.11.10.6), or to align it, realign it or group it with
another line where such alignments, realignments
or groupings do not affect Category 2 Traplines
(s. 16.5.1.3). Authority over Category 2 lines rests
not with the First Nation, but with the Minister (ss.
16.3.1 and 16.11.10.7 and Division 16.8.0). In their
decisions, the courts below indicated that Johnny
Sams trapline is a Category 2 trapline.

[166] En outre, tel quil est mentionn ci-dessus,


lEntente dfinitive tablit deux catgories de lignes
de pigeage. Une fois octroye un individu, une
ligne de pigeage se situant dans le territoire traditionnel dune premire nation peut, avec le consentement crit de son dtenteur inscrit, tre dsigne
ligne de pigeage de catgorie 1 (art. 16.11.8).
dfaut, la ligne sera donc de catgorie 2. Une telle
dsignation a pour effet de confrer comptence
la premire nation en ce qui concerne notamment en cas de vacance ou de sous-utilisation sa
rattribution (art. 16.5.1.2 et 16.11.10.6) ou encore
son trac ou son groupage avec une autre ligne si
ces mesures nont aucune incidence sur les lignes
de pigeage de catgorie 2 (art. 16.5.1.3). Les
lignes de catgorie 2 relvent quant elles non pas
de la premire nation mais du ministre (art. 16.3.1
et 16.11.10.7 et section 16.8.0). Les dcisions des
juridictions infrieures indiquent que la ligne de
pigeage dtenue par Johnny Sam appartient la
catgorie 2.

[167] Section 16.11.13 establishes the right of


Yukon Indian People holding traplines whose
Furbearer Harvesting opportunities will be diminished due to other resource development activities
[to] be compensated. This right is broader than
the right to compensation the holder of a trapline
has under s. 82 of the Wildlife Act, which is limited
to situations in which a concession is revoked or
the re-issuance of a concession is refused for purposes related to the conservation of wildlife or to
protection of the public interest, but without giving
two years notice. Regarding the consequences
the transfer of land to one person might have on
another persons right to trap, I would point out that
the Wildlife Act (s. 13(1)) provides that [a] person

[167] Larticle 16.11.13 tablit le droit des Indiens


du Yukon qui dtiennent des lignes de pigeage et
dont les possibilits de rcolte danimaux fourrure diminueront en raison dautres activits de
mise en valeur des ressources [d]tre indemniss .
Ce droit va au-del de ce que prvoit lart. 82 de la
Loi sur la faune en faveur du titulaire dune ligne
de pigeage, cest--dire le droit dtre indemnis
pour seule cause de rvocation ou refus de renouvellement, aux fins de protection de la faune ou de
lintrt public, sans pravis dau moins deux ans.
Relativement aux consquences que peut avoir la
cession dune terre une personne sur le droit de
trappe dune autre, je signale que la Loi sur la faune
(par. 13(1)) prcise qu [i]l est interdit de chasser ou

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

186

Page 84 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

187

shall not hunt or trap wildlife within one kilometre of a building which is a residence, whether or
not the occupants are present in the building at the
time, unless the person has the permission of the
occupants to do so.

de piger une espce faunique dans un rayon dun


kilomtre dune maison dhabitation, que les occupants soient prsents ou non ce moment, moins
davoir la permission de ces derniers.

[168] Having discussed the granting of rights and


establishment of duties in Chapter 16 of the Final
Agreement, on which the respondents are relying,
I must now ask whether this chapter establishes a
specific procedure to be followed by the Yukon government to consult the signatory First Nation before
exercising its right to transfer Crown land under the
(Yukon) territorys jurisdiction. The answer is no.
The consultation provided for in ss. 16.3.3.2, 16.5.4
and 16.7.16 relates to the management of fish and
wildlife, not to the impact an action might have in
relation to fish and wildlife. However, ss. 16.5.3,
16.6.11 and 16.7.13 provide that the First Nation,
the renewable resources council and the Fish and
Wildlife Management Board, respectively, have
standing as interested parties to participate in the
public proceedings of any agency, board or commission on matters that affect the management and
conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats
in the particular traditional territory. But the terms
agency, board or commission refer, in particular, to the bodies in question in Chapter 12 of the
Final Agreement, which establishes a procedure for
consulting the First Nations signatories by ensuring
their participation in the environmental and socioeconomic assessment of development activities
such as the one that resulted from the approval of
Mr. Paulsens application.

[168] Aprs avoir expos la rpartition de droits et


dobligations effectue au chapitre 16 de lEntente
dfinitive invoqu par les intims, il faut maintenant se demander si ce chapitre instaure une procdure particulire de consultation de la premire
nation signataire par le gouvernement du Yukon,
pralablement lexercice par ce dernier de son
droit de cder des terres de la Couronne relevant du
Territoire (du Yukon). La rponse est ngative. En
effet, la consultation prvue aux art. 16.3.3.2, 16.5.4
et 16.7.16 se rapporte la gestion des ressources
halieutiques et fauniques et non pas aux rpercussions quune mesure est susceptible dentraner en
ce domaine. En revanche, les art. 16.5.3, 16.6.11 et
16.7.13 disposent que la premire nation, le conseil
des ressources renouvelables et la Commission de
gestion des ressources halieutiques et fauniques,
respectivement, ont qualit, en tant que partie intresse, pour participer aux audiences publiques
dune agence, dun office ou dune commission relativement des questions ayant une incidence sur la
gestion et la conservation des ressources halieutiques et fauniques et de leurs habitats dans le territoire traditionnel concern. Or, cette agence , cet
office ou cette commission , ce seront notamment les organes dont il est question au chapitre 12
de lEntente dfinitive, lequel prvoit une procdure de consultation des premires nations signataires concernes en garantissant leur participation
lvaluation environnementale et socioconomique
des activits de dveloppement, comme lest lactivit qui rsulte de lapprobation de la demande de
M. Paulsen.

[169] I would nevertheless like to point out that


Johnny Sam had rights as the holder of the trapline.
He had the same rights as anyone else where procedural fairness is concerned. He also had the right to
be compensated in accordance with s. 16.11.13. But
the respondents are neither arguing that there has
been a breach of procedural fairness nor asserting
their right to compensation. What they are seeking

[169] Je tiens tout de mme signaler que la


ligne de pigeage confrait des droits Johnny
Sam. Ce dernier bnficiait en effet des droits
que possde tout administr en matire dquit
procdurale. Il avait aussi le droit dtre indemnis conformment aux dispositions de lart.
16.11.13. Or, les intims ninvoquent ni un manquement lquit procdurale ni leur droit une

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 85 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

is to have the decision on Mr. Paulsens application quashed on the ground that the Crown had a
common law duty to consult them (R.F. on crossappeal, at para. 86). It is my view, therefore, that a
review of the rights granted in the Final Agreement
with respect to consultation prior to a decision such
as the one in issue in this case is indispensable.

indemnit. Ce quils rclament cest la cassation


de la dcision sur la demande de M. Paulsen, au
motif que la Couronne avait, selon la jurisprudence pertinente, lobligation de les consulter
(m.i. en appel incident, par. 86). Il est donc dterminant, mon avis, dexaminer les droits que
confre lEntente dfinitive en matire de consultation lors dune dcision comme celle en cause en
lespce.

C. Formal Rights and Duties in Issue

C. Droits et obligations formels en cause

[170] The appellants argue that Chapter 12 is not


applicable on the ground that it had not yet been
implemented at the relevant time. According to the
respondents, the process provided for in Chapter
12 would have been applicable had it been implemented, but it is only one form of consultation
among all those that would be applicable in
their view, the common law duty is not excluded.
Binnie J. also proposes that the common law duty
to consult should apply where the Crown exercises
a right granted to it in the treaty, even if the treaty
provides for consultation in relation to that right.
I disagree with him on this point. As I mentioned
above, respect for the autonomy of the parties
implies that effect must be given to the provisions
they have agreed on in finalizing the relationship
between them on a given matter. I cannot therefore agree with disregarding provisions adopted
by the parties with respect to the transitional
law.

[170] Les appelants cartent lapplication du


chapitre 12, au motif quil naurait pas t mis en
uvre au moment des faits pertinents. Par ailleurs,
du point de vue des intims, le processus prvu par
le chapitre 12 se serait appliqu sil avait t mis
en vigueur mais ne reprsente quune forme de
consultation parmi toutes celles qui seraient applicables lobligation jurisprudentielle de consultation ne serait pas exclue. Le juge Binnie, quant
lui, propose aussi le maintien de lobligation jurisprudentielle de consultation lors de lexercice par la
Couronne dun droit prvu par le trait et ce, mme
en prsence de dispositions relatives la consultation relativement ce droit. Je ne suis pas daccord
avec lui sur ce point. Comme je lai mentionn plus
tt, il en va du respect de lautonomie des parties
de respecter les stipulations dont elles ont convenu
pour sceller leurs relations sur une matire donne.
Pour cette raison je ne peux accepter quon fasse
fi des stipulations des parties concernant le droit
transitoire.

[171] The Umbrella Agreement and the Final


Agreement in issue here state that the settlement
legislation must provide that a settlement agreement is binding on third parties (s. 2.4.2.3), and the
Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act
provides that [a final agreement or transboundary
agreement that is in effect] is binding on all persons and bodies that are not parties to it (s. 6(2)).
Both these agreements are binding not only on the
parties, but also on third parties. Therefore, in my
opinion, it is necessary for this Court to review the
provisions of Chapter 12.

[171] LAccord-cadre et lEntente dfinitive ici


en cause prvoient que la loi de mise en uvre
devra indiquer que lentente portant rglement
lie les tiers (art. 2.4.2.3), et la Loi sur le rgle
ment des revendications territoriales des premi
res nations du Yukon prcise qu [i]l est entendu
[que tout accord dfinitif ou transfrontalier en vigueur] a force obligatoire pour toute
personne et tout organisme qui ny sont pas parties (par. 6(2)). Cet accord et cette entente lient
non seulement les parties, mais aussi les tiers.
Par consquent, je suis davis que notre Cour
ne saurait carter lexamen des dispositions du
chapitre 12.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

188

Page 86 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

189

[172] Chapter 12 of the Umbrella Agreement,


which can also be found in the final agreements,
did not simply lay the foundations for an environmental and socio-economic assessment process
that was to be implemented by means of a statute
other than the general implementing legislation
for those agreements which was done by enacting the Yukon Environmental and Socioeconomic
Assessment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 7 (YESAA) it
also contains transitional law provisions regarding
the duties of the parties to the Umbrella Agreement
and the final agreements that would apply even
before the enactment of that statute implementing
the process in question.

[172] Le chapitre 12 de lAccord-cadre, quon


retrouve aussi dans les ententes dfinitives, na pas
fait que jeter les bases dun processus dvaluation
environnementale et socioconomique qui devait
tre mis en uvre au moyen dune loi distincte de la
loi de mise en uvre gnrale de ces ententes ce
qui fut fait par la Loi sur lvaluation environne
mentale et socioconomique au Yukon, L.C. 2003,
ch. 7 ( LESY ) mais il contient galement des
dispositions de droit provisoires relatives aux obligations des parties lAccord-cadre et aux ententes
dfinitives qui sappliquent mme avant la promulgation de cette loi de mise en uvre du processus
quil envisage.

[173] In reality, the Yukon final agreements provided that they would be implemented and would
come into effect by way of legislation or of an
order-in-council, as the case may be, and that their
coming into effect was a condition precedent to
their validity (ss. 2.2.11 and 2.2.12). This could be
understood to mean that, since Chapter 12 required
the enactment of specific implementing legislation,
it constituted an exception to the general implementation of a final agreement and created no legal
rights or duties until that legislation was enacted.
But that is not what the Final Agreement says.

[173] En ralit, les ententes dfinitives du


Yukon prvoient que leur mise en uvre et mise
en vigueur se font par loi ou par dcret, selon le
cas, et que leur mise en vigueur constitue une
condition de leur validit (art. 2.2.11 et 2.2.12).
On pourrait donc tre amen croire que, dans la
mesure o il requiert la promulgation dune loi de
mise en uvre spcifique, le chapitre 12 constitue
une exception la mise en vigueur gnrale dune
entente dfinitive, de telle sorte que, tant que na
pas t promulgue cette loi, le chapitre 12 nest
porteur daucun droit ou obligation juridique. Or,
ce nest pas ce qui ressort du texte de lEntente
dfinitive.

[174] In Division 12.2.0 of the Final Agreement,


the expression Development Assessment Legislation is defined as Legislation enacted to implement the development assessment process set out
in this chapter (emphasis added). This definition
therefore does not concern special implementing
legislation for Chapter 12 as a whole, but legislation to implement the process provided for in that
chapter. This is confirmed by s. 12.3.1, which provides that Government shall implement a development assessment process consistent with this
chapter by Legislation. Logically, therefore, when
a final agreement concluded under the Umbrella
Agreement with the Yukon First Nations comes
into effect, the result, even if the assessment process has not yet been implemented, is to give
effect to several provisions of Chapter 12 that are
common to all the final agreements, including

[174] Aux termes de la section 12.2.0 de linstrument qui nous occupe, lexpression [loi] sur lvaluation des activits de dveloppement sentend de
la mesure lgislative dicte pour assurer la mise
en uvre du processus dvaluation des activits
de dveloppement dfini dans le prsent chapitre
(je souligne). Cette dfinition ne renvoie donc pas
une loi de mise en uvre particulire du chapitre 12 dans son ensemble, mais la mise en uvre
du processus prvu ce chapitre. Cette conclusion est confirme par lart. 12.3.1, qui prvoit que
[l]e gouvernement assure, au moyen dune mesure
lgislative, la mise en uvre dun processus dvaluation des activits de dveloppement conforme
aux dispositions du prsent chapitre . Par consquent, en toute logique, mme si le processus dvaluation na pas encore t mis en uvre, lentre en
vigueur dune entente dfinitive conclue aux termes

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 87 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

those that establish the applicable transitional


law.

de lAccord-cadre avec les premires nations du


Yukon donne effet plusieurs dispositions de ce
chapitre 12 que toutes les ententes dfinitives ont en
commun, notamment ses dispositions tablissant le
droit provisoire applicable.

[175] Section 12.19.5 provides that [n]othing in


[Chapter 12] shall be construed to affect any existing development assessment process in the Yukon
prior to the Development Assessment Legislation
coming into effect. This provision sets out the
transitional law that would apply until the YESAA
came into force, establishing that until then, existing statutes and regulations with respect to development assessment would constitute the minimum
to which Yukon First Nations were entitled, which
meant that those statutes and regulations could not
be amended so as to reduce the level of protection
enjoyed by the First Nations. Chapter 12 does not
require that any amendments be made to that existing law in the meantime.

[175] Larticle 12.19.5 dispose que le chapitre 12


na pas pour effet de porter atteinte tout processus existant dvaluation des activits de dveloppement au Yukon avant lentre en vigueur de
la [loi] sur lvaluation des activits de dveloppement. Cette disposition tablit le droit provisoire
applicable avant lentre en vigueur de la LESY et
signifie que, avant son entre en vigueur, les lois
et rglements existants en la matire tablissent le
minimum auquel ont droit les premires nations
du Yukon, de sorte que ces textes ne sauraient tre
modifis dune manire qui rduirait le niveau de
protection reconnu ces dernires. Par ailleurs,
durant ce mme intervalle aucune modification de
ce mme droit existant nest exige par le chapitre 12.

[176] In addition, s. 12.3.4 provides that


Government shall recommend to Parliament or
the Legislative Assembly, as the case may be, the
Development Assessment Legislation consistent
with this chapter as soon as practicable and in any
event no later than two years after the effective date
of Settlement Legislation. The settlement legislation referred to here is clearly not the implementing
legislation for the process contemplated in Chapter
12, but the settlement legislation provided for in
Division 2.4.0 the legislation to implement the
particular final agreement. Both the territorial settlement legislation and the corresponding federal
legislation came into force in 1995. As for the specific process contemplated in Chapter 12, it was
ultimately implemented by Parliament by means of
the YESAA.

[176] En outre, lart. 12.3.4 prvoit que [l]e gouvernement recommande au Parlement ou lAssemble lgislative, selon le cas, ldiction dune mesure
lgislative sur lvaluation des activits de dveloppement qui soit compatible avec les dispositions du
prsent chapitre et ce, ds que possible ou au plus
tard deux ans aprs la date dentre en vigueur de
la loi de mise en uvre. Cette toute dernire loi
de mise en uvre nest de toute vidence pas la loi
de mise en uvre du processus envisag au chapitre 12, mais bien la loi de mise en uvre dont il
est question la section 2.4.0 la loi de mise en
uvre de lentente dfinitive concerne. Tant la loi
territoriale de mise en uvre des premires ententes dfinitives que la loi fdrale correspondante
sont entres en vigueur en 1995. Quant la mise
en uvre spcifique du processus prvu au chapitre
12, cest finalement le Parlement qui y a procd
avec la LESY.

[177] The transitional law, that is, the law


that applied before the YESAA came into force,
included, in addition to s. 12.19.5, which was discussed above, s. 12.3.6 of the Final Agreement,
which read as follows:

[177] Relativement au droit provisoire, cest-dire au droit qui tait applicable avant lentre en
vigueur de la LESY, outre lart. 12.19.5 vu plus
haut, lart. 12.3.6 de lEntente dfinitive prvoyait
ceci :

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

190

Page 88 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

191

Prior to the enactment of Development Assessment


Legislation, the parties to the Umbrella Final Agreement
shall make best efforts to develop and incorporate in
the implementation plan provided for in 12.19.1, interim
measures for assessing a Project which shall be consistent with the spirit of this chapter and within the existing
framework of Law and regulatory agencies. [Emphasis
added.]

Avant ldiction de la lgislation sur lvaluation des


activits de dveloppement, les parties lAccord-cadre
dfinitif sefforcent dlaborer et dincorporer au plan de
mise en uvre prvu larticle 12.19.1 des mesures provisoires dvaluation des projets qui soient conformes
lesprit du prsent chapitre et respectent les limites existantes tablies par les rgles de droit applicables et les
organismes rglementaires. [Je souligne.]

No implementation plan of the type provided for


in s. 12.19.1 was produced in this case. Moreover,
s. 12.19.4 provided that Chapter 12 was not to be
construed to prevent Government, in Consultation
with Yukon First Nations, from acting to improve or
enhance socio-economic or environmental procedures in the Yukon in the absence of any approved
detailed design of the development assessment process. No evidence of any such action was adduced
in the case at bar. By virtue of s. 12.19.5, therefore,
the applicable interim framework corresponded to
the existing development assessment process in
the Yukon prior to the Development Assessment
Legislation coming into effect.

Aucun plan de mise en uvre de la nature de celui


vis lart. 12.19.1 na t produit en lespce. Du
reste, lart. 12.19.4 prcisait que le chapitre 12 navait
pas pour effet dempcher le gouvernement, en
consultation avec les premires nations du Yukon,
de prendre des mesures afin damliorer les procdures existantes en matire socio-conomique ou
environnementale au Yukon, en labsence dun plan
dtaill approuv [ approved detailed design ] du
processus dvaluation des activits de dveloppement . Aucune preuve na t dpose en lespce
lgard dune telle mesure. Par consquent, conformment lart. 12.19.5, le rgime provisoire applicable correspondait au processus existant dvaluation des activits de dveloppement au Yukon
avant lentre en vigueur de la [loi] sur lvaluation
des activits de dveloppement .

[178] However, it should be mentioned that the


interim framework, which was intended to apply
for only a relatively short period, was ultimately in
effect longer than planned. This is because the bill
that became the implementing legislation for the
process contemplated in Chapter 12 was not introduced until October 3, 2002, that is, over five and
a half years after the February 14, 1997 deadline
provided for in s. 12.3.4 of the Final Agreement.
In fact, that deadline had already passed when
the Final Agreement was signed in 1997. Since
it is clear from the provisions of Chapter 12 that
before the YESAA came into force, the parties to
the Umbrella Agreement were required to make
best efforts to ensure that the Yukon First Nations
received the benefit of the spirit of that chapter as
soon as was practicable, it is important to begin
not in order to apply the letter of the YESAA, but
in order to clearly understand the spirit of Chapter
12, of which certain other provisions that were
applicable expressly stated that, in the interim, best
efforts were to be made to honour that spirit by

[178] Il convient cependant de noter que le rgime


provisoire, qui ne devait sappliquer que pendant
une priode relativement courte, sest prolong
plus longtemps que prvu. En effet, je dois souligner que le projet qui est lorigine de la loi de
mise en uvre du processus envisag au chapitre
12 na t dpos que le 3 octobre 2002, soit plus
de cinq ans et demi aprs lchance du 14 fvrier
1997 prvue lart. 12.3.4 de lEntente dfinitive.
En fait, lorsque cette entente a t signe en 1997,
cette chance tait dj dpasse. Comme il ressort de lconomie des dispositions du chapitre 12
que, avant lentre en vigueur de la LESY, les parties lAccordcadre devaient sefforcer de faire en
sorte que les premires nations du Yukon bnficient de lesprit de ce chapitre dans les meilleurs
dlais, il importe, dans un premier temps, de vrifier ce quoi aurait eu droit la Premire nation de
Little Salmon/Carmacks en vertu de la LESY si le
processus que celle-ci met en uvre stait appliqu
la demande de M. Paulsen, et ce, dans le but, non
pas de rendre applicable la lettre de la LESY, mais

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 89 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

determining what the Little Salmon/Carmacks


First Nation would have been entitled to under the
YESAA if the process implemented in that Act had
applied to Mr. Paulsens application.
(1) Permanent Process: YESAA

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

de bien saisir lesprit du chapitre 12, dont certaines


autres dispositions qui taient quant elles applicables prvoyaient expressment quon devait provisoirement sefforcer dy faire honneur.
(1) Processus permanent : LESY

[179] One objective of Chapter 12 of the final


agreements concluded with the Yukon First Nations
is to ensure the implementation of a development
assessment process that provides for guaranteed
participation by Yukon Indian People and utilizes
the knowledge and experience of Yukon Indian
People in the development assessment process (s.
12.1.1.2). This framework was designed to incorporate both the participation of the First Nations and a
certain degree, if not of decentralization, at least of
administrative deconcentration. These objectives
are achieved through the membership of the bodies
established in Chapter 12 of the final agreements
and the YESAA, and through the oversight by those
bodies of development activities planned for the territory in question. This integrated mechanism was
intended, with some exceptions, to become Yukons
default assessment procedure. The relationship
between the process established in Chapter 12 and
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C.
1992, c. 37, is made clear in s. 63 of the YESAA.
In addition to the principle of a single assessment,
Chapter 12 (ss. 12.14.1.2 and 12.14.3.2) and its
implementing legislation (ss. 82(1), 83(1) and 84(1))
confirm the principle of prior assessment (prior to
the authorization of any project).

[179] Le chapitre 12 des ententes dfinitives


conclues avec les premires nations du Yukon a
notamment pour objectif dassurer la mise en place
dun processus dvaluation des activits de dveloppement garantissant la participation des Indiens
du Yukon au processus dvaluation des activits de
dveloppement et faisant appel leurs connaissances et leur exprience (art. 12.1.1.2). Ce rgime
devait intgrer la fois la participation des premires nations et un certain niveau, sinon de dcentralisation, du moins de dconcentration administrative. Ces objectifs sont assurs par la composition
des organes tablis par le chapitre 12 des ententes
dfinitives et la LESY, ainsi que par le droit de
regard de ces organes sur les activits de dveloppement prvues sur le territoire touch. Ce dispositif intgr tait appel, sous rserve dexceptions,
devenir la procdure dvaluation par dfaut au
Yukon. La relation entre le processus tabli au chapitre 12 et la Loi canadienne sur lvaluation envi
ronnementale, L.C. 1992, ch. 37, est prcise lart.
63 de la LESY. Outre le principe de lvaluation
unique, le chapitre 12 (art. 12.14.1.2 et 12.14.3.2) et
sa loi de mise en uvre (par. 82(1), 83(1) et 84(1))
reprennent celui de lvaluation pralable ( toute
autorisation dun projet donn).

[180] The process for which Chapter 12 lays the


foundations involves two main organs: the Yukon
Development Assessment Board and all the designated offices at the local level. The YESAA
also refers to them as the Board and the designated offices. The membership of the Board is
established in s. 8 of the YESAA. The basis for its
membership is equal representation. The Boards
Executive Committee consists of one member
nominated by the Council for Yukon Indians, one
member nominated by the government and a chairperson appointed by the Minister after consultation with the first two members. The Minister then
appoints additional members such that, excluding

[180] Le processus dont le chapitre 12 jette les


fondations est constitu de deux organes principaux : la Commission dvaluation des activits de
dveloppement du Yukon et lensemble des organismes dsigns au niveau local. Dans la LESY,
la Commission devient un Office et les organismes des bureaux . La composition de lOffice est prvue lart. 8 de la LESY. LOffice se
veut paritaire. Son comit de direction appel
comit excutif dans les ententes dfinitives
est compos dun membre propos par le Conseil
des Indiens du Yukon, dun membre propos par
le gouvernement et dun prsident nomm par le
ministre aprs consultation des deux premiers. Le

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

192

Page 90 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

193

the chairperson, half the members are nominees of


the Council for Yukon Indians and the other half
are nominees of the government. As for the designated offices, they are, pursuant to the YESAA, outposts of the Board. Their staff shall be composed
of employees of the Board assigned to that office
by the Board (s. 23(1)).

ministre y nomme ensuite des membres supplmentaires de faon ce que, exclusion faite du prsident, la moiti des membres soient des personnes
dont la nomination a t propose par le Conseil
des Indiens du Yukon et lautre moiti par le gouvernement. Quant aux bureaux dsigns, en vertu
de la LESY, ils sont des antennes de lOffice. Leur
personnel est form des personnes que lOffice y
affecte parmi son propre personnel (par. 23(1)).

[181] Chapter 12 establishes two broad categories of assessments mandatory assessments and
optional assessments which are conducted upon
request by the government or by a First Nation, but
when the request is made by a First Nation, the governments consent is required, with some exceptions
that are subject to specific conditions (ss. 12.8.1.4,
12.8.1.5, 12.8.1.8, 12.8.1.9 and 12.8.1.10 of the Final
Agreement, and s. 60 of the YESAA). The Board
is responsible for optional assessments. It is possible to simply except a project from assessment (s.
47(2) YESAA). As for mandatory assessments, they
are the responsibility of the designated office for
the assessment district in which the project is to
be undertaken, or of the Board if the assessment
district office refers the assessment to it (s. 50(1)
YESAA) or if such projects have been classified by
way of regulations as requiring submission to the
Board (s. 122(c) YESAA). In short, if a project (1) is
not excepted from assessment, (2) is not the subject
of an accepted optional assessment, or (3) is not one
that is required by regulations to be assessed by the
Board or that has been referred to the Board by the
office for the projects assessment district, it will be
assessed by the assessment district office.

[181] Le chapitre 12 tablit deux grandes catgories dvaluation : les valuations obligatoires et les
valuations facultatives, lesquelles sont effectives
sur demande du gouvernement ou dune premire
nation, mais dans ce dernier cas, sauf exceptions
et conditions prvues, avec lassentiment du gouvernement (art. 12.8.1.4, 12.8.1.5, 12.8.1.8, 12.8.1.9
et 12.8.1.10 de lEntente dfinitive et art. 60 de
la LESY). Les valuations facultatives relvent
de lOffice. Un projet peut aussi tre simplement
exclu de lvaluation (par. 47(2) LESY). Les valuations obligatoires relvent quant elles soit du
bureau dsign de la circonscription o le projet
doit tre ralis, soit de lOffice si le bureau de circonscription le lui rfre (par. 50(1) LESY) ou si
un tel projet a fait lobjet dune telle classification
par rglement (al. 122c) LESY). En somme, si un
projet (1) nest pas exclu de toute valuation, (2) ne
fait pas lobjet dune valuation facultative accepte
ou (3) nest pas soumis par rglement une valuation par lOffice ou ne lui a pas t dfr par le
bureau de la circonscription du projet, il fera lobjet
dune valuation par ce dernier.

[182] If the environmental and socio-economic


assessment process provided for in Chapter 12
and in fact in the YESAA, which implements the
process had applied at the time of the events
in this case, Mr. Paulsens application would have
had to be assessed by the designated office for the
Mayo assessment district, which was established
along with five others (for a total of six) by order of
the Minister under s. 20(1) of the YESAA. Projects
like the one in question in Mr. Paulsens application
were neither excepted by regulations nor required
to be assessed by the Board. Section 2 of the

[182] Si le processus dvaluation environnementale et socioconomique prvu au chapitre 12, en


fait, la LESY qui le met en uvre, stait appliqu au moment des faits, alors la demande de M.
Paulsen aurait d obligatoirement tre value par le
bureau dsign de la circonscription de Mayo, cre
avec cinq autres (pour un total de six) par arrt
ministriel en vertu du par. 20(1) de la LESY. En
effet, un projet comme celui faisant lobjet de la
demande de M. Paulsen na pas t exclu par rglement, ni fait lobjet dune prcision pour valuation par lOffice. Larticle 2 du Rglement sur les

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 91 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

Assessable Activities, Exceptions and Executive


Committee Projects Regulations, SOR/2005-379,
refers to Schedule 1 to those regulations concerning
activities that may . . . be made subject to assessment within the meaning of s. 47 of the YESAA.
The following activity is listed as Item 27 of Part
13 entitled Miscellaneous of Schedule 1:

activits susceptibles dvaluation, les exceptions


et les projets de dveloppement soumis au comit
de direction, DORS/2005-379, renvoie lannexe 1
de celui-ci concernant les activits qui pourraient [. . .] tre assujetties lvaluation au sens
de lart. 47 de la LESY. Cette annexe, lart. 27 de
sa partie 13, intitule Divers , fait tat de lactivit suivante :

On land under the administration and control of the


Commissioner of Yukon or on settlement land, the
construction, establishment, modification, decommissioning or abandonment of a structure, facility or
installation for the purpose of agriculture, commercial
recreation, public recreation, tourist accommodation,
telecommunications, trapping or guiding persons hunting members of a species prescribed as a species of big
game animal by a regulation made under the Wildlife
Act, R.S.Y. 2002, c. 229.

Sur une terre dont le commissaire du Yukon a la gestion


et la matrise ou sur une terre dsigne, construction,
exploitation, modification, dsaffectation, fermeture
ou abandon dune structure ou installation agricole,
rcrative commerciale ou publique, touristique, de tlcommunication, de pigeage ou destine aux guides de
chasse au gros gibier dune espce prvue par rglement
du Yukon pris en vertu de la Loi sur la faune, L.R.Y.
2002, ch. 229.

[183] Finally, s. 5 of the Assessable Activities,


Exceptions and Executive Committee Projects
Regulations provides that [p]rojects for which
proposals are to be submitted to the executive committee under paragraph 50(1)(a) of the [YESAA]
are specified in Schedule 3. Since nothing in that
schedule corresponds to Mr. Paulsens application,
it must be concluded that the assessment would
have been the responsibility of the Mayo designated
office, although that office could have referred the
project to the Board.

[183] Enfin, larticle 5 du Rglement sur les acti


vits susceptibles dvaluation, les exceptions et
les projets de dveloppement soumis au comit de
direction indique que [l]es projets de dveloppement pour lesquels des propositions doivent tre
soumises au comit de direction en application
du paragraphe 50(1) de la [LESY] sont prciss
lannexe 3. Or, comme rien dans cette annexe
ne correspond la demande de M. Paulsen, il faut
donc en conclure que lvaluation aurait ressorti au
bureau dsign de Mayo, mme si ce dernier aurait
pu dfrer le projet lOffice.

[184] Since Mr. Paulsens project falls into the


category of projects for which an assessment by an
assessment district office is mandatory, it is possible to give a precise answer to the question of what
measures the respondents would have been entitled to had the letter of the process provided for in
Chapter 12 of the Final Agreement applied in the
case of Mr. Paulsens application.

[184] Comme le projet Paulsen appartient la


catgorie des projets impliquant une valuation
obligatoire par un bureau de circonscription, il est
possible de rpondre prcisment la question de
savoir quelles sont les mesures auxquelles auraient
eu droit les intims si la lettre du processus prvu au
chapitre 12 de lEntente dfinitive stait applique
la demande de M. Paulsen.

[185] It should first be observed that neither


the Final Agreement nor the YESAA provides
for direct participation by the First Nation in the
assessment itself. It is only through the Council
for Yukon Indians, or more precisely through
those of the Boards members assigned to the
Mayo office who were appointed after being
nominated by the Council, that the First Nation

[185] Il faut dabord constater que ni lEntente


dfinitive ni la LESY ne prvoient la participation
directe de la premire nation au travail dvaluation
comme tel. La premire nation naurait particip
lvaluation de la demande de M. Paulsen que par
lintermdiaire du Conseil des Indiens du Yukon,
plus exactement par le truchement de ceux des membres dtachs par lOffice au bureau de Mayo qui

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

194

Page 92 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

195

would have participated in the assessment of Mr.


Paulsens application. Furthermore, no provisions
regarding the proportion of Aboriginal assessors required for assessments by the designated
offices can be found either in the final agreements or in the YESAA. All that we know in this
respect is that the Final Agreement and the YESAA
require equal representation in the Boards overall
membership.

auraient t nomms sur proposition de ce conseil.


Dailleurs, ni les ententes dfinitives ni la LESY
ne prcisent la proportion dvaluateurs autochtones en cas dvaluation par les bureaux dsigns.
Tout ce que nous savons cet gard est que lEntente dfinitive et la LESY exigent la parit dans
la composition densemble de lOffice.

[186] Regarding the right of interested parties,


not to actively take part in the assessment itself,
but to be heard, the Final Agreement provides that
[i]n accordance with the Development Assessment
Legislation, a Designated Office . . . shall ensure
that interested parties have the opportunity to participate in the assessment process (s. 12.6.1.3).
Moreover, as I mentioned above, the organs the
First Nations, the renewable resources council and
the Fish and Wildlife Management Board that
make up the co-management framework for fish
and wildlife established in Chapter 16 of the Final
Agreement have standing as interested parties to
participate in public proceedings of any agency,
board or commission on matters that affect the
management and conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats in the traditional territory
in question (ss. 16.5.3, 16.6.11 and 16.7.13). Also,
s. 55(1)(b) of the YESAA provides that [w]here a
proposal for a project is submitted to a designated
office under paragraph 50(1)(b), the designated
office shall . . . determine whether the project will
be located, or might have significant environmental or socio-economic effects, in the territory of a
first nation. The word territory is defined as follows in s. 2(1) of the YESAA: in relation to a first
nation for which a final agreement is in effect, that
first nations traditional territory and any of its settlement lands within Yukon that are not part of that
traditional territory. After it has been determined
under s. 55(1)(b) that the project will be so located
or that it might have such effects, s. 55(4) of the
YESAA applies. It reads as follows:

[186] Au sujet du droit des parties intresses,


non pas de prendre part activement lvaluation
elle-mme, mais dtre entendues, lEntente dfinitive prvoit ceci : Conformment la lgislation sur lvaluation des activits de dveloppement, les organismes dsigns [. . .] font en sorte
que les parties intresses aient loccasion de participer au processus dvaluation (art. 12.6.1.3).
Dailleurs, les organes composant le systme de
cogestion des ressources halieutiques et fauniques mis en place par le chapitre 16 de lEntente
dfinitive soit les premires nations, le conseil
des ressources renouvelables et la Commission de
gestion des ressources halieutiques et fauniques
ont, comme je lai mentionn plus tt, qualit pour
participer titre de partie intresse aux audiences
publiques tenues par une agence, un office ou une
commission relativement des questions ayant une
incidence sur la gestion et la conservation des ressources halieutiques et fauniques et de leurs habitats dans le territoire traditionnel concern (art.
16.5.3, 16.6.11 et 16.7.13). Aussi, lalina 55(1)b) de
la LESY prcise que, [s]aisi dune proposition
relative un projet de dveloppement en application du paragraphe 50(1), le bureau dsign [. . .]
tablit si le lieu de ralisation se trouve dans le
territoire dune premire nation ou si le projet est
susceptible davoir, dans un tel territoire, des effets
importants sur lenvironnement ou la vie socioconomique. Il faut savoir que le par. 2(1) de cette
mme loi dfinit ainsi le terme territoire : En
ce qui touche les premires nations qui sont parties un accord dfinitif en vigueur, leur territoire
traditionnel ainsi que leurs terres dsignes situes
lextrieur de celui-ci mais au Yukon . Une
fois faite, la dtermination prvue lal. 55(1)b),
la LESY prcise en consquence, au par. 55(4),
que

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 93 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

Before making a recommendation . . . a designated


office shall seek views about the project, and information that it believes relevant to the evaluation, from any
first nation identified under paragraph (1)(b) and from
any government agency, independent regulatory agency
or first nation that has notified the designated office of
its interest in the project or in projects of that kind.

[l]e bureau dsign ne formule ses recommandations [. . .]


quaprs avoir, dune part, demand lavis de la premire
nation dont le territoire est touch aux termes de lalina
(1)b) et des autorits publiques, organismes administratifs autonomes et premires nations layant avis de leur
intrt dans le projet de dveloppement ou dans les projets de mme catgorie et, dautre part, cherch obtenir
deux linformation quil estime ncessaire lexamen.

Therefore, under the process provided for in Chapter


12 of the Final Agreement and in the YESAA, the
Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation would have
had the right only to be heard in the assessment of
Mr. Paulsens application, and not to actively take
part in it by delegating assessors.

Aux termes du processus prvu au chapitre 12 de


lEntente dfinitive et des dispositions de la LESY,
la Premire nation de Little Salmon/Carmacks
naurait donc eu droit que dtre entendue lors de
lvaluation de la demande de M. Paulsen, et non
pas dy prendre part activement en y dlguant des
valuateurs.

[187] This, therefore, is the collective consultation measure to which the respondents would have
been entitled in the case of Mr. Paulsens application had the process provided for in Chapter 12
of the Final Agreement and implemented by the
YESAA applied to it. This should enable us now
to answer the ultimate question in the case at bar:
whether, given that the letter of that process does
not apply, the respondents could receive the benefit of the spirit of the process, as was their right
under the transitional provisions of Chapter 12 of
the Final Agreement. For this purpose, we must
reiterate that although those transitional provisions
did impose a particular responsibility on the Crown
party, they were nevertheless not silent with respect
to the participation of the Aboriginal party. Thus,
s. 12.3.6 refers in this regard to efforts on the part
not only of government, but of the parties to the
Umbrella Agreement.

[187] Voil donc ce quoi auraient eu droit les


intims comme mesure de consultation collective relativement la demande de M. Paulsen si le
processus prvu au chapitre 12 de lEntente dfinitive et mis en uvre par la LESY stait appliqu cette demande. Cela devrait maintenant nous
permettre de rpondre la question que pose la
prsente affaire en dernire analyse, soit celle de
savoir si, dfaut dapplicabilit de la lettre de ce
processus, les intims ont pu bnficier de lesprit
de celui-ci, comme ils y avaient droit en vertu de
lconomie des dispositions provisoires du chapitre
12 de lEntente dfinitive. Pour ce faire, il faudra
nous rappeler que, mme si ces dispositions de droit
provisoire confraient une responsabilit particulire la partie tatique, elles ntaient pas pour
autant silencieuses quant la participation de la
partie autochtone. En effet, lart. 12.3.6 parle cet
gard des efforts qui sont dus non seulement de la
part du gouvernement , mais de celle de toutes
les parties lAccord-cadre.

(2) Transitional Law: Any Existing Process


Before the Coming Into Force of the
YESAA

(2) Droit provisoire : tout processus existant


avant lentre en vigueur de la LESY

[188] As far as Mr. Paulsens application is concerned, the existing process within the meaning of the transitional law provisions, that is, of
ss. 12.3.6 and 12.19.5 of the Final Agreement, was
the process provided for in the Environmental
Assessment Act, S.Y. 2003, c. 2, and Yukons 1991

[188] Au sens des dispositions de droit provisoire,


cest--dire les art. 12.3.6 et 12.19.5 de lEntente
dfinitive, le processus existant tait, en ce qui
concerne la demande de M. Paulsen, celui prvu
la Loi sur lvaluation environnementale, L.Y.
2003, ch. 2, et la politique agricole yukonnaise

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

196

Page 94 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

197

agriculture policy, which, moreover, also referred


to the environmental legislation (Agriculture for
the 90s: A Yukon Policy (1991) (the agriculture
policy), Section II, at para. 6(1)). Since the parties
did not rely on that Act, I will merely mention that
the assessment provided for in it was completed, but
more than five months after the date of the decision
on Mr. Paulsens application, despite the fact that it
was a mandatory prior assessment.

de 1991 qui renvoyait dailleurs aussi la lgislation


sur lenvironnement (Agriculture for the 90s : A
Yukon Policy (1991) (la politique agricole ), section II, par. 6(1)). Comme les parties nont pas invoqu cette loi, je me limiterai mentionner que lvaluation prvue par celle-ci a t complte, mais
plus de cinq mois aprs la date de la dcision sur la
demande de M. Paulsen, et ce, mme sil sagissait
dune valuation pralable obligatoire.

[189] Under the 1991 agriculture policy, Mr.


Paulsens application first had to undergo a prescreening by the Land Claims and Implementation
Secretariat, the Lands Branch and the Agriculture
Branch. The prescreening process involved determining whether the application was eligible for
consideration, and in particular whether the application was complete, whether the land in question
was available, whether that land was under territorial jurisdiction, whether there was a possibility
that the land would be subject to Aboriginal land
claims, whether the land had agronomic capability and, more specifically, whether the application
was, at first glance, consistent with the policy then
in effect.

[189] Aux termes de la politique agricole de 1991,


la demande de M. Paulsen a dabord fait lobjet dun
examen prliminaire par le Secrtariat des revendications territoriales et de la mise en uvre, par
la Direction des terres ainsi que par la Direction
de lagriculture. Cet examen prliminaire devait
consister en un contrle de recevabilit de la
demande, et notamment de son caractre complet,
de la disponibilit de la terre vise, de la comptence territoriale sur celle-ci, dventuelles revendications territoriales autochtones dont elle pouvait
faire lobjet, de son potentiel agricole et, plus gnralement, de la conformit a priori de la demande
la politique en vigueur.

[190] Mr. Paulsens application then had to


undergo a more technical review by the Agriculture
Land Application Review Committee (ALARC).
ALARC is a cross-sector, interdepartmental committee that, among other things, reviews the farm
development plan that every applicant for agricultural land must submit (agriculture policy, Section
II, at subpara. 9(1)(c)). ALARCs review of Mr.
Paulsens application was originally scheduled for
June 26, 2002, but it could not proceed on that date
because the applicant had not yet submitted a farm
development plan.

[190] La demande de M. Paulsen devait ensuite


faire lobjet dun examen davantage technique par
le Comit dexamen des demandes dalination de
terres agricoles ( CEDATA ). Il sagit dun comit
intersectoriel et interministriel qui procde notamment lexamen du plan dexploitation exig de
toute personne sollicitant lobtention dune terre
des fins agricoles (politique agricole, section II, al.
9(1)c)). Lexamen de la demande de M. Paulsen par
le CEDATA avait t initialement prvu pour le 26
juin 2002. Toutefois, comme le demandeur navait
toujours pas produit de plan dexploitation cette
date, cet examen na pas pu avoir lieu au moment
prvu.

[191] On June 10, 2002, an analysis by the


Agriculture Branch showed that if Mr. Paulsens
application were accepted as configured, it would
not represent the most efficient use of the land.
On October 20, 2003, Mr. Paulsen reconfigured the parcel in question in his application. On
February 24, 2004, ALARC recommended that his

[191] Le 10 juin 2002, une analyse effectue par


la Direction de lagriculture a rvl que, si elle
tait accepte suivant la dlimitation propose, la
demande de M. Paulsen ne constituerait pas une
utilisation optimale du sol. Le 20 octobre 2003, M.
Paulsen a revu la dlimitation de la terre qui faisait lobjet de sa demande. Le 24 fvrier 2004, le

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 95 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

application proceed to an assessment by the Land


Application Review Committee (LARC).

CEDATA a recommand que sa demande soit value par le Comit dexamen des demandes dalination de terres ( CEDAT ).

[192] LARC is a body whose membership consists of representatives of the Yukon government
and, depending on the case, of Yukon First Nations,
Yukon municipalities and/or the federal Department
of Fisheries and Oceans (Land Application Review
Committee (LARC): Terms of Reference, Section
4.0: Membership/Public Participation, A.R., vol.
II, at p. 29). It is chaired by a territorial government official. A First Nation will be represented
on LARC if, as was the case here, the application
to be reviewed has potential consequences for the
management of its traditional territory.

[192] Le CEDAT se compose de reprsentants


du gouvernement du Yukon et, suivant les cas, des
premires nations du Yukon, des municipalits
du Yukon et/ou du ministre fdral des Pches
et Ocans (Land Application Review Committee
(LARC) : Terms of Reference, section 4.0 :
Membership/Public Participation, d.a., vol. II, p.
29). Il est prsid par un fonctionnaire territorial.
Une premire nation y est reprsente si la demande
examiner peut avoir des consquences sur la gestion de son territoire traditionnel , ce qui tait le
cas en lespce.

[193] LARCs mandate is, in particular, to


review matters concerning land applications
from a technical land-management perspective, in accordance with legislation, First Nation
Final & Self Government Agreements and criteria in specific land application policies (Land
Application Review Committee (LARC): Terms of
Reference, Section 6.0: Land Application & Policy
Development Procedures Mandate, A.R., vol. II,
at p. 32).

[193] Le CEDAT a notamment pour mandat


d[traduCtion] examiner dun point de vue
technique de gestion du territoire certains aspects
des demandes dalination de terres, conformment
aux lois, aux ententes dfinitives et accords dautonomie gouvernementale des premires nations et
aux critres prvus par certaines politiques relatives aux demandes dalination de terres (Land
Application Review Committee (LARC) : Terms of
Reference, section 6.0 : Land Application & Policy
Development Procedures Mandate, d.a., vol. II,
p. 32).

[194] A notice concerning Mr. Paulsens application was published on March 26, 2004, and the
public were invited to submit written comments
within 20 days. On April 28, 2004, the Agriculture
Branch sent a summarized version of the application to the Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation
(A.R., vol. II, at p. 6) together with a letter notifying the First Nation that the application was to be
reviewed by LARC and asking it to submit its written comments within 30 days. The First Nation was
also sent an information package, which included
notice that the LARC meeting was scheduled for
August 13, 2004.

[194] Le 26 mars 2004, la demande de M. Paulsen


a fait lobjet de publicit et le public a t invit
formuler ses observations par crit dans les 20 jours
suivant cette date. Le 28 avril 2004, la Direction
de lagriculture a communiqu une version rsume de la demande de M. Paulsen la Premire
nation de Little Salmon/Carmacks (d.a., vol. II, p.
6), accompagne dune lettre informant celle-ci que
la demande serait examine par le CEDAT et linvitant prsenter ses observations crites dans les 30
jours suivant cette date. Une trousse dinformation
contenant notamment la date prvue de la runion
du CEDAT, en loccurrence le 13 aot 2004, a aussi
t envoye la premire nation.

[195] On July 27, 2004, Susan Davis, the Director


of Land and Resources of the Little Salmon/
Carmacks First Nation, sent Yukons Lands Branch

[195] Le 27 juillet 2004, la directrice des terres et


ressources de la Premire nation de Little Salmon/
Carmacks, Susan Davis, a fait parvenir la Direction

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

198

Page 96 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

199

a letter in which she expressed the First Nations


concerns about Mr. Paulsens application (A.R.,
vol. II, at p. 22). Those concerns were threefold.
First of all, the First Nation was concerned about
the impact of the application on the trapline. It
was also concerned about the anticipated impact
on settlement land under its comprehensive land
claim agreement, and in particular on two parcels
of site specific settlement land (a concept referred
to above) as well as on the cabin of the holder of
the trapline concession, which was located on one
of those parcels. Finally, the First Nation asked the
Yukon government to take into consideration the
fact that there might be sites of heritage or archaeological interest, including a historical trail, on the
land in question in the agriculture land application.

des terres du Yukon une lettre exprimant les proccupations de la premire nation relativement la
demande de M. Paulsen (d.a., vol. II, p. 22). Les proccupations exprimes taient de trois ordres. La
premire nation sinquitait dabord des rpercussions de la demande sur la ligne de pigeage. Elle
se proccupait des consquences prvoir sur les
terres vises par le rglement de la revendication
territoriale globale de la premire nation, notamment sur deux sites spcifiques (notion vue ci-haut)
ainsi que sur le refuge de trappe du titulaire de la
ligne de pigeage, qui se trouve sur lun de ces sites.
Enfin, la premire nation invitait ladministration
yukonnaise prendre en considration la prsence
possible de sites pouvant revtir une valeur patrimoniale ou archologique, dont un sentier historique, sur la terre faisant lobjet de la demande dalination des fins agricoles.

[196] LARC met to review Mr. Paulsens application on August 13, 2004. For reasons that are
not explained in the record of this case, the Little
Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, without notifying the other members in advance, did not attend
the meeting and did not request an adjournment
of the August 13, 2004 review, to which it had
been invited as a member of LARC. However, it
can be seen from the minutes of that meeting that
even though no representatives of the First Nation
attended, its concerns had been taken into account
even before the meeting. The following passages
are relevant:

[196] Le CEDAT a procd lexamen de la


demande de M. Paulsen le 13 aot 2004. Pour des
raisons non prcises dans le prsent dossier, sans
prvenir davance les autres membres, la Premire
nation de Little Salmon/Carmacks na pas pris
part la runion et na pas demand lajournement
de lexamen du 13 aot 2004 auquel elle avait t
invite titre de membre du CEDAT. Le procsverbal de cette runion atteste toutefois que, en
dpit de labsence de reprsentants de la premire
nation, les proccupations de celles-ci ont t prises
en compte, et ce, mme avant la runion en question. Je reproduis ci-aprs les extraits pertinents du
procs-verbal :

The original rectangular parcel was reconfigured in


October, 2003. The NRO [Natural Resources Officer]
inspection report in April this year recommended it
be reconfigured again to remove a portion, which is a
potential timber allocation area for point source premits [sic]. Opposition from the First Nation has caused
the abandonment of that plan.

[traduCtion] La parcelle rectangulaire originale a t


reconfigure en octobre 2003. Le rapport dinspection
de lagent des ressources naturelles davril de cette anne
recommandait sa reconfiguration afin den retirer une
partie, qui constitue une zone potentielle dattribution
de permis de coupe de bois visant des sources ponctuelles. Par suite de lopposition manifeste par la premire
nation, ce projet a t abandonn.

. . .
Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation [LSCFN]
express concern that the application is within Trapline
Concession Number 143, held by an elder [Johnny
Sam]. Forestfire burns have impacted this trapline, and

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

La Premire nation de Little Salmon/Carmacks [PNLSC]


sest dite proccupe par le fait que la demande vise une
terre se trouvant lintrieur de la concession de pigeage no 143 dont est titulaire un an [Johnny Sam].

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 97 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

the only area left is a small strip of land between the


Klondike Highway and the Yukon River, which is considered to be suitable land for farming. As a result of the
report, there have been several agriculture land applications requesting land in the area for raising livestock
and building houses. The combination of agriculture
and timber harvesting impacts on this already damaged
trapline would be a significant deterrent to the ability of the trapper to continue his traditional pursuits.
There are two site specifics, personal/traditional use
areas considered to be LSCFN settlement lands in the
area in question, S-4B and S-127B. Both of these locations are in close proximity to the point source timber
permit application. The impact on these sites and users
would be the loss of animals to hunt in the area. S-4B
is also the site of Concession 143s base camp and trapper cabin.

. . .

Des incendies de fort ont endommag ce territoire et


il nen reste quune petite bande de terre entre la route
Klondike et le fleuve Yukon, laquelle est considre
propice lagriculture. la suite du rapport, plusieurs
demandes dalination de terres des fins agricoles ont
t prsentes afin dobtenir des terres dans la rgion en
vue dy lever du btail et dy construire des maisons.
Leffet conjugu dactivits agricoles et dactivits de
rcolte du bois sur cette ligne de pigeage par ailleurs
dj endommage nuirait de faon apprciable la capacit du trappeur de continuer ses activits traditionnelles.
Il y a, dans la rgion en question, deux zones utilises
des fins personnelles ou traditionnelles, sites spcifiques S-4B et S-127B, qui sont considres comme des
terres vises par le rglement de la PNLSC. Ces deux
emplacements se trouvent prs de la zone concernant la
demande de permis de coupe de bois visant des sources
ponctuelles. Leffet des activits envisages sur les sites
et les usagers serait une rduction de la quantit danimaux pouvant tre chasss dans la rgion. Le site S-4B
est aussi lemplacement du camp de base et de la cabane
du trappeur de la concession de pigeage no 143.

Other LSCFN concerns relatied [sic] to cultural sites:


There are potential areas of heritage and cultural interests which may be impacted by point source timber
harvesting. An historic First Nation trail follows the
ridge in the area. [A]t present these sites have not been
researched or identified, and there would need to be an
archaeological survey carried out in order to confirm
the prescence [sic] or lack thereof of any such sites.

Dautres proccupations exprimes par la PNLSC se


rapportaient des sites culturels : il y aurait certains
endroits susceptibles de prsenter de lintrt du point de
vue culturel et patrimonial qui pourraient tre touchs
par les activits de rcolte de bois. Un sentier historique de la premire nation suit la ligne de crte dans la
rgion. [A]ctuellement, aucun de ces sites na t identifi ou na fait lobjet de recherches. Il faudrait procder
une reconnaissance archologique pour confirmer la
prsence ou labsence de tels sites.

Environment advised they walked the site and discovered an old trap on top of the bluff, facing the Yukon
River. The owner of Trapline #143 will have the right
to seek compensation. An appropriate 30-metre setback
is recommended from the bluff. There was evidence of
bears and moose. There will be some loss of wildlife
habitat in the area, but it is not significant.

Des fonctionnaires du ministre de lEnvironnement ont


affirm avoir march dans le site en question et y avoir
dcouvert un vieux pige en haut de la falaise, face au
fleuve Yukon. Le propritaire de la ligne de pigeage
no 143 aura le droit de demander dtre indemnis. Il
est recommand de crer une zone tampon adquate de
30 mtres partir de la falaise. Certains lments indiquaient la prsence dours et dorignaux. Il y aura une
certaine perte au plan de lhabitat faunique dans la zone
vise, mais peu importante.

. . .
Recommendation: Approval in principle. Setback from
the bluff 30 meters . . . . Subdivision approval will be
required. Trapper, based on reduced trapping opportunities, has opportunity to seek compensation.

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

200

Recommandation : Approbation de principe. Zone


tampon de 30 mtres partir de la falaise [. . .] Il faudra
faire approuver le lotissement. Le trappeur pourra
demander une indemnisation, sur la base de la rduction
des possibilits de pigeage.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 98 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

201

[197] On September 2, 2004, the territorial governments archaeologist reported that no evidence
of prehistoric artifacts had been found on the land
in question in the agriculture land application, but
as a precaution he also recommended a 30-metre
buffer between the bluff and the land that was to
be transferred.

[197] Le 2 septembre 2004, larchologue du gouvernement territorial a rapport navoir pu relever


aucune trace dartefact prhistorique sur la terre faisant lobjet de la demande dalination des fins
agricoles, mais par prudence a recommand son
tour la cration dune zone tampon de 30 mtres de
largeur entre la falaise et la terre qui serait ventuellement cde.

[198] The territorial governments conduct raises


questions in some respects. In particular, there is
the fact that the appellant David Beckman, in his
capacity as Director of Agriculture, did not notify
the respondent First Nation of his decision of
October 18, 2004 until July 27, 2005. Under s. 81(1)
of the YESAA, the designated office and, if applicable, the executive committee of the Board would
have been entitled to receive copies of that decision
and, one can only assume, to receive them within a
reasonable time. Here, the functional equivalent of
the designated office is LARC. Even if representatives of the respondent First Nation did not attend
the August 13 meeting, it would be expected that
the Director of Agriculture would inform that First
Nation of his decision within a reasonable time.
Nonetheless, the time elapsed after the decision did
not affect the quality of the prior consultation.

[198] certains gards, la conduite des autorits territoriales soulve des interrogations. Cest
notamment le cas en ce qui a trait au fait que, en
sa qualit de directeur de lagriculture, lappelant
M. Beckman na signifi que le 27 juillet 2005 la
premire nation intime sa dcision du 18 octobre
2004. En vertu du par. 81(1) de la LESY, le bureau
dsign et, le cas chant, le comit de direction de
lOffice auraient eu droit de recevoir une copie de
cette dcision, et ce, on peut le supposer, lintrieur dun dlai raisonnable. Lquivalent fonctionnel du bureau dsign est ici le CEDAT. Mme si
les reprsentants de la premire nation intime ne
se sont pas prsents la runion du 13 aot, on
se serait attendu ce que le directeur de lagriculture informe cette premire nation de sa dcision
dans un dlai raisonnable. Ce dlai, survenu aprs
la dcision, na cependant pas affect la qualit de
la consultation pralable.

[199] The territorial governments decision to


proceed with Mr. Paulsens application at the prescreening stage despite the requirement of consultation in the context of the respondent First Nations
fish and wildlife management plan was not an exemplary practice either. In that respect, Yukons 1991
agriculture policy provided that [a]pplications
to acquire land for agriculture will be reviewed by
the Fish and Wildlife Branch to safeguard wildlife
interests, that [m]easures will be taken to avoid
overlap between allocation of lands for agriculture and key wildlife habitat and that, in particular, all key wildlife habitat will be excluded from
agricultural disposition except where the Fish and
Wildlife Branch determines that adverse effects
upon wildlife interests can be successfully mitigated (Section II, subpara. 6(3)(b)). As we have
seen, however, Susan Davis did not express concern
about this in her letter of July 27, 2004 to Yukons

[199] La dcision qua prise ladministration territoriale, au terme de lexamen pralable, de poursuivre le traitement de la demande de M. Paulsen
malgr la consultation qui avait cours dans le cadre
du plan de gestion des ressources halieutiques et
fauniques de la premire nation intime nest pas
davantage un exemple de bonne pratique. La politique agricole yukonnaise de 1991 prvoyait pourtant
ce sujet que les [traduCtion] [d]emandes dacquisition de terres des fins agricoles seraient examines par la Direction de la faune et du poisson
en vue de protger la faune , que des [m]esures
seraient prises pour viter que, dans lattribution de
terres des fins agricoles, on empite sur des habitats essentiels pour la faune et quen particulier
tout habitat essentiel pour faune serait exclu des
terres susceptibles dalination des fins agricoles,
sauf dans les cas o la Direction de la faune et du
poisson juge quil est possible dattnuer les effets

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 99 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

Lands Branch. And as can be seen from the minutes of the August 13, 2004 meeting, the concerns
of the Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation with
respect to resource conservation were taken into
consideration. Also, the required consultation in
the context of the fish and wildlife management
plan was far more limited than the consultation to
which the First Nation was entitled in participating
in LARC, which was responsible for assessing the
specific project in issue in this appeal. Finally, the
First Nation, the renewable resources council and
the Minister had not agreed on a provisional suspension of the processing of applications for land
in the area in question.

prjudiciables sur la faune (section II, al. 6(3)b)).


Cependant, comme on a pu le constater, Susan
Davis na pas exprim cette proccupation dans sa
lettre du 27 juillet 2004 la Direction des terres du
Yukon. De plus, comme le dmontre le procs-verbal
de la runion du 13 aot 2004, les proccupations
de la Premire nation de Little Salmon/Carmacks
concernant la conservation des ressources ont t
prises en considration. Au surplus, la consultation
qui avait cours dans le cadre du plan de gestion des
ressources halieutiques et fauniques tait beaucoup
plus limite que celle laquelle donnait droit la participation de la premire nation au CEDAT qui tait
charg dvaluer le projet spcifique faisant lobjet
du prsent pourvoi. De surcrot, la premire nation,
le conseil des ressources renouvelables et le ministre ne staient pas entendus sur la suspension provisoire du traitement de toute demande dalination
de terres dans la rgion vise.

[200] Despite these aspects of the handling of


Mr. Paulsens application that are open to criticism,
it can be seen from the facts as a whole that the
respondents received what they were entitled to
receive from the appellants where consultation as a
First Nation is concerned. In fact, in some respects
they were consulted to an even greater extent than
they would have been under the YESAA. As we saw
above, the only right the First Nation would have
had under the YESAA was to be heard by the assessment district office as a stakeholder (s. 55(4)). That
consultation would have been minimal, whereas
in the context of the 1991 agriculture policy, the
First Nation was invited to participate directly in
the assessment of Mr. Paulsens application as a
member of LARC.

[200] Au-del de ces aspects critiquables du cheminement de la demande de M. Paulsen, lensemble


des faits rvle que les intims ont reu des appelants ce quoi ils avaient droit de la part de ceuxci en matire de consultation titre de premire
nation. En ralit, ils ont mme obtenu certains
gards davantage que ce que leur aurait procur la
LESY. En effet, comme on a pu le constater prcdemment, le seul droit quaurait obtenu la premire
nation en vertu de la LESY est celui dtre entendue titre de personne intresse (par. 55(4)) par
le bureau de circonscription. Il sagissait l dune
consultation minimale, alors que, dans le contexte
de lapplication de la politique agricole de 1991, la
premire nation a t invite participer directement, titre dvaluateur membre du CEDAT,
lvaluation de la demande de M. Paulsen.

[201] It is true that the First Nations representatives did not attend the August 13, 2004 meeting.
They did not notify the other members of LARC
that they would be absent and did not request that
the meeting be adjourned, but they had nonetheless
already submitted comments in a letter.

[201] Il est vrai que les reprsentants de la premire nation ne se sont pas prsents la runion
du 13 aot 2004. Cela est survenu sans quils ne
prviennent au pralable les autres membres du
CEDAT et sans demander lajournement de la runion, mais ils avaient nanmoins fait des commentaires par lettre.

[202] Thus, the process that led to the October


18, 2004 decision on Mr. Paulsens application was

[202] Par consquent, le processus qui a men


la dcision du 18 octobre 2004 relativement la

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

202

Page 100 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks La juge Deschamps

203

consistent with the transitional law provisions of


Chapter 12 of the Final Agreement. There is no
legal basis for finding that the Crown breached its
duty to consult.

demande de M. Paulsen respectait les dispositions


de droit provisoire prvues au chapitre 12 de lEntente dfinitive. Il nexiste aucun motif juridique
permettant de conclure que lobligation de consultation de la Couronne a t viole.

III. Conclusion

III. Conclusion

[203] Whereas past cases have concerned unilateral actions by the Crown that triggered a duty
to consult for which the terms had not been negotiated, in the case at bar, as in the Courts recent
decision regarding the James Bay and Northern
Qubec Agreement, the parties have moved on to
another stage. Formal consultation processes are
now a permanent feature of treaty law, and the
Final Agreement affords just one example of this.
To give full effect to the provisions of a treaty such
as the Final Agreement is to renounce a paternalistic approach to relations with Aboriginal peoples. It
is a way to recognize that Aboriginal peoples have
full legal capacity. To disregard the provisions of
such a treaty can only encourage litigation, hinder
future negotiations and threaten the ultimate objective of reconciliation.

[203] Si, jusquici, les litiges ont mis en cause


une action unilatrale de la Couronne qui dclenchait une obligation de consulter dont les modalits
navaient pas t ngocies, le prsent dossier, tout
comme celui dans lequel la Cour a rcemment t
appele tudier la Convention de la BaieJames
et du Nord qubcois, indique que les parties sont
maintenant passes une autre tape. Les processus
formels de consultation font maintenant rsolument
partie de lunivers juridique des traits. LEntente
dfinitive nen est quun exemple. Donner leur plein
effet aux stipulations dun trait comme lEntente
dfinitive cest renoncer toute approche paternaliste lgard des peuples autochtones. Il sagit
dune faon de reconnatre leur pleine capacit juridique. Mconnatre les stipulations dun tel trait ne
peut quencourager le recours aux tribunaux, nuire
aux ngociations futures et compromettre la ralisation de lobjectif ultime de rconciliation.

[204] The appellants seek a declaration that the


Crown did not have a duty to consult under the Final
Agreement with respect to Mr. Paulsens application. Their interpretation of the Final Agreement
is supported neither by the applicable principles of
interpretation nor by either the context or the provisions of the Final Agreement. The cross-appellants
argue that the common law duty to consult continued to apply despite the coming into effect of the
Final Agreement. As I explained above, it is my
view that there is no gap in the Final Agreement
as regards the duty to consult. Its provisions on
consultation in relation to the management of fish
and wildlife were in effect. And the Little Salmon/
Carmacks First Nation had in fact submitted comments in the process provided for in that respect.
Moreover, the administrative law rights of Johnny
Sam are governed neither by the common law duty
to consult nor by the Final Agreement. Although the
Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nations argument

[204] Lappel principal visait obtenir une dclaration portant que la Couronne navait pas dobligation de consultation en vertu de lEntente dfinitive en relation avec la demande de M. Paulsen.
Linterprtation que font les appelants de lEntente
dfinitive nest appuye ni par les principes interprtatifs applicables, ni par le contexte de lEntente dfinitive ou les stipulations de celle-ci. Par
ailleurs, lappel incident est fond sur la survivance,
malgr lentre en vigueur de lEntente dfinitive,
de lobligation de consultation de source jurisprudentielle. Comme je lai expliqu prcdemment, je
suis davis quil nexiste aucun hiatus dans lEntente
dfinitive concernant lobligation de consultation.
Ses dispositions concernant la consultation en relation avec la gestion des ressources halieutiques et
fauniques taient en vigueur. La Premire nation
de Little Salmon/Carmacks a dailleurs prsent
ses observations dans le cadre du processus prvu
cet effet. Par ailleurs, les droits de Johnny Sam,

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 101 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

v. little salmon/CarmaCks Deschamps J.

[2010] 3 S.C.R.

that it had a right to be consulted with respect to


Mr. Paulsens application is valid, the source of that
right is not the common law framework. The fact
is that the transfer to Mr. Paulsen constituted an
agricultural development project that was subject
to Chapter 12 of the Final Agreement and that that
chapters transitional provisions established the
applicable framework.

en tant quadministr, ne sont rgis ni par lobligation de consultation de rgime jurisprudentiel ni par
lEntente dfinitive. Si la Premire nation de Little
Salmon/Carmacks a raison de soutenir quelle
avait le droit dtre consulte en ce qui a trait la
demande de M. Paulsen, ce nest pas en vertu du
rgime jurisprudentiel. Cest que, conformment
lEntente dfinitive la cession M. Paulsen constituait un projet de dveloppement agricole assujetti
aux dispositions du chapitre 12 de ce trait et que
ses dispositions provisoires tablissaient le rgime
applicable.

[205] In this case, given that Mr. Paulsens application would have been subject to a mandatory
assessment by the local assessment district office,
the fact that recourse was had to the existing process to assess the application supports a conclusion
that the actual consultation with the respondents
was more extensive than the consultation to which
they would have been entitled under the YESAA.

[205] En lespce, le recours au processus existant pour lvaluation de la demande de M. Paulsen,


compte tenu du fait que cette demande aurait relev
dune valuation obligatoire par le bureau de circonscription locale, permet de conclure que les
intims ont bnfici dun rgime suprieur celui
auquel ils auraient eu droit en vertu de la LESY en
matire de consultation.

[206] For these reasons, I would dismiss the


appeal and the cross-appeal, both with costs.

[206] Pour ces motifs, je rejetterais les pourvois


principal et incident, avec dpens dans les deux
cas.

Appeal and crossappeal dismissed with costs.

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

204

Pourvoi et pourvoi incident rejets avec dpens.

Solicitors for the appellants/respondents on


crossappeal: Lawson Lundell, Vancouver.

Procureurs des appelants/intims au pourvoi


incident : Lawson Lundell, Vancouver.

Solicitors for the respondents/appellants on


crossappeal: Pape Salter Teillet, Vancouver.

Procureurs des intims/appelants au pourvoi


incident : Pape Salter Teillet, Vancouver.

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney


General of Canada: Attorney General of Canada,
Vancouver.

Procureur de lintervenant le procureur gn


ral du Canada : Procureur gnral du Canada,
Vancouver.

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General


of Quebec: Attorney General of Quebec, Qubec.

Procureur de lintervenant le procureur gn


ral du Qubec : Procureur gnral du Qubec,
Qubec.

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General


of Newfoundland and Labrador: Attorney General
of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. Johns.

Procureur de lintervenant le procureur gnral


de TerreNeuveetLabrador : Procureur gnral
de TerreNeuveetLabrador, St. Johns.

Solicitors for the interveners the Gwichin Tribal


Council and Sahtu Secretariat Inc.: Gowling
Lafleur Henderson, Ottawa.

Procureurs des intervenants le Conseil tribal


des Gwichin et Sahtu Secretariat Inc. : Gowling
Lafleur Henderson, Ottawa.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 102 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

beCkman

c. little salmon/CarmaCks

205

Solicitors for the intervener the Grand Council of


the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)/Cree Regional Authority:
Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Montral.

Procureurs de lintervenant le Grand conseil


des Cris (Eeyou Istchee)/Administration rgionale
crie : Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Montral.

Solicitors for the intervener the Council of


Yukon First Nations: Boughton Law Corporation,
Vancouver.

Procureurs de lintervenant le Conseil des


Premires nations du Yukon : Boughton Law
Corporation, Vancouver.

Solicitors for the intervener the Kwanlin Dn


First Nation: Arvay Finlay, Vancouver.

Procureurs de lintervenante la Premire nation


de Kwanlin Dn : Arvay Finlay, Vancouver.

Solicitors for the intervener Nunavut Tunngavik


Inc.: Rosenbloom Aldridge Bartley & Rosling,
Vancouver.

Procureurs de lintervenante Nunavut Tunngavik


Inc. : Rosenbloom Aldridge Bartley & Rosling,
Vancouver.

Solicitor for the intervener the


Government: John Donihee, Calgary.

Tlicho

Procureur de lintervenant le gouvernement


tlicho : John Donihee, Calgary.

Solicitors for the intervener the TeMexw


Nations: Janes Freedman Kyle Law Corporation,
Victoria.

Procureurs de lintervenante les Nations


TeMexw : Janes Freedman Kyle Law Corporation,
Victoria.

Solicitors for the intervener the Assembly of First


Nations: Hutchins Caron & Associs, Montral.

Procureurs de lintervenante lAssemble des


Premires Nations : Hutchins Caron & Associs,
Montral.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)

[2010] 3 R.C.S.

Page 103 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

IN THE MATTER OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY


CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
FOR THE

DAWSON CREEK/CHETWYND AREA TRANSMISSION PROJECT

DECISION
October 10, 2012

Before:
L.A. OHara, Commissioner/Panel Chair
D.M. Morton, Commissioner
C.A. Brown, Commissioner

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 104 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1

The Applicant

1.2

The Project

1.3

Stakeholders and Interveners

1.4

Proposed Tariff Revision and Rates

1.5

Orders Sought

1.6

Regulatory Process

1.7

Key Issues Arising

2.0

3.0

REGULATORY AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

2.1

Utilities Commission Act

2.2

Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity Application Guidelines

2.3

First Nations Information Filing Guidelines for Crown Utilities

2.4

Clean Energy Act

2.4.1 British Columbias Energy Objectives

10

2.4.2 Other Relevant CEA Sections and Special Direction No. 10

11

2.5

Special Direction No. 9

12

2.6

Mandatory Reliability Standards and the N-1 Service Standard

12

2.7

Tariff Matters

13

2.7.1 Electric Tariff

13

2.7.2 Tariff Supplement No. 6

14

2.7.3 Utility System Extension Test Guidelines

15

2.8

Consultation

16

2.9

Other Scope Considerations

16

PROJECT NEED AND JUSTIFICATION

18

3.1

Overview of Existing System

18

3.1.1 Peace Region Transmission System

18

3.1.2 The Dawson Creek Transmission System

19

Dawson Creek Area Load Forecast

20

3.2.1 Introduction

20

3.2

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 105 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
3.2.2 Forecast Results and Time Profile

21

3.2.3 Gas Producer Forecast

22

3.2.4 Other Loads Forecast

25

3.2.5 High and Low Scenarios

26

Reliability of Load Forecast

26

3.3.1 Load Forecasting Issues and Risks

27

3.3.2 Forecast Methodology

28

3.3.3 Managing Load Forecasting Risk

30

3.3.4 Implications of Accepting DCAT Load Forecast

31

3.4

Existing Dawson Creek System Capacity Constraints

33

3.5

Applicability and Significance of the N-1 Service Standard

35

3.6

Load Resource Balances and Urgency

39

3.6.1 Load Resource Balance

39

3.6.2 Urgency of the System Upgrade

41

3.3

4.0

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

43

4.1

Project Components and Infrastructure

43

4.2

230 kV Transmission Lines

43

4.2.1. Proposed Structure and Conductors

43

4.2.2 Right-of-Way Requirements

46

4.2.3 Clearing Requirements

47

4.2.4 Access Requirements

47

Transmission Lines Route Selection

48

4.3.1 Route Selection Process

48

4.3.2 Route Update

49

4.4

Existing 138 kV Line Decommissioning

50

4.5

Sundance Lakes Substation

50

4.5.1 Technical Requirements

52

Bear Mountain Terminal Substation

53

4.6.1 Technical Description and Site Selection

53

4.6.2 Submissions by Parties

55

Dawson Creek Substation

56

4.3

4.6

4.7

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 106 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
5.0

6.0

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

57

5.1

Introduction

57

5.1.1 Alternative 2

57

5.1.2 Alternative B1

58

5.1.3 Alternative B2

58

5.1.4 Alternative B3

59

5.1.5 Alternative B4

60

5.1.6 Alternative B5

61

5.1.7 Alternative G1

62

5.1.8 Alternative G2

63

5.1.9 Dismissed Alternatives

64

5.2

Evaluation Criteria

65

5.3

Evaluation of Alternatives

68

5.3.1 Alternative 2

69

5.3.2 Alternative B1

72

5.3.3 Alternative B2

73

5.3.4 Alternative B3

74

5.3.5 Alternative B4

74

5.3.6 Alternative B5

75

5.3.7 Generation Based Alternatives

76

5.3.8 F2016 Upgrades Phase 2 GDAT

80

PROJECT COSTING, SCHEDULE AND RISK MANAGEMENT

85

6.1

Project Costs

85

6.2

Project Schedule

86

6.3

Permits and Approvals

87

6.4

Risk Management

87

6.4.1 Cost Risk of the Project

88

6.4.1.1 Procurement and Resource Availability Risks

88

6.4.1.2 Construction and Design Related Risks

89

6.4.2 Load Related Risks

90

6.4.3 Adequacy of the Project and Safety of Service

93

6.4.4 Interveners Submissions on Risk

93

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 107 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
7.0

CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY CONSIDERATIONS

95

7.1

Who is the Public and What are the Public Interest Issues

95

7.2

Adequacy of Public Consultation

97

7.3

Obligation to Serve

99

7.4

Alignment with Clean Energy Act and Provincial Government Policy

102

7.4.1 British Columbias Energy Objectives

102

7.4.2 Other Considerations under s. 45(3.3) of the UCA

104

7.4.3 Special Direction No. 9

104

7.4.4 Submission by Parties

105

Environment and EMF

106

7.5.1 Environmental Assessment

106

7.5.2 Electric and Magnetic Fields

107

Systemic Impact

108

7.5

7.6
8.0

RATES AND TARIFFS

113

8.1

Rates and Rate Impact

113

8.1.1 Review of Current Rates

113

8.1.2 Rate Impact F2013 F2035

114

8.1.3 Rate Impact Including the Cost of Energy F2013-F2035

115

8.1.4 Submissions by Parties

116

8.2

Applicability of the System Extension Guidelines

118

8.3

Application of TS 6 to the DCAT Project

120

8.3.1 Calculation of the Maximum Offset

120

8.3.2 Interpretation of TS 6

122

8.3.3 Generation Reinforcement

128

8.3.4 Tariff Supplement 6 and GDAT Project Costs

131

Proposed Revisions to the Electric Tariff

135

8.4
9.0

ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION

141

9.1

The Duty to Consult

141

9.1.1 The Crowns Duty

141

9.1.2 Reciprocal First Nations Duty

141

9.1.3 The Commissions Role

142

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 108 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
9.2

9.3

Identification of Potentially Impacted First Nations

142

9.2.1 Treaty 8

142

9.2.2 Treaty 8 First Nations

145

BC Hydros Consultation with West Moberly First Nation

145

9.3.1 The Scope of Duty to Consult

146

9.3.1.1 WMFNs Treaty Rights

146

9.3.1.2 Assessment of Impact and Scope of the Duty to Consult

147

9.3.2 Did BC Hydro Fulfill this Duty?

157

9.3.2.1 Consultation on Project Alternatives

158

9.3.2.2 Conducting and Sharing a Preliminary Assessment of Impacts 160


9.3.2.3 Consultation on Impacts and Negotiating the Terms of a Study161

9.4

10.0

9.3.2.4 The EOA and Concern about Moose

166

9.3.2.5 Concern about Future Tie-ins

167

9.3.2.6 Commitment to the Consultation Process

167

9.3.2.7 Consultation Completeness

168

BC Hydros Consultation with Other Aboriginal Peoples

174

9.4.1 Other Treaty 8 First Nations

174

9.4.2 Mtis

179

9.4.3 Kelly Lake Cree Nation

180

SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS, DIRECTIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

181

COMMISSION ORDER G-144-12


APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F

Sections 25, 26, 28, 38, 45 and 46 Utilities Commission Act


Regulatory Process
Total Forecast and Percentage Shares of Gas Producer and Other Load
List of Acronyms
List of Appearances
List of Exhibits

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 109 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a Decision on an application by British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) for a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to construct the Dawson Creek/Chetwynd
Area Transmission (DCAT) Project. The Application proposes that the Project is required as soon as
possible to resolve constraints in the existing 138 kV transmission system, to serve significant load
growth in the Groundbirch and Dawson Creek areas, and to restore reliable service to the region.
The industrial load growth is primarily attributable to the development of the unconventional gas
reserves (shale gas) in the Montney gas basin.

The Project includes three main components: construction of the new Sundance Lakes Substation,
construction of a 60 km double circuit 230 kV transmission line from Sundance Lakes to Bear
Mountain Terminal (BMT) Substation and continuing a further 12 km to the Dawson Creek
Substation on a new or expanded right-of-way, and the expansion of BMT. The Project is estimated
to cost $222 million and has an expected in-service date of April 30, 2014.

The Application also seeks an order to approve a revision to BC Hydros Electric Tariff. The
proposed revision of the Tariffs Terms and Conditions would allow BC Hydro to obtain security for
the cost of transmission reinforcement from new distribution customers that seek new service in
excess of 10 MW. This change is driven by BC Hydros desire to treat the five new industrial
customers in an equitable manner. Three of the five customers will receive service as transmission
customers whereas the other two have opted for distribution service.

The Application has raised a significant amount of controversy among the stakeholders. The causes
of controversy might be identified as follows:

i.

The need for transmission reinforcement results from dramatic and perhaps unprecedented
growth in one relatively confined area of the province, largely driven by a single industry
that is not present elsewhere in the province;

ii.

The Project is being proposed at a time of major developments in the area both in the
natural gas industry and in connection with other BC Hydro projects, such as Site C.
(i)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 110 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

(ii)

Several key issues emerged during the proceeding and have been addressed by the Panel in this
Decision. They include:

Uncertainty related to the load forecast of the unconventional natural gas sector;

Risk of stranded assets and/or a underutilized system after 20 years when the new
industrial load is forecast to trend down;

Implications and relevance of the Mandatory Reliability Standards and the N-1 service
standard;

BC Hydros obligation to serve and provide competitively priced and reliable power;

Operation of the Electric Tariff with respect to customer contribution in the case of system
reinforcement, including the role of security deposits;

How Tariff Supplement 6 is interpreted and applied to phased construction projects and
projects that have an associated load forecast with significant uncertainty;

The need for a review of industrial tariffs and rates;

Adequacy of First Nations consultation, including cumulative impacts; and

The subsequent Phase 2 transmission project being planned for the area, described as
Greater Dawson Creek Area Transmission or GDAT.

At the request of BC Hydro, the Commission Panel temporarily suspended the review process on
November 11, 2011, to give BC Hydro time to address policy-related issues that were not dealt with
in the Application. The Commission lifted the temporary suspension on April 11, 2012.

The review of the Application was conducted primarily by way of a written hearing. However, the
review of the adequacy of First Nations consultation was conducted in an Oral Hearing Phase held
from July 9 to July 10, 2012. The Commission Panel also participated in a flyover of the proposed
DCAT route to gain further perspective.

There was a broad range of Interveners who participated in the review process. The five industrial
customers are: Air Liquide Canada, Arc Resources Ltd., Encana Corporation , Murphy Oil Company
Ltd. and Shell Canada Ltd. Other Interveners that made submissions included the Ministry of
Energy and Mines, the City of Dawson Creek, various industry associations, rate-payer groups, West
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 111 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

(iii)

Moberly First Nations (WMFN), and landowners Gary and Marilyn Robinson. These parties made a
valuable contribution during the review of this Application, which is appreciated by the Panel.

The Commission Panel, after hearing submissions from parties, ruled on issues that relate to the
appropriateness of rolled in rate principles and postage stamp rates as well as larger, province wide
resource planning issues as being out of scope. Similarly, the appropriateness of the N-1 service
standard was ruled out of scope.

A.

CPCN Considerations

The Panel finds that a project is required to resolve constraints in the existing 138kV Transmission
system in the Dawson Creek area, to serve significant load growth, and to move towards reliable
service. However, the Panel is not persuaded that the DCAT Project, while needed, necessarily
must be in service by April 30, 2014 because of BC Hydros ability to implement remedial action
schemes/load shedding strategies in response to system contingencies in order to preserve service
to the remaining connected loads. Furthermore, four of the five new industrial customers appear
to have made temporary arrangements for at least a portion of their respective requirements to
manage until the DCAT Project is built.

The Panel considered at length whether the proposed DCAT Project is adequate to meet the N-1
planning standards to which BC Hydro adheres, or whether DCAT must be considered along with
the Phase 2 GDAT project. This determination is important, as it may influence whether the
Phase 1 DCAT and Phase 2 GDAT are to be assessed independently or together for the purpose of
calculating customer contributions and security deposits. Considering the two phases together
would mean larger financial commitments by the five new industrial customers. The Panel agrees
the GDAT project is necessary to provide N-1 service to those customers that have implemented
post-contingency load shedding schemes, but disagrees the Phase 2 is required for compliance with
Mandatory Reliability Standards. Accordingly, the Panel determines that with appropriate load
shedding agreements the DCAT Project can provide the required reliability regardless of whether
the GDAT project is completed in a timely fashion.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 112 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

(iv)

The evidence shows a significant difference between two consecutive load forecasts prepared in
December 2010 and 2011. While the Panel accepts that BC Hydro has been reasonable in
mitigating the load forecast risk or lack of robustness inherent in the sector-specific and regionspecific forecast, it notes that the change in input assumptions that results in the increased long
term load lacks certainty. The Panel concludes that this uncertainty supports BC Hydros
recommendation to proceed with the Phase 1 only as the recommended Project provides sufficient
flexibility regardless whether the actual load is above or below the forecast. Furthermore, the
Panel finds that the risks inherent in the single industry forecast emphasize the urgent need for the
broad review of industrial tariff, rates and rate design.

The Panel finds that Project Alternative 1, as proposed by BC Hydro, while not the least expensive
option, is the most cost-effective transmission reinforcement alternative, as it provides significant
flexibility to meet future anticipated growth.

The Panel determines that the Crowns duty to consult with WMFN for the DCAT Project has not
been adequate up to the point of this Decision to support issuing the CPCN. Deficiencies were
found in the areas of BC Hydros preliminary assessment of the nature and scope of its duty to
consult WMFN and related difficulties with arrangement of study funding, the issue of moose and
moose habitat, and the scope of the Environmental Overview Assessment. Furthermore, the
possible impact of the Project on the seasonal round which is the practice of WMFNs treaty rights
of hunting, fishing and trapping, and consideration of new adverse impacts of the Project with an
adequate cumulative impact perspective were identified specifically as deficiencies.

The Commission Panel will grant a CPCN to BC Hydro for the DCAT Project, as set out in the
Application, subject to further consultation between WMFN and BC Hydro. BC Hydro is expected
to provide further evidence which demonstrates consultation to a medium level on the Haida
spectrum, addressing the deficiencies outlined in the Decision, no later than 180 days from the
issuance of this Decision.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 113 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

(v)

B.

Rate and Tariff Considerations for Transmission and Distribution Service

The Panel is not prepared to approve the proposed revision to section 8.3 of the Terms and
Conditions of the Electric Tariff at this time. The Panel may be prepared to accept the proposed
changes subject to clarification in the area of potential double counting of customer benefits in the
calculation of both transmission and distribution offsets as well as certain tariff wording
clarifications.

Although the merits and need for the Phase 2 GDAT project are not before this Panel to consider,
the potential for it to proceed in the near future has raised concerns in the rate and tariff context.
As changes to tariffs can have implications to customer groups extending beyond the current and
future Dawson Creek area customers this Panel, having the benefit of in-depth review of the DCAT
Project, makes the following recommendations.

1. If the government review of transmission service rates is not concluded by mid 2014, or if it
does not include a review of Tariff Supplement 6 (TS 6), the Commission should consider a
review of TS 6 and invite all interested parties to participate in the review as this is a
significant and urgent issue.

2. While the Panel finds that the DCAT Project TS 6 calculation should not include the
estimated costs of the Phase 2 GDAT project, the forthcoming industrial rate review should
consider how deposits and contributions should be assessed when a project is phased.
Furthermore, the issues of additional deposits/contributions by DCAT customers should be
examined by a future Panel when the Phase 2 GDAT CPCN application is heard.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 114 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

1.0

INTRODUCTION

This Decision considers an application by British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro,
the Applicant) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to construct and
operate the Dawson Creek/Chetwynd Area Transmission (DCAT) Project (Application, Project). The
Project is proposed by BC Hydro to address electricity supply constraints in the Dawson Creek and
Groundbirch areas in the Peace region of northeast British Columbia. In particular, reinforcement
of the transmission system is required to enhance the reliability of service to existing customers
and to meet increasing new industrial customer load. The extraordinary industrial load growth is
primarily attributable to the development of the unconventional gas reserves (shale gas) in the
Montney gas basin located in this area.

1.1

The Applicant

BC Hydro is mandated through legislation to generate, transmit, distribute and sell electricity;
upgrade its power, transmission and distribution systems; and purchase power from, or sell power
to, a firm or person. BC Hydro states that it has both the financial and technical capacity to
undertake the Project. The BC Minister of Finance is BC Hydros fiscal agent as the Government of
British Columbia is BC Hydros shareholder. The Project team is composed of full time BC Hydro
employees and external consultants who have extensive experience in project delivery for
transmission facilities. Key consultants include SNC-Lavalin Inc. for engineering design services and
AMEC Americas Limited (AMEC) Earth and Environmental Limited for field surveys and
development of environmental overview assessment reports.

1.2

The Project

The Project consists of three main components; namely, the construction of the new Sundance
Lakes Substation (SLS), the construction of a double circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line for
60 km from SLS to Bear Mountain Terminal Substation (BMT) and for 12 km from BMT to the
Dawson Creek Substation (DAW), on a new or expanded right-of-way (ROW), and the expansion of
BMT. The existing transmission infrastructure serving the areas consists of a 138 kV system.
BC Hydro states that in the absence of an upgrade it will be unable to meet existing load and the
1

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 115 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

forecasted industrial load growth in the area while complying with appropriate Mandatory
Reliability Standards (MRS).

Three land acquisitions are proposed to implement the Project. The proposed new SLS substation
involves the acquisition of 8.5 hectares (ha) for the new site. The expansion of the BMT terminal
includes the acquisition of approximately 14 ha of land. Finally, a new 33 metre ROW is required
for the transmission line route, except where portions of the route parallel existing lines. For these
portions, the required additional width of ROW may be less.

The Project also entails decommissioning and dismantling the existing 138 kV transmission line
between the DAW substation and BMT as well as approximately 90 percent of the existing
60 kilometers (km) long 138 kV line between SLS and BMT.

BC Hydro expects the Project to cost $222 million, while the authorized P90 cost estimate is
$257 million. The planned and expected in-service date is April 30, 2014.

1.3

Stakeholders and Interveners

The primary stakeholders are both the existing or native load customers and the new industrial
load customers. The base case Other Load, forecast at 96 megawatts (MW) for F2013 or in the 77
to 103 MW range, includes existing residential, commercial and industrial demand, except for
unconventional gas producer demand. The base case load for unconventional gas producers is
forecast at 54 MW with a high case of 60 MW and a low case of 32 MW for F2013.

In support of the Application, the five industrial customers that are seeking more that 10 MW of
power have been asked to provide security for their pro rata share of the costs of the Project. They
are also in discussions with BC Hydro regarding commercial arrangements for pre-ordering of
equipment. These customers are:

Air Liquide Canada;

Arc Resources Ltd. (ARC);


W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 116 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

Encana Corporation (Encana);

Murphy Oil Company Ltd. (Murphy); and

Shell Canada Ltd. (Shell).

These companies requested, and were granted, a late Intervener status to address the importance
and sense of urgency of the Project. Other Late Interveners include the Ministry of Energy and
Mines (MEM) and the City of Dawson Creek. In addition, earlier registered Interveners include:

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), the Clean Energy Association of
B.C. (CEA) and Current Solutions Incorporated (CSI), further representing industry interests;

The Association of Major Power Customers (AMPC), B.C. Old Age Pensioners Organization
et al (BCOAPO), subsequently renamed as British Columbia Pensioners and Seniors
Organization (BCPSO) and the Commercial Energy Consumers Association of British
Columbia (CEC) representing the base load customer groups; and

B.C. Sustainable Energy Association and the Sierra Club of British Columbia (BCSEA), the
Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union Local 378 (COPE) and Mr. Vern Ruskin.

WMFN is another stakeholder and an Intervener, with a primary focus on adequacy of consultation
with First Nations. Neighbouring property owners also embody a stakeholder group. Landowner
interests are represented by Mill Valley and Indian Creek Land Owners Group as well as by
Interveners Gary and Marilyn Robinson (the Robinsons).

1.4

Proposed Tariff Revision and Rates

Two of the five new industrial customers have opted for distribution service, rather than
transmission service, under the applicable Large General Service (150 kW and over) Rate Schedules
1600, 1601, 1610, or 1611 of the Electric Tariff. Large General Service (LGS) customers are billed
according to the LGS two-part Conservation Rate. The other three new industrial customers will
receive transmission service under the Transmission Service Stepped Rate, Rate Schedule 1823 of
the Electric Tariff, which was also conceived as a conservation rate.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 117 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

The Terms and Conditions (T&C) for transmission service are contained in Tariff Supplement 5
(Electricity Supply Agreements) and TS 6. TS 6 spells out the T&C for a new transmission customer
to receive service. If transmission system reinforcement is required in order to provide the service,
it provides for a contribution and/or a deposit from a customer, depending upon the relative cost
of the extension project and the benefits that BC Hydro expects to receive from the new customer
taking service.

Similar provisions exist under the Electric Tariff T&C, section 8, Distribution Extensions for
distribution customers but they relate only to distribution extension costs not transmission
reinforcement costs. Currently TS 6 is not applicable to distribution customers. Consequently,
security for the transmission reinforcement costs is required from the three transmission
customers but not from the two distribution customers. To address this inequity, BC Hydro is
applying to revise the Electric Tariff T&C section 8.3 to allow TS 6 to apply to distribution customers
seeking new service in excess of 10 MW that require system reinforcements in order for it to be
able to recover security from the two distribution customers as well.

1.5

Orders Sought

Pursuant to sections 45, 46, 58 and 61 of the Utilities Commission Act (UCA) BC Hydro has applied
to the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC, Commission) seeking an order that:

Grants a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate the
Dawson Creek/Chetwynd Area Transmission Project as set out in the Application;

Directs BC Hydro to file with the Commission semi-annual updates on the actual Project
schedule and costs with a comparison to the plan, including any variance as compared to
the P90 Cost Estimate;

Directs BC Hydro to file a final report within six months of the end or substantial completion
of the Project which is to include the Project costs as compared to the P90 cost estimate
and to provide an explanation of any material variances;

Approves a revision to the Electric Tariff which adds a paragraph to follow the third
paragraph in section 8.3 of the Terms and Conditions, providing as follows:
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 118 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

In addition to any Extension Fee and revenue guarantee to be paid or provided by a


Customer pursuant to this part, for new services that:
(a) have a total expected maximum Demand greater than 10,000 kW; and
(b) partially or wholly make necessary System Reinforcement (as defined in TS 6) to the
transmission system in order to provide service to the distribution system to which the
Customer is or will be connected;
the Customer will be subject to the terms and conditions of TS 6 in respect of the System
Reinforcement in accordance with TS 6.
1.6

Regulatory Process

The review of the Application was conducted primarily by way of a written proceeding. The review
of adequacy of First Nations consultation, however, was conducted in an Oral Hearing Phase held
from July 9 to July 10, 2012.

At the request of BC Hydro the Commission Panel temporarily suspended the review process on
November 30, 2011. (Exhibit A-23) BC Hydro was concerned that the Commission and Interveners
in their Information Requests (IRs) were focused on policy and factual areas that were not
addressed in the DCAT Application, were largely outside the scope of what BC Hydro had
anticipated would arise and ...could have ramifications far beyond the DCAT project. Therefore,
BC Hydro required time to collaborate with Government and potentially key stakeholders before
setting out policy positions on such fundamental issues. (Exhibit B-19)

By letter dated March 23, 2012, BC Hydro requested that the Application review be reactivated.
(Exhibit B-22) The Commission lifted the temporary suspension on April 11, 2012. (Exhibit A-26)

The regulatory process is summarized in further detail in Appendix B.

1.7

Key Issues Arising

While the DCAT Project may appear to be a relatively routine CPCN application for a new
transmission line, it has managed to raise some controversy. The causes of controversy may be
identified as follows:

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 119 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

(i) the need for transmission reinforcement results from a dramatic and perhaps
unprecedented growth in one relatively confined area of the province, largely driven by a
single industry that is not present elsewhere in the province;
(ii) the DCAT Project is being proposed at a time of major developments in the area both in the
natural gas industry and in connection with other BC Hydro projects, such as Site C.

Specifically, the Application has raised numerous policy and regulatory issues including:

Uncertainty related to the load forecast of the unconventional natural gas sector;

Concerns over the risk of stranded assets and/or underutilized system after 20 years;

BC Hydros obligation to serve competitively priced and reliable power;

Implications and relevance of the N-1 service standard;

Operation of the Electric Tariff with respect to customer contribution in the case of system
reinforcement, including the role of the security deposit;

Allocation of energy and capital costs between old and new customers on the system;

The appropriateness of using the Industrial Electric Tariff as a mechanism to subsidize the
development of private industry;

Consideration of the DCAT Project in relation to province-wide system planning and BCs
energy objectives;

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission and GHG emissions reductions implications of the DCAT
Project;

Adequacy of First Nations consultation, including cumulative impact; and

The anticipated Phase 2 transmission project required for the area, described as Greater
Dawson Creek Area Transmission.

Some of these issues have been ruled out of scope, as indicated in Section 2.0. The remaining
issues are addressed in more detail in Sections 7.0, 8.0 and 9.0.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 120 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

2.0

REGULATORY AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

Applications for CPCNs arebregulated by the UCA and informed by the CPCN Guidelines, as issued
by the Commission. Generally, a CPCN application hearing will consider the need for the project,
project alternatives, and the impact of the project on various stakeholders. This section outlines
the specific legislative, regulatory and policy provisions that apply to this CPCN Application.

2.1

Utilities Commission Act

This Application for a CPCN has been made by BC Hydro pursuant to the section 46(1) of the UCA.
The CPCN procedure is governed, specifically, by sections 45 and 46 of the UCA, as attached in
Appendix A.

Specifically, the Commission must determine whether the CPCN is necessary for the public
convenience and properly conserves the public interest. (UCA, s. 45(8)) If the Commission
determines that a CPCN application is in the public interest, then it may impose conditions about
the duration and termination of a project or the construction, equipment, maintenance, rates or
service relating to the project, all within the mandate that it is in the public interest. (UCA, s. 45(9))

Furthermore, the Commission may grant a CPCN, refuse to grant a CPCN or limit the construction
or operation of the project, for the partial exercise of a right or privilege, and may attach terms and
conditions about the duration of the right or privilege:
46(3) Subject to subsections (3.1) to (3.3), the commission may issue or refuse to
issue the certificate, or may issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity
for the construction or operation of a part only of the proposed facility, line, plant,
system or extension, or for the partial exercise only of a right or privilege, and may
attach to the exercise of the right or privilege granted by the certificate, terms,
including conditions about the duration of the right or privilege under this Act as, in
its judgment, the public convenience or necessity may require.
(3.3) In deciding whether to issue a certificate under subsection (3) to the authority,
the commission, in addition to considering the interests of persons in British
Columbia who receive or may receive service from the authority, must consider and
be guided by
(a) British Columbia's energy objectives,

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 121 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

(b) an applicable integrated resource plan approved under section 4 of


the Clean Energy Act, and
(c) the extent to which the application for the certificate is consistent with the
requirements under section 19 of the Clean Energy Act.

This section sets out two distinct areas that are particularly interesting in the context of this
Application: that the Commission Panel must consider the interests of persons in BC that receive
or may receive service from BC Hydro, and that the Panel must consider an applicable integrated
resource plan approved under section 4 of the Clean Energy Act (CEA). In this context, there are
two important considerations. First, the Province of BC has provided evidence that they will be
conducting a separate hearing process to deal with industrial rates for BC Hydro. In fact, the MEM
stated:

In light of evolving provincial economic development, energy and


environmental priorities, including the new direction for provincial energy policy
announced on February 3, 2012 and available at
http://www.gov.bc.ca/ener/natural_gas_strategy.html, the Government plans to
undertake a broader review of industrial electricity policy, including retail
access. (Exhibit C16-2, p. 2)
Second, although subsection 46(3.3)(b) states that BCUC must consider an applicable integrated
resource plan approved under section 4 of the Clean Energy Act, the Applicant has not yet filed its
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for approval by the government. Thus there is no approved IRP to
consider as the 2008 Long Term Acquisition Plan is not an approved IRP. However, absence of an
approved IRP does not discharge the Commission of the responsibility to consider long term
resource planning issues. It simply limits the evidence before the Panel. The Commission must still
apply its judgment about what to consider relevant and should look to other sources of
information. In this proceeding BC Hydro has provided the System Planning Report as well as
information from its draft IRP which may be relevant evidence.

Accordingly, when deciding whether to issue a CPCN to BC Hydro under section 46(3.3) the
Commission must consider BCs energy objectives, any applicable IRP approved under section 4 of
the CEA, and the requirements of section 19 of the CEA. The CEA will be considered further below.
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 122 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

In addition, the Commission must be satisfied that a utilitys service to the public is adequate, safe,
efficient, just and reasonable.

2.2

Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity Application Guidelines

In 2010, the BCUC issued CPCN Guidelines (Order G-50-10). The CPCN Guidelines were issued to
support utilities CPCN applications, and were not intended to alter the fundamental regulatory
framework. The CPCN Guidelines provide direction for filing evidence for issues, such as: the need
for the project, project justification, project description, project alternatives, and project budget, as
well as guidance on the consultation of impacted stakeholders.

2.3

First Nations Information Filing Guidelines for Crown Utilities

In recognition of the Commissions obligation to determine if a Crown corporation has met its
constitutional duty to consult First Nation bands, the Commission requires that Crown utilities, in
CPCN applications, file certain information with their application. (Order G-51-10)

The Information Filing Requirements provided with the Guidelines include First Nations
identification, assessment of the scope of the duty to consult, a summary of consultation process
to date, and a conclusion which provides the Crown utilities overall view as to the reasonableness
of the consultation process.

In determining the duty to consult, the Commission Panel must consider whether a duty to consult
exists, the seriousness of the potential adverse impacts, whether the Crown utilitys consultation
has been adequate, and whether the Crown utility has adequately accommodated the First Nation,
if necessary.

2.4

Clean Energy Act

The Province of British Columbia (the Government) has legislated its energy objectives for the
province generally, and for BC Hydro, specifically. BCs energy objectives are contained in the CEA
and referred to in the UCA. Pursuant to section 1 of the UCA, British Columbias energy

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 123 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

10

objectives have the same meaning as in section 1(1) of the CEA, which refers to the objectives set
out in section 2 of the CEA.

2.4.1 British Columbias Energy Objectives


The relevant objectives listed in section 2 of the CEA for the purposes of the Application include:
(a) to achieve electricity self-sufficiency;
(b) to take demand-side measures and to conserve energy, including the objective
of the authority reducing its expected increase in demand for electricity by the
year 2020 by at least 66 percent;
(c) to generate at least 93 percent of the electricity in British Columbia from clean or
renewable resources and to build the infrastructure necessary to transmit that
electricity;
(e) to ensure the authoritys ratepayers receive the benefits of the heritage assets
and to ensure the benefits of the heritage contract under the BC Hydro Public
Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act continue to accrue to the authority's
ratepayers;
(f) to ensure the authoritys rates remain among the most competitive of rates
charged by public utilities in North America;
(g) to reduce BC greenhouse gas emissions;
(i) by 2012 and for each subsequent calendar year to at least 6 percent less than
the level of those emissions in 2007,
(ii) by 2016 and for each subsequent calendar year to at least 18 percent less
than the level of those emissions in 2007,
(iii) by 2020 and for each subsequent calendar year to at least 33 percent less
than the level of those emissions in 2007,
(iv) by 2050 and for each subsequent calendar year to at least 80 percent less
than the level of those emissions in 2007, and
(v) by such other amounts as determined under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Targets Act;
(h) to encourage the switching from one kind of energy source or use to another that
decreases greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia;
(i) to encourage communities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and use energy
efficiently;
(j) to encourage economic development and the creation and retention of jobs; and
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 124 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

11

(k) to maximize the value, including the incremental value of the resources being
clean or renewable resources, of British Columbias generation and transmission
assets for the benefit of British Columbia.

2.4.2 Other Relevant CEA Sections and Special Direction No. 10


The Commission is also bound by section 6 and section 19 of the CEA, Special Direction (SD) No. 10
and the Electricity SelfSufficiency Regulation. The Province of British Columbia provides SDs to the
Commission, from time to time, to clarify government objectives.

Section 6 of the CEA provides a goal for the province respecting Electricity Self-Sufficiency. SD No.
10 approved and ordered on June 25, 2007 by OIC 508 defined critical water conditions as
meaning the most adverse sequence of stream flows occurring within the historical record.

Section 19 of CEA specifically applies to BC Hydro, and provides that BC Hydro must pursue actions
to meet BCs energy objectives and must use prescribed guidelines in planning for the construction
and extension of facilities and for the purchase of energy.

Further, the Government amended SD No. 10 and the Electricity Self-Sufficiency Regulation by
Orders in Council Nos. 35 and 36. Changes to SD No. 10 deletes the definition of critical water
conditions and provides, in its place, average water conditions, which impacts the Applicants
commitment to becoming electrically selfsufficient. For the purposes of this Application, the
impact of SD No. 10 is that it allows BC Hydro to plan to meet provincial load with the use of BC
Hydros Heritage Assets, when water is average, and not critical. This effectively means that a
larger portion of BC Hydros load requirements will be met from its Heritage Assets. BC Hydros
Heritage Assets have a lower cost associated with them as a source of electricity. Accordingly, this
impacts the average cost of energy in the province. SD No. 10 will be considered further in Section
3.6 and 5.3.7.

The Commission Panel is required to consider how the Applicant plans to meet the requirements of
the CEA in CPCN applications.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 125 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

12

2.5

Special Direction No. 9

On February 2, 2011, the Government amended SD No. 9, to provide the following:


2.1

(1) In deciding whether to issue to a public utility other than the authority a
certificate in respect of an electricity transmission project under section
46(3) of the Act, the commission must consider, in addition to the
matters referred to in section 46 (3.1) of the Act, the governments
objective of encouraging public utilities to develop adequate electricity
transmission infrastructure in the time required to serve persons who
receive or may receive service from the public utility.
(2) In deciding whether to issue to the authority a certificate in respect of an
electricity transmission project under section 46 (3) of the Act, the
commission must consider and be guided by, in addition to the matters
referred to in section 46 (3.3) of the Act, the governments objectives
referred to in subsection (1) of this section.

In this Decision, the Commission Panel will consider, among other things, the Governments
objective of encouraging the Applicant, BC Hydro, to develop adequate electricity transmission
infrastructure to customers in a timely fashion.

2.6

Mandatory Reliability Standards and the N-1 Service Standard

Section 125.2 of the UCA provides that the Commission must adopt MRS made by an appropriate
standard making body, if the Commission finds that such standards are in the public interest and
are required to maintain consistency in BC with other jurisdictions with MRS. Consequently, and
pursuant to section 125.2 of the UCA, BCUC has adopted the Western Electric Coordinating Council
(WECC) standards for reliability, which includes the N-1 operating criterion for service on the bulk
transmission system. N-1 means that the transmission system will remain operative even with the
loss of one key physical element.

Specifically, on June 4, 2009, WECC Mandatory Reliability Standard TPL-002-0a was adopted by
Order G-162-11, and requires that the system remain stable with thermal and voltage limits within
acceptable ratings, with no loss of demand or curtailment of firm transfers, and no cascading
outages, when an event on the transmission system results in the loss of a single element. Further,
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 126 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

13

Requirement R6 of MRS TOP002-2a (also adopted by Order G-162-11) provides the following:
Each Balancing Authority and Transmission Operator shall plan to meet unscheduled
changes in system configuration and generation dispatch (at a minimum N-1
Contingency planning) in accordance with NERC, Regional Reliability Organization,
sub-regional, and local reliability requirements.
These requirements apply to the bulk power system which is defined to mean:
(a) electrical generation facilities and transmission facilities, including
interconnections with neighbouring systems, that are generally operated at
voltages of 100 kilovolts or greater, and
(b)

transmission facilities that are generally operated at voltages of less than


100 kilovolts and that are, on their own or in combination with other
generation, transmission or distribution facilities, material to reliability but
excludes radial transmission facilities, regardless of voltage, serving only
end-users of electricity with one transmission service.

(Mandatory Reliability Standards Regulation, BC Reg. 32/2009 pursuant to UCA)

As part of the review of this CPCN Application, the Commission Panel must also consider this N-1
planning criterion and whether the Applicant has provided evidence of a plan to comply.

2.7

Tariff Matters
2.7.1 Electric Tariff

BC Hydros Electric Tariff was approved by the Commission on May 31, 2008. It contains
Definitions, T&Cs and Rates for Service at the Distribution Voltage and Rates for Service at the
Transmission Voltage. T&Cs for Transmission service are contained in Tariff Supplements 5 and 6.

In particular section 8 of the T&C in the Electric Tariff relating to Distribution Extension - 35 kV or
Less is of relevance to this Application as BC Hydro is applying for a revision to section 8.3 to
permit it to recover security for the cost of transmission reinforcements from certain distribution
customers. Section 8.3 currently stipulates that the Customer Extension Fee for Rate Zone 1, which
includes the DCAT project area, is the estimated construction cost of the extension less BC Hydros
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 127 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

14

contribution toward the extension. It also states that for new services with a total expected
maximum demand greater than 500 kilovolt amps (kV.A), the estimated construction cost of the
extension shall include system improvement costs. Section 8.4 is also of particular relevance to the
Application as it states that customers with an expected maximum demand, as reasonably
forecast by BC Hydro, greater than 100kW may be required to provide a guarantee in the form of
cash or an equivalent form of guarantee acceptable to BC Hydro.

2.7.2 Tariff Supplement No. 6


TS 6, Agreement for New Transmission Service Customers, became effective January 21, 1991,
pursuant to Order G-4-91. It was the result of a negotiated settlement between BC Hydro and its
Industrial Customers, and has not been modified since that date. TS 6 spells out the T&C for a new
transmission customer to receive service. If transmission system reinforcement is required in order
to provide the service, it provides for a contribution and/or a deposit from a customer, depending
upon the relative cost of the extension project and the benefits that BC Hydro expects to receive
from the new customer taking service. In particular Appendix 1 to TS 6 is relevant to this
Application.

TS 6 also spells out the terms under which a new customer can earn back their deposit, including a
provision for a refund of a contribution or a deposit in the event that additional new load is added
within seven years of the in-service date of the extension project.

In its Reasons for Decision to Order G-4-91, the Commission reiterated BC Hydros submission that
the Basic Transmission Extension is the responsibility of BC Hydro, who shall undertake the
required work at the Customers expense.

The Commission also stated that it was given the assurance that the agreed T&C of the Electricity
Supply Agreement and Facilities Agreement would have no financial impact on any other rate
classes: The agreement of the parties, coupled with the lack of inter-class financial impact has
been most persuasive in convincing the Commission to accept the negotiated documents.
(Reasons for Decision, Order G-4-91)
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 128 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

15

2.7.3 Utility System Extension Test Guidelines


The Commission issued voluntary Utility System Extension Test Guidelines (Extension Guidelines) in
1996, by Order G-80-96. These Extension Guidelines were the result of an oral generic hearing,
initiated by the Commission after receiving applications from several utilities on issues related to
system extensions. Six utilities participated in the hearing: BC Hydro, West Kootenay Power Ltd.,
BC Gas Utility Ltd., Centra Gas British Columbia Inc., Princeton Light and Power Company, Limited,
and Pacific Northern Gas Ltd. The purpose of the hearing was to look broadly at the utilities
system extension policies and to make them more consistent with each other.

The Commission had previously issued Order G-19-96 in the matter of Utility System Extension
Tests on February 16, 1996. On March 18, 1996, BC Hydro filed a Notice of Application for Leave to
Appeal the decision on the grounds that the Commission had exceeded its jurisdiction with respect
to certain orders or directions in the Decision. A Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal was also
filed by Methanex Corporation, Council of Forest Industries and the Mining Association of British
Columbia (the Industrials) regarding the Commissions directions in the System Extension Decision
with respect to the incorporation of social costs into system extension tests.

Subsequently, the Commission received applications for a reconsideration of its System Extension
Decision on behalf of BC Hydro and the Industrials. As a result of the reconsideration,
Order G-80-96 made the System Extension Guidelines voluntary.

In the reconsideration hearing, BC Hydro acknowledged that the Commission does have the
jurisdiction to review and analyze the extension test included in a filed tariff, in particular the
charge, as part of its rate making authority, although the policy considerations which go into the
test are exclusively BC Hydros. (T1: 68, 69)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 129 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

16

2.8

Consultation

The CPCN Guidelines provide that relevant applications must consider the public interest. To
become aware of public interest issues, an applicant must provide a consultation process that is
relevant to the project, as outlined in the CPCN Guidelines. At a minimum, this consultation
process is expected to provide sufficient notice, both in terms of time and transparency, of the
proposed project and project alternatives. In addition, the CPCN Guidelines anticipate that notice
is not enough. Some engagement to discuss the issues, if any, is required. Further, an applicant is
expected to provide evidence that this process has taken place, including a communications log, a
list of identified issues, if any, and a summary of outcomes from the process, such as reasons why
an issue has not been dealt with, how issues have been mitigated, and how a stakeholder with an
issue has been accommodated.

2.9

Other Scope Considerations

In addition to the regulatory and policy framework that confines the focus for determinations in
this Decision, the Commission Panel is also guided by its own conclusions in the second Procedural
Conference in this matter, which took place on May 2, 2012. At the conference, the issue of the
scope of the Application was considered. BC Hydros request to reactivate the Application
(Exhibit B-22) contained five topics that BC Hydro suggests are out of scope, re-categorized by the
Panel into four issues as follows (Exhibit A-28):
1. RATES: whether rolled in rate principles should apply on the BC Hydro system; whether
distinctions should be made between old and new customers for ratemaking; and, whether
postage stamp rates, which have been in effect since BC Hydro was created in 1962, remain
appropriate on its system;
2. OBLIGATION TO SERVE: whether distinctions should be made between old and new
customers respecting whether to serve and service level;
3. N-1 SERVICE STANDARD: whether its N-1 service standard, required pursuant to the MRS
standards that were developed pursuant to BCUC Orders G-67-09, G-167-10, G-162-11, and
G-175-11 remains the appropriate service standard; and

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 130 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

17

4. BC ENERGY OBJECTIVES: whether consideration of the DCAT Project requires the BCUC to
consider province-wide system planning issues and BCs Energy Objectives under the Clean
Energy Act.
The Panel heard from each of the participants at the second procedural conference. The Panel
made the following determinations respecting scope of this hearing:
1. Issues that relate to the appropriateness of rolled in rate principles, or postage stamp rate
principles, as a system wide BC Hydro policy are out of scope. However, issues respecting
the application of TS 6 to the DCAT Project so as to allow the Commission Panel to
determine whether the DCAT Project is in the public interest, are in scope.
2. The Panel recognized BC Hydros obligation to serve all customers who come to it ready,
willing and able to meet the requirements that this Commission has said are necessary for
customers to meet. However, the Panel wished to emphasize that the absolute obligation
to serve is always in context: the service must meet the appropriate standards; options
must be weighed diligently; and the service must be adequate, safe, efficient, fair and
reasonable. Accordingly, these issues are in scope for this hearing.
3. The Panel acknowledged the Integrated Resource Plan process that has been established by
the CEA. Province wide resource planning issues are out of scope. However, specific plans
and planning methodologies, including increased load issues that relate to the DCAT area
are within scope. Questions that relate to the appropriateness of the N1 MRS standard are
out of scope for this hearing, but questions about the application of the N1 standard to this
proposed project are well within the scope of this hearing. Particularly, BC Hydros
compliance with N1 service criterion, in both the planning standard for the DCAT project
and the operating standard, once the project is in service, are within scope. This may
include issues respecting any further phases that support DCATs compliance with the N1
service criterion.
4. Questions that require BC Hydro to provide evidence of establishing priorities amongst the
government of British Columbia policy objectives contained within section 2 of the CEA, as it
relates to projects other than that contemplated in the DCAT CPCN are out of scope for this
hearing. Any questions relating to the application of the CEA to the DCAT project is
appropriate and necessary for a CPCN application.

In essence, the Commission Panel has limited the scope of the review to those issues that are
directly connected to the proposed DCAT Project, and has determined that broader issues related
to resource planning and rate impacts for the entire province are out of scope.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 131 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

18

3.0

PROJECT NEED AND JUSTIFICATION

BC Hydro states that as a result of electrical load forecast in the Dawson Creek and Groundbirch
areas, coupled with the existing transmission system constraints, an urgent upgrade to the high
voltage transmission system supplying the region is required by the fall of 2013 in order to return
the bulk transmission system to an acceptable level of service. BC Hydro further asserts the
present system cannot currently serve the entire existing peak load with a single transmission
element taken out of service (this single contingency is referred to as N-1) and is forecasted be
unable to support the peak load with all transmission elements in service (referred to as N-0) by
the winter of 2013/14. In the interim period prior to system inforcement, BC Hydro states, it
continues to implement customer load shedding schemes to manage system load. (Exhibit B-1,
pp. 2-1, 2-20)

This section describes the existing transmission system, its present constraints, the anticipated load
growth in the area and the transmission constraints arising from such anticipated growth.

3.1

Overview of Existing System


3.1.1 Peace Region Transmission System

BC Hydro describes the Peace region of BC as a wide plain that lies east of the Rocky Mountains
and is bisected by the Peace River, which flows from the Rockies in BC to Lake Athabasca in
northeast Alberta. The major communities in the Peace region include Chetwynd, Fort St. John,
and Dawson Creek which receive service from the138 kV transmission system, which has grown
from its beginnings in the late 1960s to the early 1980s, interconnecting the substations of
Chetwynd (CWD), DAW and Fort St. John (FJN). (Exhibit B-1, pp. 2-1 to 2.2)

A geographic one-line diagram of the interconnected transmission system in the Peace region is
shown below.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 132 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

19

Figure 3-1

Existing Peace Region Transmission System

Source: Exhibit B-1, p. 2-3


3.1.2 The Dawson Creek Transmission System
BC Hydro seeks authorization to construct facilities required to upgrade part of the existing Peace
region Transmission System, namely the Dawson Creek Transmission System shown in Figure 3-2
below. The current Dawson Creek 138 kV Transmission System serves the areas of Dawson Creek,
Chetwynd and Groundbirch.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 133 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

20

Figure 3-2

Dawson Creek Transmission System

Source: Exhibit B-1, p. 2-4

The Groundbirch area is expected to experience significant natural gas development and resulting
electricity demand during the 30-year planning period. The need for the Project is driven by the
load growth resulting from the natural gas developments in the area. (Exhibit B-1, pp. 2-4 to 2-6)
That load growth is discussed more fully in the following section.
3.2

Dawson Creek Area Load Forecast


3.2.1 Introduction

This section identifies the load forecast volume. The load forecast in the Dawson Creek and
Groundbirch areas (DC Area Load Forecast), comprises the following:

(a) Gas Producer Forecast which is the load for unconventional gas producers, and

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 134 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

21

(b) Other Loads Forecast which is all other loads including residential, commercial and
industrial loads. This will also be referred to as Other Forecast.
BC Hydro has prepared a 20-year regional forecast for the Peace region (Exhibit A2-1, Appendix 3.2
Gas Producers Northeast Gas) as part of its system wide Electric Annual 2010 Load Forecast. The
DC Area Load Forecast which was created separately to provide a 30-year electrical demand
forecast for the DCAT Project is consistent with the Electric Annual Load Forecast. The primary use
for electricity in the production of natural gas is for compression to keep natural gas pressurized,
both in the field gathering system and at the processing plant.

BC Hydro describes the anticipated electric load in the Dawson Creek area as primarily the load in
the City of Dawson Creek plus three new transmission voltage customers in the surrounding area.
The City of Dawson Creek is an administrative and services centre with major economic activities in
the surrounding area including agriculture, energy, and forestry. The Groundbirch area currently
has no BC Hydro or customer owned substations. A distribution feeder from DAW currently serves
a relatively small load in the Groundbirch area (less than 3 MW) but this area is expected to see
significant natural gas development and resulting electricity demand during the 30-year planning
period. (Exhibit B-1, pp. 2-5, 2-6) BC Hydro did not provide a load forecast for the Chetwynd area.

3.2.2 Forecast Results and Time Profile


BC Hydro provided its Forecast Update as a part of the Supplemental Evidence. The Forecast
Update considered the updated system wide Electric Annual 2011 Load Forecast, information from
an extra year of current performance and related activity for each customer, developments in the
near term spot market and in the long term markets, as well as general information available from
consultants and the natural gas industry. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 22)

The Total Forecast (Gas Producer Forecast and Other Forecast) is summarized and shown in
Appendix C. As indicated in Appendix C, the difference between the two consecutive years
forecasts 2010 and 2011 - is significant. In aggregate, the DC Area Load is expected to reach a
peak load of 425 MW between F2029 and F2031. BC Hydro did not consider demand side
management (DSM) for the purposes of this CPCN Application because DSM savings are not

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 135 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

22

expected to defer the in-service date for a project to increase transmission capacity, nor make a
difference in developing the alternatives to meet the 30 year load forecast. (Exhibit B-1, p. 2-10)

3.2.3 Gas Producer Forecast


Montney Basin is a region with significant unconventional natural gas reserves, contained in shale
formations, which require new, more aggressive techniques (e.g., hydraulic fracturing) to extract
the gas. The Montney Basin spans both Alberta and BC Peace regions with both Dawson Creek and
Groundbirch located in the BC portion of the area as shown below. (Exhibit B-1, Appendix B,
pp. 75-76)
Figure 3-3

Possible Future Transmission System Configurations in the


Peace Region

Source: Exhibit B-5, BCUC 1.18.3

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 136 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

23

The Gas Producer Forecast in the Application shows that the electrical demand will peak in F2027
at 278 MW rapidly increasing from 41 MW in F2011, and will decline to 103 MW in F2041 or to
37 percent of the peak. BC Hydro takes the position that its projection lies within the reasonable
range of forecasts with respect to the rate of decline of gas production. According to the System
Planning Report used in the Application, at the peak of electricity requirement in F2027, around
77 percent of the load in the DC Area Load Forecast is forecast to come from electricity
requirements from large, single point loads that serve the shale gas sector. (Exhibit B-1,
Appendix B, Figure 3, p. 79)

The flattening and eventual decline in the load forecast for the 30-year forecast of the Gas
Producer Load is a reflection of the finite nature of the gas resources and the eventual forecasted
decline of gas production. The timing and duration of demand is an issue of concern in the review
of Gas Producer Forecast. (Exhibit B-5-1, BCUC 1.29.1)

BC Hydro expects the demand for electricity to rise dramatically in the near term F2011-F2015.
(Exhibit B-1, p. 2-9) In the long term, the demand projections reflect gas producers who have
indicated their intent to take service from BC Hydro or who have indicated interest but have not
yet made any formal commitments.

In the Forecast Update, BC Hydros base forecast peak of gas producers electricity requirements
will reach a plateau of 319 MW in the period F2022 to F2031. Gas producers make up
approximately 75 percent of total load; the Other Loads are between 103 MW and 106 MW for the
same period. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, pp. 24, 31) The Forecast Update also shows that peak
demand will continue for a longer period of time than described in the System Planning Report.
The bases for this change are higher initial production rates, longer well life, and therefore
improved overall production economics. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, pp. 26, 28)

The Forecast Update shows that the actual measured peak load for the winter of F2012 was
approximately 40 MW less than previously forecast, and the forecast for F2014 was reduced to
reflect the influence of very low current natural gas prices as these prices have led to reduced
drilling activity and production rates in the sector as a whole. Table 3.1 presents the Gas Producer

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 137 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

24

Load for the initial five years of the planning period for the DCAT Project including the load request
from five new customers that account for the majority of the load.

Table 3.1

MW

Forecast Update

Producer Load Forecast

Forecast from System Commitments


Planning Report
From Five New
Customers

F11

--

41

--

F12

34

70

27.6

F13

54

83

101.5

F14

164

153

138.5

F15

232

195

178.5

Source: Exhibit B-5, BCUC 1.28.1; Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 5, p. 24

Figure 3-4 below presents a comparison of the Gas Producer Load Forecast Base Case - 2010 and
the Base Case 2011 as well as the High and Low scenarios. As the figure shows, the updated Gas
Producer Load is lower in F2012 and F2013 but rises more steeply and reaches a plateau at
319 MW; moreover the updated Gas Producer Load is not projected to experience overall decline
until F2033, much later than F2027 in the original forecast.
Figure 3-4

DCAT Scenarios for Gas Producer Load

Source: Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 23

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 138 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

25

3.2.4 Other Loads Forecast


BC Hydro stated the Other Loads Forecast includes residential, commercial and industrial demand,
for all customers, excluding unconventional gas producers, and consists of both distribution and
transmission connected customers. This forecast is based on the historical analysis of current
customer loads and key economic drivers. The Other Loads Forecast is developed using an
econometric model that uses historical trends in peak demand and the relationship between peak
demand and economic drivers such as housing starts, employment and Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) for the entire region, and projections of these parameters. (Exhibit B-5, BCUC 1.34.3)

The following Table 3.2 presents the Other Loads Forecast for the initial five years of the planning
period for the DCAT project.
Table 3.2

Other Loads Forecast

MW

Forecast Update

Forecast from
System Planning
Report

F11

60

F12

80

65

F13

96

70

F14

96

71

F15

97

73

Source: Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 31

While the early years load in the planning period of the Gas Producer Forecast has been decreased
in the Update, Table 3.2 shows that the Other Loads Base Case forecast in the Forecast Update has
increased because BC Hydro has anticipated increased activity in the region over the entire forecast
horizon. BC Hydro attributed the increase to activities directly associated with gas production such
as gas processing, drilling, and well operations, with associated spin-off in all customer sectors.
(Exhibit B-22, p. 29)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 139 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

26

The Forecast Update revised the Other Loads electrical requirement in the long term to 98 MW in
F2017 to 107 MW in F2041. This can be compared to the original Other Loads Forecast of 74 MW
in F2017 to 87 MW in F2041. (Exhibit B-5, BCUC 1.28.1; Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 31)

3.2.5 High and Low Scenarios


BC Hydro also developed High Scenarios and Low Scenarios for both the Gas Producer Load
Forecast and the Other Loads Forecast.

The main drivers for the Gas Producer High Scenario and Gas Producer Low Scenario are
expectations for well production, economics and basin characteristics. (Exhibit B-1, Appendix B,
p. 84) For the High Scenario relative to the base case, it was assumed more production would be
realized through development of deeper zones and broader development areas and that the loads
associated with customer load requests were given a higher probability of being realized; for the
Low Scenario, the converse was true. (Exhibit B-5, BCUC 1.36.3)

The Other Loads High Scenario was generated via a top-down regional simulation that considers
uncertainty in the key economic drivers. The Other Loads Low Scenario was simply developed by
calculating the ratio between the Other Loads High Scenario and the Other Loads Base Case.
(Exhibit B-1, Appendix B, p. 80)

3.3

Reliability of Load Forecast

As Interveners have expressed serious concerns over the reliability of BC Hydros forecast, this
matter is addressed here further in the context of the Projects economic feasibility. The reliability
of the forecast is especially critical in relation to the urgency of the project, selection of the
preferred alternative and the relative burden of risk for the existing vis-a-vis new customers.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 140 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

27

3.3.1 Load Forecasting Issues and Risks


The Application highlights the unique nature of demand in the Montney Basin, the nature of gas
producers activity and their related interest in taking electricity. BC Hydro has taken the view that
this CPCN proceeding ought not to be used to investigate issues that are better considered in the
IRP process or other province-wide proceedings. The issues that have arisen include the terms and
conditions of tariff supplements, industrial tariffs and rate structures as applied to gas producers,
and postage stamp rate principle. All these issues relate to load forecasting directly and indirectly
because they affect decisions by gas producers to configure their facilities to take electricity instead
of relying on natural gas powered compression. In Order G-56-12, the Commission Panel
determined that while province-wide resource planning issues are out-of-scope, specific plans and
planning methodologies, including increased load issues that relate to the Dawson Creek area are
within scope.

Accordingly, this Decision will not consider the broader issues of forecasting methodology which
will be reviewed under the IRP process overseen by the MEM, but instead will examine the
methodology to develop the region-specific and sector-specific forecast and any load forecast risks
stemming from the use of such a methodology.

The review process has identified five forecasting issues from the DC Area Load Forecast
methodology:
1. The Gas Producer Load Forecast is driven primarily by expected gas production.
(Exhibit B-1, Appendix B, p. 81; Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, pp. 26-28) The risk of unrealised
gas producers load forecast may come from a decrease in market natural gas prices and
tightening credit. This risk is evident in the Forecast Update for F2012 and F2013.
2. The ability of gas producers to make choices, notwithstanding inquiries to BC Hydro and
expressions of interest in taking electrical services, to choose natural gas as an alternative
energy source. The alternatives for gas producer customers include self generation and the
use of gas driven compression and direct gas drives; however, BC Hydro has assumed an
electrical percentage of 95 percent. (Exhibit B-5, BCUC 1.41.1; Exhibit B-14, BCUC 2.30.2)
3. The assumption of a ramp up in gas sector related electrical load is prefaced on the
successful upgrade of the transmission system in the region. (Exhibit B-5, BCUC 1.41.2.1)
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 141 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

28

However, the application for upgrade or reinforcement of transmission capacity is


dependent on the significant ramp-up (95 percent) assumed by BC Hydro.
4. Although gas producers are considered industrial customers by BC Hydro and take service at
either the transmission rate or the industrial distribution customer rate, they are not typical
industrial customers whose long-term forecast can be projected as a sector by an
econometric model based on projections of economic activities. The decisions of gas
producers on whether to develop in the Montney Basin, if at all, or whether to cease
development after making commitment in the form of posting security, represent aggregate
binary decision-making in nature, resulting in yes or no as opposed to incremental or
cyclical load demand.
5. The Other Load Forecast no longer seems to be the native load but has included activities
directly associated with gas production. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 29) As a result,
even the Other Load will rise and fall with the fortunes of shale gas production in the
Montney Basin region.

3.3.2 Forecast Methodology


The Gas Producer Load Forecast has been generated by BC Hydro using a bottom-up approach and
also includes an iterative exercise with the top-down forecast.

The bottom-up forecast is based on customer-specific information and analysis and serves as
BC Hydros official load forecast. The top-down forecast is a macro forecast that is used to guide
and confirm the bottom-up forecast. The bottom-up forecast originates from a compilation of
current and expected customer load requests. In arriving at an expected or most likely net
customer service requirement, each customer request is evaluated, shaped and discounted based
on information from various sources internal and external to BC Hydro. External factors come from
a number of areas such as industry, producer publications and the top-down forecast. The
top-down forecast is derived by creating and then multiplying three data sets: production x
intensity x service percent.

The basis of the Montney Load Forecast, used by BC Hydro for the Gas Producer Load Forecast, is
an unconventional gas production forecast for the entire Montney play. Gas production forecasts
consider a number of third-party sources and are assembled by BC Hydro. Specific geographic
information is also used to allocate the forecast into the five areas. This includes: customer
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 142 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

29

requests for electricity, producer land holdings and production plans, the relative richness of the
gas play by region, initial production results, current drilling activity and the proximity of the
expected gas production to BC Hydro transmission infrastructure (Exhibit B-5, BCUC 1.30.1).

BC Hydro was asked whether the discussions that took place in the bottom-up forecast included:
(a) the time profile of the areas load and consequent stranded asset as the demand is expected to
decline to reflect the finite nature of gas resources; and (b) whether alternative non-electric, costeffective fuel to produce natural gas was discussed. (Exhibit B-5, BCUC 1.29.1.1, 1.29.1.2)

BC Hydro states that a successful upgrade of the transmission system in the region would lead to a
ramp up in gas producers seeking electrical service. (Exhibit B-5, BCUC 1.36.2) BC Hydro updated
the time profile in the Forecast Update in the Supplementary Evidence and noted that it considered
factors such as the distance between the producing region and electrical infrastructure when
developing the percentage of electrical service that it would expect to supply to the oil and gas
sector. While all the five areas in the BC part of Montney Basin (Dawson Creek, Groundbirch,
Chetwynd, Fox/Fort St. John and G.M. Shrum) share an identical gas production forecast and
intensity factor, BC Hydro projects that for Dawson Creek, electrical service from BC Hydro will go
from 40 percent ramping up to 95 percent intensity factor over the forecast horizon and
Groundbirch will go from 15 percent ramping up to 95 percent over the same period. Some of the
energy required would be self-supplied by industry, e.g., customer direct gas compression and
customer gas-fired generation. (Exhibit A2-1, Appendix 3.2, p. 99)

The updated Gas Producer Load Forecast, in terms of demand , as measured in megawatts, and the
duration of demand over the planning period, results in more rapid growth in gas producer
demands post-F2014 as well as anticipated peak demand from producers continuing over a longer
period.

The Other Loads Forecast is based on historical analysis of current customer loads, and key
economic drivers such as projected trends in regional housing starts, employment and the
economy as measured by GDP. The updated Other Loads are expected to exceed the original
forecast by 15 to 20 MW annually throughout the planning period. BC Hydro attributed the

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 143 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

30

increase to activities directly associated with gas production.

Regarding the Gas Producer Load Forecast, BC Hydro states that the forecast of primary use for
electricity in the production of natural gas includes policy reasons. It provided an example that
encourages the substitution of natural gas drive compression with electric drive compression
supplied by low carbon power from BC Hydros electric system, which offers the potential to
significantly reduce the increase in GHG emissions expected as a result of increased activity.
(Exhibit B-1, p. 2-9)

In its DC Area Load Forecast, BC Hydro also discussed potential load by showing: (a) producers who
have shown an interest; and (b) producers indicating intent. (Exhibit B-14, BCUC 2.15.1) As a result
BC Hydro is studying a Phase 2 project for further reinforcements beyond the DCAT Project in order
to provide N-1 service. BC Hydro stated that the updated DCAT load forecast does not advance the
timing of a Phase 2 GDAT application. (Exhibit B-30, BCUC 4.4.1)

3.3.3 Managing Load Forecasting Risk


BC Hydro manages the load forecast risk by projecting high and low scenarios to address the likely
range. It accepts that there is a risk that all gas producers could choose to use gas compressors in
which case the load growth could be even less than projected in the Low Scenario forecast but
believes it can be managed by making appropriate arrangements with customers. (Exhibit B-1,
p. 2-15) BC Hydro has entered binding agreement with each of the five customers who make up
the majority of the load requirements by which each customer will provide security for their
portion of the DCAT Project.

As noted earlier, the five industrial customers Air Liquide Canada, Shell, ARC, Encana and Murphy
registered as Interveners and spoke to their requirements. They have addressed, in large part, the
load forecast of gas producers, at least in the near term of the 30-year DC Area Load Forecast
(Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2). As indicated in Table 3.1, these customers account for a large
proportion of the Gas Producer Load Forecast in the near term of the planning horizon.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 144 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

31

BC Hydro took the position that gas producers will be treated in the same manner as other
customers in the same rate class. (Exhibit B-5, BCUC 1.38.3) This implies that electrical service at
tariff rates will remain competitive relative to self-supply of energy (natural gas for fuel) for gas
compression.

3.3.4 Implications of Accepting DCAT Load Forecast


The updated DC Area Load Forecast provided by BC Hydro in the March 23, 2012 Supplemental
Evidence (Exhibit B-22) included the following input factors:
The reduction in the near term:

a number of gas customers requests in the DCAT in 2011 were being deferred and or
reduced from what they had requested in 2010;

gas forecasting experts were generally lowering their gas production forecasts for the
Montney in the near term;

acknowledgements from some gas producers that their drilling and production plans for the
Montney were being lowered.

The increase in the long-term:

gas forecasting experts in 2011 were generally raising their gas production forecasts for the
Montney in the long-term;

BC Hydros 2011 gas production forecast is in line with updated industry expert projections;

for the last two years, there have been an increasing number of export-related
developments and announcements that signal growing support for increased gas
development in Northeast BC in general;

pipeline projects serving the area continue to proceed; and

in a recent report dated April 2, 2012, the Ministry of Energy and Mines reported that the
Montney play remains one of the most active natural gas plays in North America.

(Exhibit B-30-1, CEC 4.12.3)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 145 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

32

Commission Panel Discussion

The Commission Panel finds that certain input assumptions are not fully supportive of such
significant change, both in magnitude and duration of demand, from the original forecast to the
Forecast Update. The Panel notes that notwithstanding that the gas producers initial choice to use
electricity instead of natural gas for their production process remains unchanged, the differences
within one year in generating the DC Area Load Forecast, based on a bottom-up forecasting
approach, show that significant variations can occur in forecast results for this type of activity. The
variations can be caused by market conditions such as the commodity price of natural gas. The
perceived business prospects by large gas producers also influence business activity.

The Commission Panel considers that even without judging the merits of the underlying
assumptions, given that a change in assumption within one year could create the significant
changes in the DC Area Load Forecast, it is worth proceeding cautiously when evaluating the
robustness of the load requirement. Even though this Decision does not visit industrial electricity
policy, the Panel is mindful that the DC Area Load Forecast has been built on a foundation of issues
deferred to a system-wide proceeding. These issues continue to revolve around a group of
customers who are gas producers with their own distinctive load factor, intensity of load
requirement, time profile and revenue impact. These features adduced through evidence inform
the robustness of the area-specific and sector-specific load forecasts.

For the Other Loads Forecast, which BC Hydro has characterized as more representative of
BC Hydros overall system loads, the Commission Panel finds that in the Forecast Update BC Hydro
has established a link to unconventional gas production activities in the Other Forecast by
anticipating high economic activity in the region from gas producers, and therefore the forecast
growth in the Other Loads has become inextricably tied to the Gas Producer Forecast.

The Commission Panel acknowledges BC Hydros established key parameters that differentiate
each of the Producers. They are: the recoverable per average well; the gas recovered; the number
of wells drilled; and the gas price range. However, the Commission Panel notes that factors such as
the what-ifs to policy changes on definition of clean energy, changes in producers business

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 146 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

33

decisions to continue production in Montney, and the relative future energy cost of using
electricity versus natural gas for compression were not considered in the High and Low Scenarios.
Furthermore, factors such as gas production activities that have led to the updated Base Case for
Other Load are not input assumptions for the Other Load High and Low Scenarios.

The Commission Panel accepts that BC Hydro has been reasonable in mitigating the load forecast
risk or lack of robustness inherent in this sector-specific and region-specific forecast. However, it
also notes how sensitive the load forecast is to changes in input assumptions. This sensitivity in
turn results in the increased long term load lacking some certainty.

For instance, the Panel notes that a shift in government policy could potentially alter the choice of
energy in the production of natural gas, similar to a policy shift in the definition of clean energy to
include natural gas in order to promote the development of a liquefied natural gas industry in B.C.
Such a shift in policy could result in natural gas generation of electricity closer to the site, as the
renewed choice of natural gas as source of energy for some gas producers.

The Commission Panel concludes that while there is sufficient evidence to support the need for
transmission reinforcement, the risks inherent in the forecast emphasize the need for the broad
review of industrial tariff, rates and rate design, as discussed further in the Rate and Tariff section.
Furthermore, this uncertainty supports BC Hydros recommendation to proceed with Phase 1 only.
The Phase 1 solution provides sufficient flexibility regardless of whether the actual load is above or
below the forecast.

3.4

Existing Dawson Creek System Capacity Constraints

BC Hydro states that the current transmission system is capable of serving a Dawson Creek area
load of 70 MW under N-1 conditions (a single transmission line taken out of service) and 150 MW
under N-0 conditions (all transmission lines in service). This system cannot serve the predicted
area winter peak load, of 114 MW (for fiscal 2012) increasing to 130 MW in fiscal 2013 under N-1
conditions, even without any increase in gas producer load. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, pp. 24,

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 147 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

34

31) A graphic illustration of the existing system capacity constraints in relation to the load forecast
is shown in Figure 3-5 below.
Figure 3-5

600
HIGH
DC Area Load Forecast
LOW

500

MW

400

300

200

N-0 Limit (150 MW)


100

N-1 Limit (70 MW)

0
'11

'13

'15

'17

'19

'21

'23

'25

'27

'29

'31

'33

'35

'37

'39

'41

Fiscal Year

Source: Exhibit B-1, p. 2-14

The specific transmission lines serving the area (see Figure 3-2 above) that cannot be taken out of
service during the winter peak loading (N-1) are:

1L377 Taylor to Dawson Creek (TAY-DAW);

1L361 Gordon M. Shrum to Chetwynd (GMS-CWD);

1L358 Chetwynd to Bear Mountain Terminal (CWD-BMT); or

1L362 Bear Mountain Terminal to Dawson Creek (BMT-DAW).

BC Hydro further asserts that starting in F2014 the system will not be able to support the winter
peak load in the Groundbirch and Dawson Creek areas, even without any increase in Gas Producer
Load, with all of the above transmission lines in service (referred to as N-0 Limit of 150 MW), as
shown in Figure 3-5 above. BC Hydro submits that the loss of any one of these lines during winter
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 148 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

35

peak loading results in low voltages below agreed upon levels, voltage instability, and/or voltage
collapse or overloading of the remaining transmission supply line(s). (Exhibit B-1, pp. 2-11 to 2-14)

It is BC Hydros expectations that even when the DCAT Project comes into service, some customers
will not have N-1 level of service. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 73; Exhibit B-30, BCPSO 4.4.1)
Only when the GDAT Project comes into service, will BC Hydro be able to meet the updated load
forecast on an N-1 basis. BC Hydro further states that the 102 MW Bear Mountain Wind Farm,
located approximately 15 km southwest from the City of Dawson Creek, cannot supply dependable
generation to satisfy load requirements because such generation is considered an intermittent
source due to the variable nature of wind. (Exhibit B-1, p. 2-13)

BC Hydro states the DCAT Project will increase the capacity from 70 MW to 185 MW under N-1
conditions and the N-0 capacity will increase to about 405 MW after the DCAT Project goes into
service. (Exhibit B-14, BCUC 2.17.1) BC Hydro further states that all new industrial loads requested
in the Dawson Creek area either have accepted or will accept load shedding under N-1 conditions,
and that any new load over 1 MW will be required to enter into a load shedding agreement.
(Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, pp. 7, 8)

In summary, BC Hydro states that the current load conditions significantly exceed system limits at
the required level of reliability for both near the term and long term anticipated growth and that
adding new transmission load in the Dawson Creek/Groundbirch area is not possible until a major
transmission project is added to the area. BC Hydro asserts that immediate action is required to
address the above constraints. Exhibit B-1, pp. 2-1, 2-11)

3.5

Applicability and Significance of the N-1 Service Standard

At issue is whether there is an obligation for BC Hydro to provide service under N-1 conditions to all
network connected loads in the Dawson Creek area, and how that obligation may apply to those
loads intended to be served by the DCAT Project. Is the proposed DCAT Project adequate to meet
the N-1 planning standards to which BC Hydro adheres, or must DCAT be considered along with

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 149 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

36

GDAT? In the latter case, there may be impacts on the project costs and the amount of security
deposit or contribution that the new customers must provide and/or make.

BC Hydro discusses the requirements of MRS TPL-002-0 (System Performance Following Loss of a
Single Bulk Electric System Element (Category B)) and TOP-002-2 (Normal Operations Planning),
and states that the BCUC has adopted the N-1 standard for service on the bulk transmission
system, as that standard is defined by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)
and the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC). (Exhibit B-22, Letter dated March 23,
2012, p. 6 of 11)

BC Hydro further states that where single element outages show impacts that do not meet the
N-1 planning standard, BC Hydro is required by the standard to have written plans that show how
the standard will be met in response to single element outage (N-1) events, including a schedule for
implementation of those plans, and a discussion of the expected in-service dates of facilities with
consideration of implementation lead times. In some situations, a capital project like the DCAT
Project is required to comply with these requirements. (Exhibit B-22, Letter dated March 23,
2012, p. 7of 11) BC Hydro states that based on existing load forecasts and transmission system
capacity constraints, some new customers would have to wait for further system reinforcements
beyond the DCAT Project i.e. GDAT - to be served under N-1 conditions. The GDAT Phase is not
included in this Application but options for design of the approach are addressed in it.
(Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, pp. 7-8)

BC Hydro submits that ...the DCAT Project alone will permit the five new customers to be served
when the system is in an N-0 condition as opposed to the N-1 reliability level required in the long
term. All are aware of this and have been informed of the requirement to sign Remedial Action
Scheme (RAS) agreements. Further, all new industrial loads requested in the Dawson Creek area
either have accepted or will accept load shedding under N-1 conditions and any new load over
1 MW will be required to enter into a load shedding agreement. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2,
pp. 7-8)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 150 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

37

BC Hydro further states it has advised all its bulk system customers that it expects service under
N-1 conditions will be accomplished through the Phase 2 GDAT project but that this approach is
dependent upon the Commission issuing a CPCN first for the DCAT Project and then for a GDAT
project. If the Commission declines to issue a CPCN for one or both of these projects, BC Hydro
indicates it will seek appropriate alternative ways to meet its obligation to serve these
customers. However, it also indicates that in that circumstance, service would be considerably
delayed. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 8)

The City of Dawson Creek concurs, stating that [t]he N-1 reliability standard has been adopted by
Commission Orders G-67-09, G-167-10, G-162-11 and G-175-11. It is the standard which Hydro is
legally obliged to supply, and which the rest of the Province routinely expects. (City of Dawson
Creek Final Submission, p. 2)

The CEC disagrees with this characterization, stating that apparently these customers are
demanding at considerable expense for the last increments of reliability. It submits that the twophased approach is BC Hydros response to the rapidly emerging requirements and its limitations in
bringing the planning along at the same time. (CEC Final Submission, p. 25) However, the CEC does
not believe this should be a reason for denying the CPCN. The second phase GDAT project or some
alternatives will be needed and it is sufficient to proceed with the DCAT CPCN in anticipation of
solving the standard of service problems later. This is particularly true given the high level of
reliability of the transmission lines and the customer willingness to proceed with load shedding
schemes in place as part of their terms of service until other steps can be taken. (CEC Final
Submission, p. 18)

Commission Determination

The Commission Panel observes that comingling the formal obligatory requirements contained in
Mandatory Reliability Standards TPL-002-0 and TOP-002-2 with a concept termed the N-1 planning
standard, or similar variations, is not helpful to advancing the understanding of the requirements
contained in the MRS. In particular, the Panel notes Commission Order G-167-10 adopts Standard
TPL-002-0 which requires that the system remain stable with thermal and voltage limits within

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 151 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

38

acceptable ratings, with no loss of demand or curtailment of firm transfers, and no cascading
outages, when an event on the transmission system results in the loss of a single element.
Footnote (b) to Table 1 of Standard TPL-002-0 allows for controlled interruption of some local
Network customers in the event of single contingencies:
b)
Planned or controlled interruption of electric supply to radial customers
or some local Network customers, connected to or supplied by the Faulted
element or by the affected area, may occur in certain areas without impacting
the overall reliability of the interconnected transmission systems. To prepare for
the next contingency, system adjustments are permitted, including curtailments
of contracted Firm (non-recallable reserved) electric power Transfers.
The Commission Panel also notes that Standard TPL-002-0a, which has superseded Standard
TPL-002-0 by virtue of Order G-162-11, is consistent with the foregoing.

In the supplemental evidence, BC Hydro clearly stated that under MRS it is required to serve all its
network-connected bulk customers to the N-1 standard and would accomplish that objective
through the GDAT project. Until that time BC Hydro is remaining compliant by relying on the ability
to implement controlled load shedding. The Commission Panel considers the continued use of such
schemes an acceptable and compliant procedure until such time as system reinforcements or other
circumstance no longer require their use, provided such schemes do not threaten the Bulk Electric
System or cause a cascading outage to occur.

The Commission Panel agrees the GDAT project is necessary to provide N-1 service to the
customers that have implemented post-contingency load shedding schemes, but disagrees that the
GDAT project is required for compliance with MRS.

Should the fact that the DCAT Project provides for an increase in load, but does not meet the N-1
level of reliability, be grounds for denying the CPCN? The Panel agrees with the CEC and is
persuaded that this is insufficient reason to deny the CPCN. However, the service provided to the
five new industrial customers by the DCAT Project creates issues for this or future Panels to
consider as discussed in Section 8.3.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 152 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

39

Accordingly, the Panel determines that, with appropriate load shedding agreements, DCAT will
provide the required reliability, regardless of whether the GDAT project is completed in a timely
fashion. BC Hydro has stated its intention to proceed with GDAT, and has claimed a mandatory
obligation to do so. The merits and need for the GDAT project are not before this Commission
Panel to consider.

3.6

Load Resource Balances and Urgency

In this section, the Panel considers to what extent does the urgency of serving Dawson Creek area
load contribute to the selection of DCAT Project as the preferred alternative - because of its earlier
in-service date as compared to the other alternatives?

3.6.1 Load Resource Balance


The value of incremental energy can be a factor in both the comparison of alternatives and the
assessment of rate impact, and because the value of incremental energy is dependent on the load
resource balance, the load resource balance needs to be considered.

BC Hydro initially took the position that the cost of energy to serve incremental customer loads in
the DCAT Project area is not relevant to the decision to approve the Application, because the
energy cost to serve load is generally common to all alternatives, and should therefore not be
included in the analysis. (Exhibit B-14, BCUC 2.25.2) Nevertheless, BC Hydro stated that it would
value the incremental energy required to supply the forecasted load at $129/MWh. (Exhibit B-14,
BCUC 2.25.1) This value is based on the 2009 Clean Power Call Report updated to 2011 constant
dollars. (Exhibit B-1, p. 3-9, Appendix B, p. 31)

In Exhibit B-22, BC Hydro changed the value of the incremental energy from $129/MWh to the
plant gate price of $116/MWh, apparently in recognition that a significant amount of the energy
acquisitions in the Clean Power Call were from the Peace River region in proximity to the DCAT
Project. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 36; Exhibit B-30-1, CEC 4.17.2)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 153 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

40

Subsequent to the change in the definition of self-sufficiency from critical water to average water
conditions brought into effect by the Electricity Self Sufficiency Regulation and SD No. 10, BC Hydro
again revised the value of the incremental energy because BC Hydro is forecast to be in a surplus
condition until at least F2017. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, pp. 35, 36) As long as the system is in a
surplus condition, BC Hydro forecasted the value of the incremental energy to be $50/MWh and
after the surplus is exhausted, the value is then $116/MWh.

BC Hydro provided its assessment of both energy and capacity load resource balance for two cases:
with and without the incremental load from the Douglas Channel Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
facility and the Kitimat LNG facility (the Initial LNG loads). The energy balance is summarized in
Table 3.3 below.
Table 3.3

Energy Surplus/Deficit

GWh

F2017

F2021

F2026

F2031

Surplus/(Deficit) with Initial LNG

(761)

(4,935)

(7,367)

(12.478)

Surplus/(Deficit) without Initial LNG

3,039

346

(2,087)

(7,197)

Source: Exhibit B-30-1, CEC 4.17.9, CEC 4.16.2

BC Hydro stated the system will still be in surplus until F2017 with the Kitimat LNG load. BC Hydro
further noted that it does not anticipate incurring any incremental costs to acquire energy for the
LNG customers until F2017 at the earliest, and not until F2022 without the Kitimat LNG load.
(Exhibit B-30, BCUC 4.7.2)

The balance for the system peak capacity for the same two cases is summarized in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4

Capacity Surplus/Deficit

MW

F2017

F2021

F2026

F2031

Surplus/(Deficit) with Initial LNG

(936)

(1,167)

(1,697)

(2,436)

Surplus/(Deficit) without Initial LNG

(255)

(486)

(1,017)

(1,756)

Source: Exhibit B-30-1, CEC 4.17.9

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 154 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

41

As discussed in a later section, the load resource balance affects the selection of the preferred
alternative through the value assigned to system losses, which is driven by the surplus condition of
the energy load resource balance, and not the capacity deficit.

CEC submits that given the governments new LNG policy of allowing natural gas generation for the
LNG facilities to be categorized as clean energy, the significant and long duration of surplus would
appear to be closer to being a certainty. (CEC Final Submission, p. 11)

3.6.2 Urgency of the System Upgrade


As noted earlier, BC Hydro stated that it is necessary to upgrade the regional transmission system
as soon as possible because the transmission system cannot currently serve the entire peak load
with a single transmission element taken out of service (N-1) and is forecasted to not be able to
support the peak load with all transmission elements in service (N-0) in the winter of 2013/14.
(Exhibit B-1, p. 2-1)

In its Forecast Update, BC Hydro states that updated load forecast suggested that load can be
expected to ramp up a little more slowly over 2012 and 2013, but then rise to a higher and more
sustained peak. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 35) Currently there is a queue forming for both
distribution and transmission service requests and all new industrial loads greater than 1 MW
requested in the Dawson Creek area either have accepted or will accept load shedding under N-1
conditions. Any new load over 1 MW will be required to enter into a load shedding agreement.
(Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, pp. 7, 8)

However, in the absence of a supply reinforcement, BC Hydro stated that natural gas production
development is unlikely to be significantly affected by the ability of BC Hydro to provide electrical
service to gas producers, because in the absence of sufficient electrical supply, gas producers have
an option of self-supplying their energy needs by consuming natural gas. (Exhibit B-6, CEC 1.18.1)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 155 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

42

Commission Determination
The Commission Panel finds that a project is required to resolve constraints in the existing 138kV
Transmission System in the Dawson Creek area, to serve significant load growth, and to move
toward reliable service. Accordingly, the need has been justified pending further findings in this
Decision.
The Panel also finds that the need for the DCAT Project has a number of drivers, among them, the
pace of load addition and the need to reliably serve the load consistent with MRS standards. With
respect to the pace of load addition, the Commission Panel notes that the large increase in Gas
Producer load will only occur if electricity is available. In the absence of sufficient electrical supply,
the Gas Producers will likely self-supply energy and the pace of natural gas development in the
region would not be affected, although the Other Load would still materialize.
The Commission Panel accepts BC Hydros load forecast and notes it has been revised by
BC Hydro using the best available known information. However, there are risks to the load
forecast which may arise from future natural gas prices as highlighted in Section 3.3.

As previously discussed, with respect to the requirement to remain compliant with the MRS as a
driver of the urgency of the DCAT Project, the Commission Panel notes BC Hydros ability to
implement remedial action schemes/load shedding strategies, in response to system contingencies
in order to preserve service to the remaining connected loads, is a compliant response.
Furthermore, the Panel notes that four of the five new industrial customers appear to have made
temporary arrangements for at least a portion of their respective requirements to manage until the
DCAT Project is built. Air Liquide Canada, which does not have that option, should be able to
receive service from BC Hydro in the short term within the existing system.

Therefore, the Commission Panel is not persuaded that the DCAT Project, while needed,
necessarily must be in service by April 30, 2014. Furthermore, the Commission Panel is not
convinced that the need to provide N-1 service to all connected load by a certain date is in itself
useful or determinative in selecting one alternative over another. This will be addressed further in
Section 5.0.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 156 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

43

4.0

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This section discusses the major components of the proposed Project and reviews the transmission
line route and station site selections.

4.1

Project Components and Infrastructure

BC Hydro states the Project is comprised of the following elements:

a new 230/138 kV SLS having provision for eight 230 kV line bays, one 230/138 kV power
transformer and two 138 kV line bays. Existing 230 kV line 2L312 from Sukunka Substation
(SNK) to Tembec Substation (LAP) will be connected to SLS in an in/out arrangement. The
existing 138 kV line 1L358 from CWD will terminate at SLS rather than BMT;

an approximately 60 km in length 230 kV double circuit steel pole transmission line from the
new SLS to BMT;

an approximately 13 km in length, 230 kV double circuit steel pole transmission line from
BMT to DAW operated at 138 kV and located on a new ROW;

BMT will be converted from a 138 kV switching station to a 230/138 kV substation. In


addition to the four 138 kV lines which connect to BMT, it will have two 230 kV line bays,
two 230/138 kV power transformers and one more 138 kV line bay;

DAW will be expanded to add one more 138 kV line bay and complete the 138 kV bus ring
arrangement;

the existing 138 kV transmission line 1L362, which runs between DAW and BMT, will be
decommissioned and removed; and

approximately 55 km of existing 138 kV transmission line 1L358 will be decommissioned and


removed between SLS and the transmission tap off 1L358 to the customer owned
Kiskatinaw Substation (KIS). This tap is located approximately 5 km west of BMT.

(Exhibit B-1, p. 4-1)


4.2

230 kV Transmission Lines


4.2.1. Proposed Structure and Conductors

BC Hydro provides that the structure selection for the new 230 kV transmission lines, which include
the 230 kV lines from SLS to BMT (2L329 and 2L333) and the lines from BMT to DAW (1L362 and
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 157 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

44

1L350 (constructed to 230 kV standard and operated at 138 kV), considered the following
parameters:

potential impacts to land use, including agricultural operations, environment, other


infrastructure, and potential archaeological areas, resulting from number of structures,
footprint, structure support and right-of-way requirements;

sharing of existing ROW with respect to existing lines 1L358 and 2L312;

capital costs;

construction considerations including access requirements and vegetation removal;

maintenance considerations including vegetation; and

aesthetic considerations.

(Exhibit B-1, p. 4-2)

Various structures, based on BC Hydro standards, specifications and designs, were considered for
use in the Project. These included single circuit (H-frame, steel monopole, steel lattice tower) and
double circuit (steel lattice tower, compact steel monopole, and steel monopole). (Exhibit B-1,
p. 4-2)

Double circuit steel monopoles have been selected by BC Hydro as the typical structure for the
Project for the following key reasons: significantly lower number of structures, two circuits on one
set of structures, reduced ROW requirements, minimal guy wire support, smaller footprint resulting
in less environmental and land use impacts and lower life cycle costs. Alternative tower designs
will be used in some areas after special consideration. The required evaluation will be conducted in
consultation with landowners while considering engineering, cost and maintenance. A typical
230 kV double circuit steel monopole structure with davit arms and a compact monopole structure
respectively are shown in Figure 4-1 below. (Exhibit B-1, p. 4-3)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 158 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

45

Figure 4-1

230 kV Steel Monopoles

Source: Exhibit B-1, p. 4-4


The preferred conductor (duplex Drake) was selected to comply with BC Hydro and CSA standards.
This selection considered a combination of factors such as conductor sag, audible noise, radio
interference and conductor strength. (Exhibit B-1, p. 4-6)

BC Hydro indicates the proposed line will have overhead ground wires (about 9.1 mm in diameter)
for the first three spans or 500 m (whichever is greater) from each substation to mitigate the
effects of lightning strikes, as per BC Hydro practice. To provide effective shielding and minimize
the height of the poles, it is proposed to attach the overhead ground wire to short davit arms
extending from the pole centre. (Exhibit B-1, p. 4-4)

BC Hydro further explains that telecommunications between stations in the transmission system is
required to protect and control the transmission system. To enable telecommunications between
SLS, BMT and DAW, the proposed transmission line will include fiber optic cable hung on the poles
under the primary conductors. (Exhibit B-1, p. 4-4) In addition to the fiber optic cable strung on
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 159 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

46

the transmission structures, the communication network will require the construction of a passive
microwave radio reflector about 2.5 km west of CWD substation as shown in Figure 4-2 below. The
site is located on Crown land and is approximately 0.4 ha in size. A passive reflector consists of a
support structure approximately 15 m in height, mounted with a billboard approximately 8 by
12 feet that will reflect microwave communication signals from the new SLS substation to the
existing CWD substation. The layout of the reflector station will include space for a helipad. A total
of approximately 50 m x 50 m of cleared area is required to accommodate the reflector and the
helipad. (Exhibit B-1-3, p. 4-19; Exhibit B-22, Appendix A, p. 2 of 19)
Figure 4-2

Proposed Location of the Passive Reflector Site

Source: Exhibit B-1-3, p. 4-19-A

4.2.2 Right-of-Way Requirements


Typical ROW requirements for each of the structure types to be used in construction of the 230 kV
lines are shown in Figure 4-1 above. BC Hydro notes the existing 138 kV ROW (for lines 1L362 and
1L358) is generally 18 m in width, although it is less in some areas, particularly where the line is
located within road allowance. The average ROW width required for the Project 230 kV line, at
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 160 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

47

spans of about 300 m to 400 m, would be approximately 33 m. Where the new line will be located
next to one of the existing 138 kV lines, there is a reduction in the required new ROW width due to
overlap, thus the additional ROW required will be approximately 26 m. The existing 230 kV ROW
(for line 2L312) is about 35 m wide. Where the new line is located parallel to 2L312, the required
ROW widening will be approximately 22 m. (Exhibit B-1, p. 4-5)

4.2.3 Clearing Requirements


BC Hydro states transmission line ROWs must be cleared to prevent flashovers and possible safety
issues due to growing/falling vegetation. All trees within the ROW will be cleared, which is
estimated to be approximately 130 hectares or 320 acres. One time clearing of additional danger
trees outside of the ROW may also be required for the initial line construction and to ensure safe
operation of the line. (Exhibit B-1, p. 4-5, Appendix F, p. 21)

4.2.4 Access Requirements


BC Hydro states ground access is required for clearing, construction and maintenance of the
transmission line. This includes access to structure locations, marshalling areas and installation
set-up sites. After completion of construction, access will be required for maintenance activities
only. (Exhibit B-1, p. 4-6)

BC Hydro further notes there are major forest service roads, public and private roads and access
trails along the route. Its preference is to use existing access to the extent feasible. If required,
small extensions from existing roads and trails will be built during the construction of the
transmission line. BC Hydro plans to maintain natural barriers, where possible, to limit continuous
access on the ROW and does not plan to construct any bridges over any major creeks or waterways
along the ROW. It will also develop a construction environmental management plan (EMP) that
addresses environmental concerns with respect to access requirements and construction within
the ROW. (Exhibit B-1, p. 4-6)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 161 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

48

4.3

Transmission Lines Route Selection


4.3.1 Route Selection Process

BC Hydro states that to facilitate evaluation of route options, the route from BMT to the new SLS
substation was divided into three segments:

East Segment - DAW to BMT;

Central Segment - BMT to east of the Pine River; and

West Segment - East of the Pine River to SLS.

BC Hydro explains that route options were developed for the proposed new line within each
segment and route options were evaluated also within each segment. An overview of the route
options and the preferred overall route is shown in the Figure 4-3 below. (Exhibit B-1, pp. 4-7 to
4-13)
Figure 4-3

Route Options Map

Source: Exhibit B-1, p. 4-7

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 162 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

49

BC Hydro states the route evaluation is based on a number of objectives, which include minimizing
potential impacts to the environment and private landowners, First Nation interests, archaeological
sites, project cost, reducing project construction and schedule risk, and maximizing maintainability.
Criteria were developed against these objectives; they include construction cost, length of line and
number of poles, constructability and access, potential impact on wildlife and riparian habitat,
amount of private and Crown land, existing dwellings located near the line, First Nations
consultation, and archaeological potential or location of known archaeological sites. The route
options within each segment were evaluated against these criteria. (Exhibit B-1, p.4-7 to 4-8)

BC Hydro asserts that, on balance, the differences in the criteria used to compare the options did
not identify an option that was superior to the other options and therefore the lowest cost option
was selected in each of the three segments. BC Hydro also states that statutory ROW, over both
crown land and private land, will be required and BC Hydro will continue to work on the detailed
engineering design and begin ROW acquisition to finalize the alignment in time for construction.
(Exhibit B-1, pp. 4-9 to 4-14)

4.3.2 Route Update


On March 23, 2012 BC Hydro filed updated information regarding the route selection. It stated
that as the result of ongoing design work, the route has shifted slightly in some locations since the
CPCN application was filed in July 2011. The three route segment maps in Exhibit B-1-3,
Appendix D, (maps iv, v and vi) illustrate the following changes. (Exhibit B-1-3, p. 4-14)
(a) West Segment East of Pine River Crossing The route has shifted slightly further north
resulting in a straighter line and less clearing.
(b) Central Segment Groundbirch Area - during the route investigation, BC Hydro identified
several sub-options in the Groundbirch area, and initially selected the route that maintained
a straight east-west line. However, subsequent geotechnical investigations have shown
that the ground is unstable in that area, so BC Hydro is reverting to a route that more
closely follows the route of the existing 138kV transmission line.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 163 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

50

(c) Central Segment - Kiskatinaw River Crossing geotechnical investigations have shown that
the ground may be unstable at the original planned river crossing, so a route north of the
bridge is being investigated.
(Exhibit B-1-3, p. 4-14)

Subject to the above refinements BC Hydro proposes to build the 230 kV transmission line from SLS
to BMT and from BMT to DAW using the Preferred Route Corridor as shown in Figure 4-3 above.

4.4

Existing 138 kV Line Decommissioning

BC Hydro states that once the new 230 kV transmission lines are in place, the existing 1L362 and
1L358 lines will not be required to serve load in the Dawson Creek area. To minimize Project
footprint and environmental fragmenting, and to reduce ongoing operations and maintenance
costs, the lines, where appropriate, will be decommissioned and removed. Line 1L362, which runs
between BMT and DAW, will be removed along its entire length. Except for 5 km of line from BMT
to a customer tap and the portion of the line from CWD to the new SLS substation, 1L358 will be
decommissioned. Lines 1L362, and the decommissioned portion of 1L358, will be removed and
salvaged in 2014, after the Project transmission lines are fully commissioned. (Exhibit B-1, p. 4-15)

BC Hydro explained that retaining those portions of 138kV transmission lines that are designated
for decommissioning would be undesirable because of the negative landowner impacts associated
with maintenance activities, negative ratepayer impacts associated with maintaining the lines, and
the cost of an attentive maintenance program and eventual replacement of the lines because they
are approximately 40 years old. Therefore, in most cases, unneeded portions of transmission lines
are decommissioned rather than retained for future use. (Exhibit B-5, BCUC 1.17.7)

4.5

Sundance Lakes Substation

BC Hydro explains the proposed SLS substation, as shown in Figure 4-4 below, will be located at
the intersection of circuits 2L312 and 1L358, and is required for interconnection of the 138 kV and
230 kV transmission systems, associated transformation and termination of the new 230 kV
transmission lines. (Exhibit B-1, p. 4-15) BC Hydro further states it investigated two sites for

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 164 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

51

location of SLS. The proposed Site 2 location, which is on Crown land, will not require re-routing of
the existing transmission lines. SLS will require clearing and grading of an approximately 263 m x
324 m area to accommodate the ultimate size of the substation over the 30 year planning period
(DCAT, GDAT and beyond). For the DCAT Project, the station itself will comprise a chain link fenced
area of approximately 266 m x 218 m with a gravel surface inside the fenced area and extending
2 m outside the fence. A cleared buffer, approximately 29 m on the north and south, and 21 m on
the east and west, will surround the fence. The north side of the substation will have an 80 m x
29 m parking area. A 20 m wide road/driveway will provide access to the substation from Highway
97. (Exhibit B-1-3, p. 4-16)
Figure 4-4

SLS Study Area and Site Options

Source: Exhibit B-1, p. 4-19

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 165 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

52

4.5.1 Technical Requirements


BC Hydro states SLS will be a 230/138 kV transformation station initially having the following:

4 x 230 kV line bays two for in/out of 2L3121 and two for the new
230 kV circuits 2L329 and 2L333 to BMT;

1 x 230/138 kV power transformer;

1 x 138 kV line bays for in/out of 1L358;2

For the DCAT

230 kV and 138 kV circuit breakers

Phase

Associated disconnect switches, surge arresters and


instrument transformers;

Standby diesel generator;

Telecom tower; and

Control building (10m x 20m).

(Exhibit B-1, pp. 4-15 to 4-16, B-1-3, p. 4-15)

BC Hydro notes the station is being developed to accommodate the ultimate planned
configuration, including the following equipment:

4 x 230 kV line bay;

2 x 230 kV capacitor banks;

2 x 230/138 kV power transformers;

For the GDAT and

2 x 138 kV line bays;

Future Phases

2 x 138 kV capacitor banks;

2 x 138/25 kV power transformers; and

25 kV feeder section having 12 outgoing feeders.

(Exhibit B-1, pp. 4 -16 to 4-17, B1-3, p. 4-16)

After the Project is in service, line 2L312 will be renamed to 2L312 for the section from SNK to SLS and 2L330 for the section
from SLS to LAP.
Following decommissioning of a portion of 1L358, one bay would be available for future interconnection needs.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 166 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

53

4.6

Bear Mountain Terminal Substation


4.6.1 Technical Description and Site Selection

BMT is located on the south side of Highway 97 approximately 12 km west of Dawson Creek as
shown in Figure 4-5 below. Currently BMT is a four circuit breaker ring arrangement connected to
4 x 138 kV lines. The lines include 1L358 (to CWD), 1L362 (to DAW), 1L354 (to, Bear Mountain
Wind Park) and 1L355 (privately owned line to oil and gas facilities). The dimensions of the existing
station fence line are 66 m x 66 m. (Exhibit B-1, p. 4-19)

BC Hydro describes the BMT site requirements as:

2 x 230 kV line bays (for new lines to SLS);

2 x 230/138 kV power transformers;

2 x 138 kV line bays (for existing lines);

1 x 138 kV line bay (for new line to DAW);

1 x 138 kV line bay (provision for future).

3 x 230 kV line bays;

2 x 230 kV capacitor banks;

1 x 230/138 kV power transformers;

For the GDAT and Future

1 x 138 kV line bay;

Phases

2 x 138 kV capacitor banks;

2 x 138/25 kV power transformers; and

25 kV gas insulated switchgear feeder section.

For the DCAT Phase

(Exhibit B-1-3, p. 4-20)

BC Hydro states that BMT is located in an area of privately owned properties and that it studied
three options for the placement of the substation as shown in Figure 4-5.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 167 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

54

Figure 4-5

BMT Expansion Layout Options

Source: Exhibit B-1-3, p. 4-21-A


BC Hydro notes that its evaluation of the three layout options considered a number of factors
including land requirements, visibility, constructability, outages, safety and reliability, and cost.
Option 1 is to expand to the west and south of BMT. Option 2 requires connections to the existing
BMT station via overhead tie lines and underground control cable connections. Option 3 is to
construct an entirely new station and dismantle the existing BMT.

Option 3 was determined to be infeasible due to its significantly higher cost and land requirements
for the lines coming in and out of the station. Option 2 has a higher cost than Option 1, requires
more land, and has the complications of the tie lines between the existing BMT and the expanded
area that would result in construction complexities, additional construction outages, and live line
work. Therefore, BC Hydro selected Option 1 as the preferred layout option for the BMT expansion
because of the reduced cost, minimal land requirements, and reduced construction risk.
(Exhibit B-1-3, pp. 4-21-A, 4-21-B)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 168 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

55

4.6.2 Submissions by Parties


CSI submits that if the proposed BMT expansion is to serve new load, the substation design team
has not taken into account good planning practices relating to location selection. It stated that
generally, a substation should provide power supply to all customers within a maximum of about
20 to 35 km radius. In contrast, CSI submits the proposed BMT expansion would require that each
future customer build dedicated long lines (greater than 30 km) for service. On the other hand, if
the main purpose of the substation design and planning was to provide service to the Bear
Mountain Wind Power IPP (BMW), then CSI believes that the proposed substation is correctly
located. Furthermore, DCAT planners terminated the 230 kV line at BMT as this is the point of
interconnection with BMW and the substation is already owned by BC Hydro. For these reasons
CSI submits it was expedient for BC Hydro to presume load customers would connect to the grid at
this location, despite the distance from the major industrial load center. (CSI Final Submission,
pp. 2-3)

In reply, BC Hydro submits there is no evidence to support this allegation and CSIs position ignores
some key evidence. First, CSI seems to assume that all customers will be required to interconnect
through the BMT substation. BC Hydro submits that is not correct. In several instances, points of
interconnection are still being determined and the system reinforcement plan by BC Hydro will
accommodate a broad variety of interconnection points. Some customers may choose to
interconnect along the line rather than routing through a system substation and BC Hydro has not
precluded those solutions where they are technically appropriate. The evidence demonstrates that
Shell is considering that option and it may be available to other customers as they come forward.
(BC Hydro Reply Submission, p. 11)

Second, BC Hydro submits more generally with respect to CSIs observations concerning BMT, there
is no evidentiary basis for suggesting that the BMT expansion was chosen to accommodate the
Bear Mountain Wind IPP. The evidence shows that the BMT expansion was carefully planned in the
context of BC Hydros normal planning process and BC Hydros system planners concluded that at
this time, expansion of that plant was the most effective way to address future needs. CSI has
provided no basis to conclude otherwise. BC Hydro also points out that none of the customers that
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 169 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

56

stand to be affected by this planning decision take any issue with the expansion of BMT. (BC Hydro
Reply Submission, p. 12)
4.7

Dawson Creek Substation

BC Hydro states DAW is located on the western edge of the town of Dawson Creek, near
Highway 97. Currently it is a 138/25 kV substation with 2 x 138 kV lines bays, 4 x 138kV capacitor
banks, 3 x 138/25 kV power transformers, a 25 kV feeder section and 2 x 25 kV capacitor banks.
The transmission lines currently connected to DAW include 1L362 (to BMT) and 1L377 (to TAY).
(Exhibit B-1, p. 4-21)

BC Hydro describes the DAW configuration changes as:

addition of a1 x 138 kV line bay;

138 kV bus reconfigured to a ring arrangement;

4 x 230 kV line bays;

Possible Future

2 x 230/138 kV power transformers.

Phases

DCAT

BC Hydro states that the existing 1L362 will be decommissioned and a new 230 kV double circuit
transmission line operated at 138 kV will be constructed on a new ROW for possible future
conversion of the transmission lines from BMT to DAW substation to 230 kV. (Exhibit B-1, p. 4-2
and 4-15) Two private parcels located next to DAW were purchased in late 2010 to accommodate
future station expansion. (Exhibit B-1, p. 4-22)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 170 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

57

5.0

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
5.1

Introduction

In addition to the DCAT Project discussed in the previous section, BC Hydro provided an analysis for
a number of alternatives to the proposed Project (Alternative 1) throughout the proceeding. This
section reviews the alternatives analyzed by BC Hydro, with a view to determining whether the
proposed Project is the appropriate alternative.

5.1.1 Alternative 2
Alternative 2 substitutes a 138kV transmission line between the proposed new SLS substation and
BMT substation instead of a 230kV double circuit transmission line, with a static VAR compensator
(SVC) at BMT. BC Hydro provides a technical description of Alternative 2 as shown in the following
Figure 5-0.
Figure 5-0

Alternative 2: SLS-BMT 138kV Transmission Line

Source: Exhibit B-1, Figure 3-2, p. 3-6

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 171 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

58

5.1.2 Alternative B1
BC Hydro introduced Alternative B1 in response to a number of information requests, and its
defining difference is the relocation of the proposed new SLS substation to the Groundbirch area.
(Exhibit B-14, BCUC 2.1.1; Exhibit A-21, BCUC 3.2.1) The technical scope of Alternative B1 is
summarized by BC Hydro and is reflected in the following figure:
Figure 5-1

Alternative B1

Source: Exhibit B-1, Figure 3-2, p. 3-6; Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 39-40

5.1.3 Alternative B2
Alternative B2 is identical to the proposed project in the DCAT phase. In the next phase (GDAT),
the second 230kV transmission line source from the west to the proposed new SLS substation does
not come from SNK substation, but rather from the proposed new Wildmare (WDM) substation.
The scope of Alternative B2 as described by BC Hydro is shown in the following figure:
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 172 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

59

Figure 5-2

Alternative B2

Source: Exhibit B-1, Figure 3-2, p. 3-6; Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 41


5.1.4 Alternative B3
In Alternative B3, the proposed new SLS substation is relocated to the Groundbirch area, and is
supplied from the west by a 230kV double circuit transmission line from the proposed new WDM
substation. The proposed new 230kV double circuit transmission line supplies both the LAP
substation by way of a tap and a new 230kV/25kV substation at Chetwynd. This allows for the
decommissioning of the existing CWD substation, the 138kV transmission lines 1L361 and 1L358,
and the 230kV transmission line 2L312 between SNK substation and the tap point near the LAP
substation.

As with Alternative B2, BC Hydro first provided an analysis for a configuration similar to Alternative
B3 in the responses to the second round of information requests. (Exhibit B-14, BCUC 2.5.2, 2.8.1,
2.8.1.1) The scope of Alternative B3 as described by BC Hydro is shown in the following figure:
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 173 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

60

Figure 5-3

Alternative B3

Source: Exhibit B-1, Figure 3-2, p. 3-6; Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, pp. 42-43
5.1.5 Alternative B4
In Alternative B4, the proposed new SLS substation is relocated to the Groundbirch area, and is
supplied from the west by a 230kV double circuit transmission line from the proposed new WDM
substation. The proposed new 230kV double circuit transmission line supplies both the LAP
substation by way of a tap and a new 230kV/138kV substation at Chetwynd, which in turn supplies
the existing 138kV/25kV CWD substation. This allows for the decommissioning of the 138kV
transmission lines 1L361 and 1L358, and the 230kV transmission line 2L312 between SNK
substation and the tap point near the LAP substation.

BC Hydro introduced Alternative B4 in response to an information request. (Exhibit A-21,


BCUC 3.4.1) The scope of Alternative B4 as described by BC Hydro is shown in the following figure:

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 174 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

61

Figure 5-4

Alternative B4

Source: Exhibit B-1, Figure 3-2, p. 3-6; Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, pp. 44-45
5.1.6 Alternative B5
In Alternative B5, the proposed new SLS substation is relocated to the Groundbirch area, and is
supplied from the west by a 230kV double circuit transmission line from the proposed new WDM
substation. The proposed new 230kV double circuit transmission line also supplies a new
230kV/138kV substation at Chetwynd, which in turn supplies the existing 138kV/25kV CHW
substation. This allows for the decommissioning of the 138kV transmission lines 1L361 and 1L358.

BC Hydro also introduced Alternative B5 in response to an information request. (Exhibit A-21,


BCUC 3.4.1) The scope of Alternative B5, as described by BC Hydro, is shown in the following
figure:

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 175 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

62

Figure 5-5

Alternative B5

Source: Exhibit B-1, Figure 3-2, p. 3-6; Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 46


5.1.7 Alternative G1
In Alternative G1, none of the components of the proposed project remain. Instead, 150 MW of
new gas-fired generation is installed near Dawson Creek and connected to the DAW and BMT
substations by two new 138 kV transmission lines. A new single circuit 230 kV transmission line,
tapped off transmission line 2L312 near LAP substation, supplies a new 230 kV substation in the
Groundbirch area.

The scope of Alternative G1 is as follows:

150 MW of new gas-fired generation (three 50 MW combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT)
units) at a new 138kV substation, Dawson Creek Generating Station (DWG);

two new 6 km 138kV transmission lines from the proposed new DWG to BMT and the DAW
substation;

a new 30 km 230kV transmission line a tap on the 2L312 transmission line near LAP
substation to a new 230kV customer substation in the Groundbirch area.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 176 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

63

Figure 5-6

Alternative G1

Source: Exhibit B-1, Figure 3-2, p. 3-6; Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, pp. 47-48
5.1.8 Alternative G2
In Alternative G2, as with Alternative G1, none of the components of the proposed project remain.
Instead, 300 MW of new gas-fired generation is installed near Dawson Creek and connected to the
DAW and BMT substations by two new 138 kV transmission lines. A new single circuit 230 kV
transmission line from the new generation station supplies a new 230 kV substation in the
Groundbirch area.

The scope of Alternative G2 is as follows:

300 MW of new gas-fired generation (four 50 MW CCGT units and one 100 MW single cycle
gas turbine (SCGT) unit) at a new 230kV/138kV substation (DWG) near Dawson Creek;

two new 6 km 138kV transmission lines from the proposed new DWG to BMT and the DAW
substation;

a new 30 km 230kV transmission line from the new DWG substation to a new 230kV
customer substation in the Groundbirch area.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 177 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

64

Figure 5-7

Alternative G2

Source: Exhibit B-1, Figure 3-2, p. 3-6; Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 48-49
5.1.9 Dismissed Alternatives

BC Hydro considers and dismisses a number of other options in addition to the alternatives
identified above. The dismissed options include (Exhibit B-1, Appendix B, System Planning Report,
Appendix A):

Build a 138kV transmission line from TAY substation to DAW substation, a new
230kV/138kV SLS substation at the intersection of 2L312 and 1L358, and a 110 mega volt
ampers reactive (MVAR) SVC at BMT;

Build a 138kV double circuit transmission line from GMS to Chetwynd, and continue this
138kV double circuit transmission line along the 1L358 corridor up to the Groundbirch area,
and from there, another 138 kV single circuit transmission line to BMT. This solution also
required more than 200 MVAR of shunt compensation and the upgrading of the GMS
500kV/138kV transformers;

Build a 230kV transmission line from TLR to 1L355 connected to a new 230kV/138kV
substation, and construct a new 230kV/138kV SLS substation at the intersection of 2L312
and 1L358;

Interconnection with Alberta, likely a 230kV transmission line would be required because of
the forecast Dawson Creek and Groundbirch area loads;
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 178 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

65

Power supply from Wind generation;

Power supply from Site C.

BC Hydro states that it reviewed each of the alternatives and commissioned a detailed analysis of
the gas generation alternatives, and concludes that the DCAT Project is still the preferred
alternative. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 37) In most cases, including the preferred alternative,
BC Hydro identifies the need for a further project in F2016, sometimes referred to as GDAT.
(Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 38)

5.2

Evaluation Criteria

BC Hydro evaluated each of the alternatives using the following criteria: direct capital cost;
transmission losses; Present Value (PV) cost; reliability; ROW and property requirements; and the
earliest in-service date for the initial phase. In some cases the evaluation was quantitative,
primarily for Alternative 2 and the generation-based alternatives. The majority of the evaluation
for the remainder of the transmission-based alternatives was relative to the DCAT Project and not
quantitative.

In addition to separately considering the direct capital cost and the value of transmission losses for
each alternative, BC Hydro combined these costs into an overall present value cost that also took
into account operation and maintenance costs and taxes. Fuel costs, greenhouse gas offset costs
and energy and capacity credits were considered for the generation alternatives.

In order to compare the DCAT Project on an equal footing with the generation based alternatives,
BC Hydro created a comparative portfolio consisting of the DCAT Project combined with a pro-rata
portion of a 250 MW CCGT generation resource located on the integrated system in the
Kelly-Nicola region. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 66)

BC Hydro stated that since firm energy requirements consist of customers load plus the loss
incurred to deliver that energy, losses should be valued at the firm energy cost. (Exhibit B-6,
CEC 1.26.2) As described earlier in this Decision, BC Hydro initially valued the incremental energy

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 179 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

66

resources to serve DCAT Project area loads at the firm energy cost of $129/MWh, then changed the
value to $116/MWh, and finally conditioned this value by stating that as long as the system is in a
surplus condition, the forecast value of firm energy was $50/MWh and after the surplus is
exhausted, the value is then $116/MWh. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, pp. 36-37)

For decommissioned transmission line sections, BC Hydro initially stated the decommissioning and
removal costs would be charged to operating costs and would not be capitalized. (Exhibit B-1,
Appendix C, footnote 4) It revised that approach, however, and will now book these costs to the
Future Removal and Site Restoration Account. (Exhibit B-1-3, Appendix C, Revision 2, footnote 4)

For the generation based alternatives, BC Hydro performed an analysis that considered fixed and
variable Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs for both the alternatives and the 250 MW CCGT
that was added to the DCAT Project portfolio. (Exhibit B-30-1, spreadsheet attachment to CEC
4.26.2) BC Hydro considers two natural gas price scenarios, a mid scenario at $7/GJ and a low
scenario at $5/GJ, both referenced to Station 2. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 64) Allowances for
GHG offset costs were included in the evaluation.

BC Hydro relied on the long-term natural gas price scenarios being used in development of its draft
IRP, and reproduced below:
Figure 5-8

Long-term Natural Gas Price Scenarios

Source: Exhibit B-30, AMPC 4.1.1

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 180 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

67

BC Hydro stated that it maintains the above scenarios but the low price scenario has been afforded
a greater weighting than it had when the 2010 Load Forecast was created. BC Hydro provided a
summary of past natural gas price forecast that shows a pronounced trend of lower future prices
for more recent forecasts as compared to older forecasts. (Exhibit B-30-1, CEC 4.14.2) This
summary is reproduced below in Figure 5-9.
Figure 5-9

Forecasts of Natural Gas Prices U.S. ave. Wellhead Prices

Source: Exhibit B-30-1, CEC 4.14.2


As was described in Section 3.6.1 of this Decision, the BC Hydro system is in a capacity deficit
position as early as F2017 even without additional LNG loads. BC Hydro recognized the addition of
system capacity associated with the generation based alternatives and the comparative DCAT
Project portfolio, as compared to the transmission based alternatives that did not provide any
additional capacity. A benefit was attributed to the options that added dependable capacity to the
BC Hydro system. Dependable capacity was credited at the unit capacity cost (UCC) of Revelstoke
Unit 6 (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 64) which is $55/kW-yr in $2011. (Exhibit B-30-1, CEC 4.17.3)

BC Hydro also assessed each of the alternatives for the ability to satisfy the N-1 planning standard
with regard to capacity and timing.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 181 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

68

5.3

Evaluation of Alternatives

BC Hydro summarizes its assessment of all the alternatives in Table 10 of Exhibit B-22,
Attachment 2, reproduced below:
Table 5.1

Project Alternatives

Source: Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 72


BC Hydro submits Alternative 1 has a lower present value cost, provides superior energy transfer
capability to serve the load growth, extra capacity to accommodate greater economic
development, lower losses, greater reliability, lower footprint with fewer structures and greater
reclamation from decommissioning as compared to Alternative 2 and is therefore the preferred
alternative. (BC Hydro Final Submission, pp. 13-15)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 182 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

69

In addition, BC Hydro submits the DCAT Project will be able to provide service to its existing
customers by April 30, 2014 (assuming a CPCN is issued by the end of September, 2012), and even
still, it appears that several customer plants will be awaiting BC Hydro service by that date.
BC Hydro reminds the Commission that it must consider and be guided by the governments
objective for BC Hydro to develop adequate electricity transmission infrastructure in time to serve
these customers and that the ability of the DCAT Project as proposed to provide service sooner
than most other alternatives is a significant factor in its favour. (BC Hydro Final Submission, p. 14)

BCPSO submits the apparent Net Present Value (NPV) cost advantage of the DCAT Project is not
firm and is dependent upon the load forecast chosen. BCPSO claims the evidence shows that the
NPV advantage of the DCAT Project over Alternative 2 disappears if the Dawson Creek area load
forecast is reduced by only 15 percent, and the load forecast assumptions, particularly over the
longer term, are critical to justify the choice of Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative. BCPSO
remains unconvinced that the forecast relied upon is reasonable in these circumstances. (BCPSO
Final Submission, p. 10)

CEC submits that the DCAT Project is the least cost option which can be delivered in a reasonable
time to meet the needs of the area customers. (CEC Final Submission, p. 5)

5.3.1 Alternative 2
The lower direct capital costs of Alternative 2 as compared to the DCAT Project are attributable to
the construction of 138 kV transmission lines instead of 230 kV double circuit transmission lines,
but the compromise of the lower cost is reduced maximum capability of Alternative 2 as compared
to the DCAT Project. (Exhibit B-1, pp. 3-8, 3-9)

BC Hydro provides a detailed analysis of system losses for the DCAT Project and Alternative 2.
(Exhibit B-1, Appendix B, p. 53) The original analysis shows that Alternative 2 has higher losses than
the DCAT Project for all years. In its update, BC Hydro states that as a result of the increased peak
load of the updated load forecast, the transmission losses of Alternative 2 would increase more
relative to the DCAT Project because losses on the 138 kV system would be higher but BC Hydro
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 183 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

70

does not quantify this increase. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 50) However, the decrease in the
value of losses because of the lower cost of energy in system surplus conditions appeared to
significantly reduce the overall cost of the losses for Alternative 2. Alternative 2 had a lower PV for
O&M and taxes than the DCAT Project by approximately $3 million. (Exhibit B-5, spreadsheet
attachment to BCUC 1.54.4)

BC Hydro provides a detailed evaluation and comparison of the present value cost of the DCAT
Project and Alternative 2, as summarized in the table below:
Table 5.2

Present Value (PV)

Source: Exhibit B-1, p. 3-8


In its update, BC Hydro states that the total PV cost of the DCAT Project and Alternative 2 are now
approximately the same, principally due to the change in the cost of energy that was applied to
transmission losses, but no quantitative data is provided. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 50)
BC Hydro cautions the update evaluation was performed using the original load forecast, and the
higher loads in the updated load forecast would be directionally worse for Alternative 2 as
compared to the DCAT Project because losses would increase faster for Alternative 2.

BC Hydro further states that the DCAT Project demonstrates better reliability performance than
Alternative 2, primarily based on lower Expected Energy Not Served (EENS) values as shown in the
table below:
Table 5.3

Expected Energy Not Supplied


Comparison in MWh/year

Source: Exhibit B-1, p. 3-10

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 184 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

71

However, the post-contingency supply capability of Alternative 2 is 207 MW (Exhibit B-1,


Appendix B, p. 46), which is greater than that for the DCAT Project at 185 MW. (Exhibit B-1,
Appendix B, p. 42) Nevertheless, BC Hydro claims that the DCAT Project is more capable of
meeting a higher load forecast than Alternative 2 (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 50), but
presumably only after the Phase 2 GDAT upgrades. BC Hydro provides further supply capability
performance for both alternatives following the Phase 2 GDAT project. (Exhibit B-1, p. 3-10) The
capability of the system for both the DCAT Project and Alternative 2 with all elements in service
(N-0) is about 405 MW. (Exhibit B-14, BCUC 2.17.1; Exhibit B-30, BCPSO 4.1.1)

BC Hydro provides a comparison of the land impacts of DCAT Project and Alternative 2.
(Exhibit B-1, pp. 3-11, 3-12) For substation land requirements, the additional 230kV/138kV
transformers at BMT for the DCAT Project result in a slightly greater footprint requirement at BMT
than Alternative 2. The substation requirements at DAW and SLS are similar for both options.
Alternative 2 has less transmission requirement than the DCAT Project, because although the same
number of ROWs are required for both alternatives, those for Alternative 2 are not as wide because
the transmission lines are 138 kV. BC Hydro states that differences pertaining to station and rightof-way land impacts were not material factors in selecting a preferred alternative.

Interveners Marilyn and Gary Robinson provided evidence that BC Hydros requirements at the
BMT substation would exceed commitments allegedly made by BC Hydro when it first acquired
rights over the Robinsons property in 2008 and 2009. (Exhibit C11-6, pp. 2-3) BC Hydro states that
it has addressed the Robinsons Information Requests, but that information has not been made
available in the proceeding record. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 89)

Finally, in the update, BC Hydro states that the construction of Alternative 2 could not meet the
required in-service date. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 50)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 185 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

72

5.3.2 Alternative B1
BC Hydro addresses elements of Alternative B1 that appear to be associated with the future
upgrades in F2016, also referred to as GDAT. BC Hydro states that in the F2016 stage, a second
230kV transmission line would be required between SNK and the tap point on 2L312, and that a
transmission route would have to be determined. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, pp. 39-40)

In its evaluation, BC Hydro states that Alternative B1 requires fewer 230kV circuit breakers than the
proposed project, but results in an extra 20 km of 138kV transmission line being retained, alongside
a new 230kV double circuit transmission line between the intersection of 2L312 and 1L358 and the
Groundbirch substation. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 40)

Alternative B1 has a lower direct capital cost than the DCAT Project, primarily because of the
reduced amount of station facilities associated with the elimination of the SLS substation.
(Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 51) During the planning stage, BC Hydro had insufficient
information to define the location for a single substation in the Groundbirch area, so it elected to
proceed with a two substation configuration, that, while more expensive, offered greater flexibility.

Although BC Hydro does not provide a quantitative PV comparison with the DCAT Project, it
acknowledges that the PV cost of Alternative B1 is lower than that of the proposed Project because
of lower direct capital cost arising from relocation of the proposed new SLS substation to the
Groundbirch area, even when the higher losses of Alternative B1 are considered. (Exhibit B-22,
Attachment 2, p. 51) BC Hydro rejected Alternative B1 during the planning stage because it was
unable to obtain sufficient information from the customer in the Groundbirch area about the
location of new loads to allow it to locate a site for a single substation. BC Hydro now has greater
certainty of both the location of Groundbirch area loads and the new substation, but states the
new Groundbirch substation site would likely not accommodate all the SLS facilities. Furthermore,
BC Hydro states its analysis shows Alternative B1 to have a larger footprint and potentially lower
transmission system reliability than the DCAT Project. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, pp. 51-52)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 186 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

73

BC Hydro claims that Alternative B1 had lower reliability than the DCAT Project because only one
substation would be built, causing the service to LAP substation to be less robust because of a tap
connection to transmission line 2L312, which in turn would also cause uneven loading on the
transmission lines. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 52)

BC Hydro states Alternative B1 has a larger footprint than the DCAT Project because the footprint
reduction associated with one substation instead of two is more than offset by the need to retain
an additional 20 km of the existing 1L358 138kV transmission line between the proposed sites of
the SLS substation and the Groundbirch substation. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 52) BC Hydro
asserts that the potential site for the Groundbirch substation may not be able to accommodate the
combined SLS and Groundbirch substation facilities and equipment.

BC Hydro does not provide an assessment of timing differences for Alternative B1 other than the
summary table in the update, which identifies a Late F2015 (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 72)
in-service date as compared to Early F2015 for the DCAT Project.

5.3.3 Alternative B2
BC Hydro again addresses elements of Alternative B2 that appear to be associated with future
upgrades in F2016, and compares these to the DCAT Project. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 41)
BC Hydro states the F2014 phase of Alternative B2 is identical to the DCAT Project and that the
studies for the F2016 stage are still ongoing and will consider the second phase 230 kV
transmission line routing as suggested in Alternative B2. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 53)

The lower direct capital cost of Alternative B2 as compared to the DCAT Project (Exhibit B-22,
Attachment 2, p. 72, Table 10) refers to the F2016 phase of the project, because the first phase is
identical to both. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 53)

BC Hydro does not provide much comment with respect to the performance characteristics of
Alternative B2, but since the configuration of the first phase is identical to the DCAT Project, any
differences will only arise at the F16 phase. Therefore, the losses, the O&M and tax costs, the total
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 187 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

74

PV, the reliability, the land impact, and the timing of Alternative B2 are the same as the DCAT
Project. BC Hydro does not provide any comparisons regarding the second phase associated with
each alternative other than a potential lower cost associated with Alternative B2. (Exhibit B-22,
Attachment 2, p. 53)

5.3.4 Alternative B3
BC Hydro states Alternative B3 is not practical because it eliminates a 138kV transmission line
(1L361) which would need to be replaced in the near future because the transmission lines
proposed in the F2016 stage of upgrading would not be able to provide post-contingency service to
the load in the Tumbler Ridge, Chetwynd, Groundbirch and Dawson Creek areas by F2017 or F2018.
(Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 43) BC Hydro claims the solution to this problem is another
transmission line either between GMS and WDM or between TAY and DAW. BC Hydro does not
provide any comparative analysis for Alternative B3 versus the DCAT Project because Alternative B3
is considered to be not feasible.

5.3.5 Alternative B4
Alternative B4 has higher direct capital costs than the DCAT Project, at least in the first phase,
primarily because of the construction of an additional 30 km of new 230kV double circuit
transmission line. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 54) Although BC Hydro acknowledges that
Alternative B4 required less 230kV transmission line for future upgrades, BC Hydro does not
provide any detailed analysis to support its conclusion that direct capital costs would remain higher
for Alternative B4, the estimates for which were order of magnitude estimates.

BC Hydro stated that the existing CWD substation would not accommodate a new 230 kV line
termination and a 230kV/138kV transformer, and that a new site would be required for the
230kV/138kV facilities. (Exhibit B-14, BCUC 2.5.2)

BC Hydro further stated the losses for Alternative B4 were similar to the DCAT Project, but did not
provide any support for this comparative statement. (Exhibit B-30, BCUC 4.4.9) Neither did
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 188 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

75

BC Hydro provide specific comment regarding the change in losses for supplying the CWD
substation with a close-coupled 230kV supply rather than a 138 kV transmission line. (Exhibit B-30,
BCUC 4.4.6, 4.4.6.1)

BC Hydro does not provide any assessment of the PV of O&M and taxes for Alternative B4.
BC Hydro does not provide quantitative total PV comparisons between the DCAT Project and
Alternative B4 and states only that Alternative B4 has a higher total PV cost than the DCAT Project
because of higher order of magnitude estimated direct costs. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 54)
BC Hydro claims Alternative B4 has a lower level of reliability than the DCAT Project, particularly as
to the effects on the supply to LAP substation and the Tumbler Ridge region. (Exhibit B-22,
Attachment 2, p. 54; Exhibit B-30, BCUC 4.4.7)

BC Hydro states that Alternative B4 requires an additional 30 km of new 230 kV double circuit
transmission line in Phase 1 as compared to the DCAT Project. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 54)
BC Hydro goes on to say that less right-of-way is required for Alternative B4 for future upgrades,
but does not provide any quantitative assessment.

Finally, BC Hydro states that Alternative B4 would not meet the required in-service date
(Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 54), and states that the alternative was dependent on the
construction of the WDM substation, scheduled for July 2014. BC Hydro identifies a F2017
(Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 72, Table 10) in-service date for Alternative B4 as compared to
Early F2015 for the DCAT Project, but does not provide any further support of this schedule.

5.3.6 Alternative B5
BC Hydro stated that the only difference between Alternative B4 and Alternative B5 was that 2L312
would continue to serve the LAP substation from SNK in Alternative B5. Therefore the constraint of
the existing CWD substation to accommodate new 230kV facilities would be the same as for
Alternative B4 and a new site would be required for the new 230kV/138kV facilities. (Exhibit B-14,
BCUC 2.5.2)
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 189 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

76

BC Hydro did not identify any other differences between Alternatives B4 and B5, so the evaluation
of Alternative B5 as compared to the DCAT project is identical to the evaluation of Alternative B4.

BC Hydro does not provide any assessment of the PV of O&M and taxes for Alternatives B1, B3, B4
or B5. Alternative B2 has the same infrastructure as the DCAT Project in the first phase, so the
O&M and taxes should also be the same.

5.3.7 Generation Based Alternatives


Early in the proceeding, BC Hydro claimed that gas-fired generation solutions would not be in the
interest of ratepayers because developing gas-fired generation in the Dawson Creek area would
add additional generation in a region that is already rich in generation capacity, and would
preclude BC Hydro from considering using gas-fired generation in other instances where gas
resources may be the only feasible supply option or may provide much larger economic benefits.
(Exhibit B-6, CEC 1.38.1) Later, BC Hydro claimed it had not examined or evaluated natural gas
generation alternatives within the Dawson Creek and Groundbirch areas. (Exhibit B-15, CEA 2.5.4)
Nevertheless, BC Hydro introduces two gas-fired generation alternatives, Alternatives G1 and G2, in
Exhibit B-22.

The direct capital costs of both Alternatives G1 and G2 are higher than the DCAT Project, but a
detailed capital cost estimate was not provided by BC Hydro for these alternatives. (Exhibit B-30-1,
spreadsheet attachment to CEC 4.26.2)

To compare the DCAT Project on an equal footing with the generation based alternative, BC Hydro
creates a portfolio consisting of the DCAT Project and a pro-rata portion of a 250 MW CCGT
generation resource located on the integrated system in the Kelly-Nicola region. In the comparison
of the generation based alternatives with the DCAT Project, BC Hydro also added a gas tolling
charge to the DCAT Project portfolio for delivery of gas to this region. (Exhibit B-30-1, spreadsheet
attachment to CEC 4.26.2)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 190 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

77

The effect of this capital cost assignment strategy is that the PV of the three 50 MW CCGT units for
Alternative G1 is $411 million, while the pro-rata portion of the 250 MW CCGT assigned to the
DCAT Project alternative is only $183 million. (Exhibit B-30-1, spreadsheet attachment to CEC
4.26.2) This results in the PV of the capital cost of Alternative G1 as being $228 million greater than
the identically-sized generation component cost assigned to the DCAT Project.

The capital cost difference is even greater for Alternative G2, which has a capital cost PV of
$630 million associated with the four 50 MW CCGT units and the single 100 MW SCGT (total
300 MW). The full capital cost (with a PV of $294 million) of the 250 MW CCGT was assigned to the
DCAT Project. No additional cost was assigned to the DCAT Project for the 50 MW difference
compared to Alternative G2. The PV of the capital cost of Alternative G1 is $336 million greater
than the generation cost assigned to the DCAT Project.

BC Hydro also added an additional $13 million (PV of $12 million) to each of the generation based
alternatives for generator interconnection cost, but there was no interconnection cost added to
the DCAT Project portfolio for the 250 MW CCGT. (Exhibit B-30-1, spreadsheet attachment to
CEC 4.26.2)

BC Hydro quantifies the transmission losses for the DCAT Project for the comparison against the
generation based alternatives, but BC Hydro does not specify whether the quantified DCAT Project
losses also include the losses for the 138kV transmission lines between DAW, BMT and KIS because
BC Hydro qualifies the analysis by stating the quantified DCAT Project losses are 230 kV
transmission losses. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 63) Since the generation based alternatives
rely heavily on the existing 138 kV infrastructure, it is presumed those losses do include the 138kV
transmission lines. BC Hydro states that both generation based alternatives have lower losses than
the DCAT Project. However, in the evaluation, BC Hydro assigned a losses credit to the DCAT
Project portfolio for reduced energy flow between the project area and the Kelly-Nicola area where
the DCAT Project portfolios 250 MW CCGT would be situated. After the application of this losses
credit the DCAT Project portfolio has lower overall losses than Alternative G1, but remains higher
than Alternative G2. (Exhibit B-30-1, spreadsheet attachment to CEC 4.26.2)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 191 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

78

For the generation based alternatives, BC Hydro performed an analysis that included fixed and
variable O&M costs for both the alternative and the 250 MW CCGT that was added to the DCAT
Project portfolio. (Exhibit B-30-1, spreadsheet attachment to CEC 4.26.2) In the case of Alternative
G1, the PV of the fixed and variable O&M was $219 million compared to $87 million for the
150 MW pro-rata portion of the DCAT Project portfolios 250 MW CCGT. In the case of Alternative
G2, the PV of the fixed and variable O&M was $311 million compared to $131 million for the full
amount of the DCAT Project portfolios 250 MW CCGT.
BC Hydro provides reasonably detailed PV cost evaluation for the generation based alternatives.
BC Hydro claims the DCAT Project portfolio provides a lower PV cost than either generation based
alternative as shown in the table below:
Table 5.4

Comparison Summary

Source: Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 68


In the table above, the mid and low columns represent BC Hydros mid and low natural gas
price forecasts, DCAT Scenario 1 is a 150 MW pro-rata portion of a 250 MW CCGT in the Kelly
Nicola region, and the DCAT Scenario 2 is the allocation of the whole 250 MW CCGT. BC Hydro
again cautions that the update evaluation is performed using the original load forecast, and the
higher loads in the updated load forecast would be directionally worse for the generation based
alternatives as compared to the DCAT Project because expanding generation local to the Dawson
Creek area would be more costly than expanding supply on the integrated BC Hydro system.

The selection of the CCGT and SCGT sizes for the generation based alternatives was driven by
reliability considerations. BC Hydro explains that in transmission-constrained regions, such as the
Dawson Creek area, adding local gas-fired generation would require the installation of relatively
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 192 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

79

small units (e.g., 50 to 75 MW) in order to have redundancy such that an acceptable level of
reliability can be achieved. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 55) However, the use of small gas-fired
units, results in cost inefficiencies compared to larger units because of higher unit capital costs
(e.g., typically $3000/kW for a 50 MW CCGT vs. $1450/kW for a 250 MW CCGT).

BC Hydros reliability analysis of the generation based alternatives shows that the DCAT Project
portfolio has better reliability than either one, based on EENS results. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2,
p. 63) BC Hydro states Alternative G2 has better reliability than Alternative G1 because the latter
only provides N-0 service to the Groundbirch area. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 64)

The N-1 capability of Alternative G1 is approximately 220 MW, because each of the three 50 MW
CCGTs is smaller than the largest transmission contingency of 80 MW. (Exhibit B-22,
Attachment 2, p. 61) The 220 MW capability comes from the three 50 MW CCGTs plus the 70 MW
N-1 capability of the existing transmission system. The N-1 capability of Alternative G2 is
approximately 350 MW, because the 100 MW SCGT becomes the dominant contingency, which
allows the N-0 capability of the existing transmission system to be used. (Exhibit B-22,
Attachment 2, pp. 61-62) The 350 MW capability comes from the four 50 MW CCGTs plus the
150 MW N-0 capability of the existing transmission system.

BC Hydro does not provide either a qualitative or quantitative assessment of land impacts for the
generation based alternatives, aside from identifying the need for a new generation site and rightsof-way for associated transmission lines (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 72), nor is there any
comparison provided with the DCAT Project.

For the generation based alternatives, BC Hydro states that its assumption of a five year
implementation period for either a CCGT or SCGT could be decreased somewhat through advanced
planning and expedited approvals. Even with reduced lead times, it states the earliest practical
implementation date for a CCGT is F2017 and for a SCGT is F2016. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2,
pp. 60-61) BC Hydro also states the generation based alternatives could not meet the expected
Dawson Creek area load growth in the near term to the same degree as the DCAT Project, and
would result in significant load service shortfalls in years F2016 and F2017.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 193 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

80

BCPSO asserts serious flaws exist in BC Hydros insistence upon a gas-on-gas comparison and
furthermore that it is disingenuous for BC Hydro to assume for the purposes of the economic
comparisons with gas-fired generation, that the energy supplied to the area for the DCAT Project
portfolio will be sourced from natural gas. BCPSO claims that if the comparison of the cost of the
DCAT Project portfolio is made with the two alternate sources of energy, the gas-fired alternative
has the lower net present value. (BCPSO Final Submission, p. 12)

CEC submits the evidence shows that local generation might well provide a lower cost option
providing service at the N-1 standard with lower long term transmission cost investment, but that
the local generation options using natural gas fuel for generation are not the optimal location for
the limited amount of natural gas fuelled generation which BC Hydro may have available within its
overall portfolio. CEC also claims that building a local generation option in a reasonable timeframe
to avoid the more expensive DCAT Project would not be possible. (CEC Final Submission, p. 5)

In reply, BC Hydro counters that there is no serious flaw in its analysis as suggested by BCPSO and
that using the cost of new clean energy would not provide a helpful comparison because
BC Hydros new forecast arising from the revised Electricity Self Sufficiency Regulation and SD
No. 10 suggests the system has, and will continue to have, surplus capacity for several years. (BC
Hydro Reply Submission, p. 7)

5.3.8 F2016 Upgrades Phase 2 GDAT


None of the transmission alternatives studied by BC Hydro, including the DCAT Project, provide N-1
service to new Gas Producer Loads beyond F2015 and require some additional upgrades for N-1
service to be available for all loads by F2016. BC Hydro states that the ultimate DCAT Project,
including the F2016 Phase 2 GDAT project, is used as the basis of comparison for the considered
alternatives. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 38) The exact configuration of the F2016 stage is not
certain, although for the purposes of evaluation, BC Hydro assumes the GDAT project to consist of
a new 73 km, 230kV transmission line from GMS to SNK, a new 30 km 230kV transmission line from
SNK to SLS, expansion at GMS for an additional 230kV line position and replacement of
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 194 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

81

500kV/230kV transformers, and additional line positions at SNK and SLS. (Exhibit B-1, p. 3-7)
BC Hydro emphasizes that the Phase 2 GDAT project is still in the study phase and not yet defined.
(Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 7, pp. 73-74)

Even though the configuration of the F2016 phase of the GDAT project cannot be defined at this
time, BC Hydro assigns system configurations for the F2016 phase of the transmission based
alternatives as follows:

Alternative 2: GDAT, same as F2016 phase for the DCAT Project (Exhibit B-22,
Attachment 2, p. 38);

Alternative B1: a new 230kV transmission line from GMS to SNK to the tap on 2L312 near
the LAP substation, and either continue to utilize a tap from one of the 230kV transmission
lines to supply the LAP substation, or construct a new 230kV switching station at the
location of the tap on 2L312; also expansion at GMS for an additional 230kV line position
and replacement of 500kV/230kV transformers, and additional line positions at SNK and the
new Groundbirch substation (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 40);

Alternative B2: a new 230kV transmission line from GMS to WDM to SLS; also expansion at
GMS for an additional 230kV line position and replacement of 500kV/230kV transformers,
and additional line positions at WDM and the new SLS substation (Exhibit B-22,
Attachment 2, p. 41);

Alternatives B3, B4 and B5: a new 230kV transmission line from GMS to WDM; also
expansion at GMS for an additional 230kV line position and replacement of 500kV/230kV
transformers, and additional line positions at WDM (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, pp. 43, 45
and 47).

Commission Determination

Given the evidence available, the Commission Panel finds that Project Alternative 1, as proposed
by BC Hydro, while not the least expensive option, is the most cost-effective transmission
reinforcement alternative, as it provides significant flexibility to meet future anticipated growth,
considering the available options. Nonetheless, the Panel finds considering a phased project such
as DCAT and GDAT most challenging from the regulatory perspective, especially in the absence of
an approved IRP.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 195 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

82

The Panel observes this project has been approached on a phased basis, without sufficient
evidence as to how the DCAT Project fits into long term planning. Without this evidence, the Panel
is inclined to consider the DCAT Project as being flexible, and able to meet various potential longer
term objectives. The future uncertainty is evident in the fact that, even if approved, the DCAT
Project will be closely followed by a second phase to reinforce the service provided by the DCAT
Project. Furthermore, the second phase, the need for which will be dependent on the load
forecast, is still not defined. On the positive side, the phased approach allows for a gradual buildout of the system as load materializes, and could reduce the probability of stranded investment or
overbuilding. Nevertheless, shortcomings of the phased approach have made themselves
apparent.

Specifically turning to the alternatives introduced by BC Hydro in Exhibit B-22, the Commission
Panel notes an inconsistent approach to the evaluation, conflicting statements regarding certain
alternatives, consideration of non-feasible solutions, and the absence of consideration of other
solutions. The Panel attributes these inconsistencies to the phased approach to this project.

When evaluating alternatives G1 and G2, BC Hydro has assigned significantly higher capital costs to
these scenarios than it does to constructing what should be identical generation capacity in the
Kelley-Nicola region. The Panel questions the basis for this comparison. Further, the Panel agrees
with the BCPSO that in all likelihood, if BC Hydro needs extra generation capacity to supply load to
the DCAT customers, it would not be sourced from natural gas. A better understanding could have
been gained of the generation alternatives, if BC Hydro had also provided a comparison to
scenarios where additional generation required for Alternative 1 comes from upgrading existing
facilities such as John Hart, for example or purchasing additional energy on the open market.
In addition, the analysis should include the full cost of the options being compared, which means
not just the capital costs, but all the costs of generation.

The Panel recommends that if natural gas fired generation alternatives are to be considered for
GDAT, they are to be compared on a consistent and transparent basis. Regardless of the
economics of these alternatives, there is significant uncertainty regarding when and where to use
natural gas fired generation. The Commission Panel considers that the proposed phased approach

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 196 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

83

provides BC Hydro with sufficient flexibility for the growth in the area as well as CEA compliance.

With regard to Alternative B1, the Commission Panel notes that BC Hydro states it dismissed
Alternative B1 in the planning phase, but this alternative is not listed as one of the dismissed
options in the Appendix B of the System Planning Report in the Application.

The introduction of Alternative B2 does not seem to fit in the overall scheme of presenting
alternatives to the proposed project because it is identical to the DCAT Project before this Panel.
Any differences will only arise in the F2016 phase, which may be the subject of a separate
application. Similarly BC Hydro also introduces Alternative B3, apparently in response to
suggestions in IRs, but then declares the alternative to be not feasible and provided no further
comparative analysis. The usefulness of advancing both these alternatives is questionable. The
Panel would have found it far more helpful if the alternatives were feasible alternatives to Dawson
Creek and Groundbirch area load growth for the first phase of construction. For instance, it is not
apparent why BC Hydro has not considered different configurations, such as a single 230kV
transmission line from LAP to BMT or DAW and then to TAY.

Such different configurations present different options for the F2016 phase, and possibly for the
future transmission system configuration in that area and could minimize or even eliminate the
230 kV expansion at BMT, and significantly address local landowner concerns and past BC Hydro
commitments and replace these with a 230 kV expansion at DAW and TAY. The long term planning
progression would be more readily apparent than the phased approach inherent in the DCAT
Project.

A significant feature of all the B transmission alternatives that does not appear to be a part of the
DCAT Project, or Alternative A1, is the Groundbirch substation, sometimes in addition to, and
sometimes instead of the SLS substation. BC Hydros own evidence states that at the time of the
Application, it had insufficient knowledge of the location and configuration of customer loads to
adequately identify the requirements for a substation in the Groundbirch area. The evidence also
shows potential cost savings and equipment reduction by consolidating the SLS and Groundbirch
substation at a single location. The Panel expects BC Hydro to adopt the most cost-effective

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 197 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

84

approach.

Regarding the valuation of losses, the Panel agrees with the CEC that the Governments recent LNG
policy of allowing natural gas generation for the LNG facilities to be categorized as clean energy
creates the condition to allow BC Hydros load resource balance to be in energy surplus at least
until F2022. With respect to BC Hydros treatment of transmission losses, the Commission Panel
notes that the selection of the preferred alternative is very sensitive to the value of losses as
described below.

In the Application, it is shown that although the PV of the capital cost of Alternative 1 is $51 million
greater than that of Alternative 2, the Project Total PV (which includes Capital, O&M, Tax and
System Losses) of Alternative 1 is $12 million less than that for Alternative 2. In this swing of
$63 million in the comparative PV of the two alternatives, system losses account for a $69 million
increase in the PV of Alternative 2. The sensitivity to loss valuation is then evident by BC Hydros
own evaluation that the PV cost of both options becomes roughly equal if the BC Hydro system is in
energy surplus until F2017, suggesting that the value of the incremental losses associated with
Alternative 2 has decreased by $12 million, from $69 million to $57 million. Furthermore, the PV
cost of Alternative 2 is approximately $10 million less than that of the DCAT Project if the BC Hydro
system is in energy surplus until F2022.

However, identifying F2017 as the year in which the energy surplus is exhausted may be
pessimistic, as that assumption is based on both the Douglas Channel LNG facility and the Kitimat
LNG facility coming on-line in F2017. If the Kitimat LNG facility is delayed or the LNG projects are
self-supplied, the energy surplus could exist until F2022. The Commission Panel is concerned that
BC Hydro did not provide a quantitative evaluation for the continued preference for the DCAT
Project in the face of losses valuation being driven by surplus condition of the system energy load
resource balance beyond F2017, and that the DCAT Project may no longer be the lowest PV cost
alternative in that situation.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 198 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

85

6.0

PROJECT COSTING, SCHEDULE AND RISK MANAGEMENT

This section reviews the project cost estimates, schedule and various risk management aspects to
determine whether BC Hydro has sufficiently addressed these issues.

6.1

Project Costs

BC Hydro provides a summary of the Project cost estimate, showing both the P50 Cost Estimate
and P90 Cost Estimate based on an in-service date of April 30, 2014 as shown below:
Table 6.1

Project Cost Schedule

PROJECT COMPONENT - DCAT


CONSTRUCTION
1

Direct Definition Phase Costs

Direct Construction and Materials Cost

Project Management, Engineering,


Property, Consultation, Environment

AMOUNT
($ million)
6.6
127.6
34.1

Sub-total: Direct Costs Before Contingency

168.3

Project Contingency on P50 Cost Estimate

28.6

Inflation (Note 1)

Sub-total: Direct Costs

Capital Overhead (Note 2)

7.6

IDC (Note 3)

9.5

10

Dismantling Costs (Note 4)

2.2

11

Total P50 Cost Estimate

12

Incremental Project Contingency (Project


Reserve)

13

Incremental Capital Overhead due to


Project Reserve

1.2

14

Incremental IDC due to Project Reserve

1.34

15

Incremental Dismantling Contingency


(Reserve) (Note 4)

0.2

16

P90 Cost Estimate

7.2
203.0

222.3
32.4

257.4

Source: Exhibit B-1-3, p. 4-24

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 199 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

86

The CEC submits that the Commission can accept the costs and schedule for the DCAT Project as
proposed by BC Hydro. (CEC Final Submission, p. 22)

The CEA submits it agrees that BC Hydro has chosen the alternative with the most reasonable cost
that can still accomplish the upgrading of the area service in a reasonable staged manner, in
keeping with the anticipated growth of the load in the area. (CEA Final Submission, p. 3)

6.2

Project Schedule

BC Hydro states the planned in-service date for the Project is April 30, 2014. The preliminary major
project milestones are set out below:
Table 6.2

Project Major Milestones

Milestone

Date

Anticipated Approval by the BCUC

September 2012

Engineering Detailed Design (start)

July 2011

Route Staking and Clearing (earliest


start)

November 2012

Construction start

December 2012

In service

April 2014

Source: Exhibit B-1-3, p. 4-25

AMPC submits that the project should be delayed to allow for a comprehensive tariff review.
AMPC further states it is a delay that customers have contingency plans for. They will incur extra
costs if the Commission does not provide the decision they expect, or does not provide it in the
timeline expected. Finally, APMC submits there is no entitlement to outcomes or timelines, only
to fair and reasonable process. Given the larger, potentially unnecessary, costs facing ratepayers,
they deserve the full benefit of the Commissions process. (AMPC Final Submission, p. 21)

WMFN submits that the CPCN should be delayed in order to provide time for more meaningful
consultation and impact assessment. (WMFN Final Submission, p. 65)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 200 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

87

The City of Dawson Creek submits that the evidence on record overwhelmingly supports a
conclusion that the DCAT Project is necessary, and in the public interest, and that the DCAT Project
should proceed without further delay. (City of Dawson Creek Final Submission, p. 8)

6.3

Permits and Approvals

BC Hydro states it will ensure that all required permits and approvals required prior to completion
of the 230 kV transmission lines, SLS and expansion of BMT and DAW substations are secured, and
that all work meets regulatory, statutory and safety standards. (Exhibit B-1, p. 4-26)

6.4

Risk Management

BC Hydro states it has identified and assessed risks that may be relevant to the assessment of the
public convenience and necessity, and developed mitigation plans for managing those risks. Risk
identification and mitigation is an ongoing process and the Project team will continue to identify
risks and mitigation measures throughout the Project Definition phase and, if approved, the
Implementation phase. It is expected that the risks and mitigation strategies will change as the
Project moves through its phases. For this reason, risk identification, mitigation, and regular
progress monitoring are established processes that are being closely followed. (Exhibit B-1, p. 7-1)

BC Hydro submits the primary uncertainties associated with the assessment that the Project is in
the public convenience and necessity arise in the following areas:

Need for the Project;

Cost of the Project;

Adequacy of the Project;

Timeliness of Project Completion;

Safety of the Project; and

Environmental Impacts of the Project. (Exhibit B-1, p. 7-1)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 201 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

88

The need for the Project has already been reviewed in Section 3.0, including the load forecast risk
and the urgency of the system upgrade. The environmental impacts will be considered in
Section 7.5. The Panel determinations throughout this Decision will have some impact on
BC Hydros project schedule. This section will further focus on the cost risks of the Project, load
related risks and adequacy and safety of service.

6.4.1 Cost Risk of the Project


BC Hydro states the security arrangements it has adapted for this project provide that the risk of
60 percent of the actual cost of the Project will be taken by those new customers for whom it is
being built. To control their exposure and the exposure of existing customers to the 40 percent of
Project costs which would affect them, BC Hydro has robust cost risk management programs that
can be grouped into two broad categories: risks that may occur due to procurement issues, and
those issues that may be encountered during the detailed design or construction of the Project and
may require a change. (Exhibit B-1, p. 7-2)

6.4.1.1 Procurement and Resource Availability Risks


BC Hydro states that examples of procurement and resource risks include:

Availability of contractor resources including local accommodation due to extensive


industrial and construction activities in the area;

Higher than expected bid prices due to uncertainty in steel pole prices and/or potential for
high demand of labour.

BC Hydro states the cost estimate prepared for the Project incorporates knowledge gained from
work implemented on other BC Hydro transmission projects and includes appropriate
contingencies to accommodate the known and unknown cost risks of the Project. However, there
is always uncertainty in future pricing, whether it is due to currency fluctuations or increasing
demand for steel. The large number of upcoming transmission line projects in BC, as well as North
America, could also affect the availability of skilled labour required to construct the Project.
(Exhibit B-1, p. 7-3)
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 202 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

89

To reduce the risk that cost estimates would be incorrect, the contingency used in the cost
estimate was developed using range estimating techniques (Monte Carlo simulation) that take into
consideration the differing levels of uncertainty in the various scope items in the estimates.
Estimate scope items are given ranges including the lower cost, the higher cost and the most likely
cost. These ranges are converted to probability curves for the scope items and subject to
simulation algorithms that ultimately generate an overall probability curve for the Project
estimates. From this curve, values are taken that are used to produce the P50 Cost Estimate and
the P90 Cost Estimate. (Exhibit B-1, p. 7-3)

In addition to managing the contingency through use of Monte Carlo simulations, the estimate of
BC Hydros engineering consultant, SNC-Lavalins was independently reviewed by BC Hydro
Transmission Engineering. BC Hydro found the estimate to be within the accuracy level of the cost
estimate, and that the contingency analysis was performed in an appropriate manner, similar to
what BC Hydro would perform for a project of this size and scope. (Exhibit B-1, p. 7-3)

BC Hydro explains that the preferred procurement strategy for this project is design-bid-build
(DBB), thus providing BC Hydro with the ability to address the schedule risk more effectively. DBB
can reduce the overall project timeline because it could permit procurement and construction to
proceed on portions of the Project where design has been completed, while design on other
remaining portions is ongoing. Additional benefits of the DBB option would be the ability to use
BC Hydros blanket order pricing for most of the major equipment requirement. As well, BC Hydro
would more effectively manage Aboriginal engagement by leveraging direct award opportunities.
(Exhibit B-1, p. 7-4)

6.4.1.2 Construction and Design Related Risks


BC Hydro states there are many construction and design related risks such as: scheduling system
outages; discovery of bird nests while clearing; inability to use the Ministry of Transportation (MoT)
ROW due to policy issues; discovery of geotechnical conditions during engineering; adverse
weather; or triggering of an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 203 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

90

Assessment Act. (Exhibit B-1, p. 7-4)

BC Hydro explains that many of the issues identified are inherent to the nature of a linear corridor
project. Conditions will vary along the entire length of the corridor and issues may be detected any
time during the detailed design and construction, however some general measures related to the
development of the Project schedule and cost estimate can also mitigate the potential effects.
(Exhibit B-1, p. 7-4)

BC Hydro further states that managing the schedule can also mitigate the impacts of these risks on
the costs of the Project by reducing the need for change orders such as: Project critical path
identification; due diligence concerning contractors such as: a review of historic performance;
resourcing; financing; and flexibility to shift work activities and plans to recover lost schedule.
(Exhibit B-1, p. 7-5)

The CEC submits that the risk summary and BC Hydros proposed management and control as well
as assessment of impact and probability is reasonable for the issues summarized in the table. The
CEC submits the Commission can rely on the BC Hydro risk management with regard to its approval
of the DCAT Project. (CEC Final Submission, p. 22)

6.4.2 Load Related Risks


BC Hydro states that to ensure its existing customers are not exposed to undue load related risk it
has asked the industrial customers that are seeking more than 10 MW of power to provide security
for their pro rata share for the costs of the Project. The sum of the pro rata shares of each of the
five large customers will be equal to 60 percent of the cost of the Project. (Exhibit B-1, p. 2-19)

BC Hydro confirmed that currently five industrial customers are seeking 10 MW or more power.
Their aggregate load is reflected in Base Case Gas Producers Forecast as 92 MW and 147 MW in
F2012 and F2027 respectively which is 60 percent and 53 percent of the total forecast in those
years. (Exhibit B-5, BCUC 1.38.2.1) BC Hydro has filed confidentially five letters of support that
were signed by parties over the August-September 2011 period. These letters of support address
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 204 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

91

both the security for system reinforcement required to supply electricity and commercial
arrangements for pre-ordering equipment. (Exhibit B-5, BCUC 1.38.2.3)

In accordance with the signed letters, BC Hydro will work with each customer to determine or
confirm the final amount of security and a mutually acceptable form of security in reflection of
prior discussions. In the normal course of events, BC Hydro would not be ordering equipment of
the type required for the DCAT Project until it has received a CPCN. In this case, however,
BC Hydro is prepared to pre-order equipment to meet customers in-service dates providing the
customers agree to provide additional security. These arrangements were also addressed in the
signed letters.

On July 4, 2012, BC Hydro filed a Securities Arrangements Update with the Commission.
(Exhibit B-31) Highlights of that update were as follows:

Shell Canada Ltd.


Shell has executed a facilities agreement with BC Hydro in the form required by TS 6 in connection
with its full anticipated requirements of 120 MW. A redacted copy of the unsigned agreement and
an Escrow Agreement executed between BC Hydro, Shell Canada Ltd. and Davis & Co. LLP were
included as Attachments 1 and 2 respectively. The estimated dollar commitments are shown
below:

The estimated cost for the Basic Transmission Extension is $12.7 million plus 12 percent
HST. Shell is required to provide cash contribution for this cost.

The estimated cost for the System Reinforcement is $99.9 million. Shell is required to
provide security for this cost. This System Reinforcement cost is composed of an
Interconnection System Reinforcement of $11.5 million and Shell share of the anticipated
DCAT Project cost allocated to new customers ($131.5 million) of $88.4 million.

The final amount owed to BC Hydro will be based on actual costs using BC Hydros standard charge
out rates for external customers less any pre-payments made by the customer.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 205 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

92

Murphy Oil Company


Murphy has entered into a letter agreement with BC Hydro pursuant to which it agreed to provide
security in connection with 20.6 MW load to be served by the DCAT Project. An executed copy of
that Security Agreement was enclosed as Attachment 3 to Exhibit B-31.

Encana Corporation
BC Hydro states it has presented Encana with the final form of a letter agreement pursuant to
which Encana will agree to provide security in connection with 13.9 MW of load to be served by the
DCAT Project.

ARC Resources Ltd.


BC Hydro states it is finalizing the details with ARC Resources Ltd. to enter into a letter agreement
pursuant to which it will agree to provide security in connection with 10 MW of load to be served
by the DCAT Project.

Air Liquide Canada


BC Hydro states that its discussions with Air Liquide, which is anticipating an approval for its
Phase 2 project (7 MW), continue. Air Liquide is expected to enter into a security agreement with
BC Hydro, pursuant to which it will provide security in connection with 14 MW of load to be served
by the DCAT Project.

In summary, BC Hydro states the aggregate security it expects to obtain is $131.5 million in
connection with the DCAT Project. BC Hydro further states that this security will be available to
offset the costs of the DCAT Project whether or not the shale gas projects giving rise to the
anticipated new load ultimately proceed or not.

On July 20, 2012, BC Hydro confirmed that security arrangements have been entered into with
EnCana Power and Processing ULC (EnCana) and ARC Resources General Partnership. BC Hydro
states these agreements now increase the amount of binding commitments obtained to $121.2 M
or approximately 92 percent of the DCAT costs allocated to the new customers. (Exhibit B-45)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 206 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

93

6.4.3 Adequacy of the Project and Safety of Service


BC Hydro states there is a risk that the Project is not adequate to meet accelerating load growth as
identified in section 3.6. BC Hydro is managing this risk by actively developing the F2016 stage and
undertaking the Project in a manner that is completely supportive of future reinforcement through
the F2016 stage. BC Hydro asserts that no other configuration of the Project has been identified
that would provide better protection against this risk. (Exhibit B-1, pp. 7-5 to 7-6)

The following three factors contribute to potential safety risks of the DCAT Project, in addition to
those typically encountered on any transmission construction project:

The existing 138 kV transmission lines must remain in service during construction;

Portions of the line run parallel to, and cross, Highway 97; and

The use of helicopters for some portions of the work will be required. (Exhibit B-1, p. 7-6)

BC Hydro has addressed its worker safety and public safety mitigation in the Risk management
Summary shown in Table 7-1. (Exhibit B-1, p. 7-11) BC Hydro submits it has committed to ensuring
that all work on the DCAT Project meets safety standards and notes that no-one has contended this
matter. (BC Hydro Final Submission, p. 12)

6.4.4 Interveners Submissions on Risk


CEC submits that on balance of the evidence it believes that the load forecast provided supports
the case for the need for an energy supply project and by implication the DCAT Project subject to
satisfaction of other criteria. The CEC notes that the natural gas price risk in the load forecast is a
critical area for the Commission to be concerned with and the Commission may want to look at
conditions which may mitigate some of these risks. The CEC further submits the level of
disadvantage to the customers providing security for the transmission system is miniscule based on
the known reliability of the BC Hydro transmission lines, over 99.9 percent. The consequence is
that the customer risk reward balance is skewed toward the gas producers. The Commission may
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 207 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

94

want to closely examine this concern along with other fairness concerns. (CEC Final Submission,
pp. 9-10 to 9-11)

BCPSO submits that notwithstanding the uncertainties associated with BC Hydros forecasts that
are meant to justify this project, the $131.5 M in security that BC Hydro has secured does not
sufficiently cover what is at risk for existing ratepayers. BCPSO further submits that overall
BC Hydros case for the DCAT Project hinges on loads evolving as anticipated in BC Hydros Base
Load Forecast and very little variation is required before ratepayers face the cost stranded assists.
BCPSO suggests that an examination of the merits of this Application requires the Commission to
determine whether that Load Forecast is reasonable given the significant risks errors pose to
ratepayers and a careful, meticulous consideration of the trade-offs between costs, reliability, and
the potential that this might be a circumstance where BC Hydros limited ability to use gas-fired
generation is best employed. (BCPSO Final Submission, pp. 4, 12-13)

Commission Determination

The Commission Panel recognizes project cost risks inherent in schedule delays, and the
governments objective under SD No. 9 to support economic development in the province
expeditiously. However, the Panel has already found that the DCAT Project, while needed, must
not necessarily be in service by April 30, 2014. Furthermore, determination in Section 9.0,
respecting First Nations Consultation will also impact the project schedule to some degree.

In summary, the Panel acknowledges the various risks for the Project, as identified by the Parties.
These risks relate primarily to timing, cost increases due to potential delays, and the load forecasts.
However, the Panel is satisfied that these risks can be mitigated or managed as outlined by
BC Hydro. This finding is subject to further discussion in Sections 7.0, 8.0, and 9.0.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 208 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

95

7.0

CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY CONSIDERATIONS

In this section the Panel will consider the nature of public and what constitutes public interest
issues. These issues include adequacy of the consultation process, obligation to serve, whether the
Project is aligned with the CEA and other government policy, environmental issues and systemic
impact.

7.1

Who is the Public and What are the Public Interest Issues

The Panel is guided by section 46 of the UCA, which provides that the Panel must consider those
who receive or may receive service from BC Hydro, the CEA and BCs energy objectives. Public
interest issues are often competing, and the Panel is compelled to consider a variety of rivalling
public interests that include:

the need for the project in the community to be served;

the cost of a project and the impact on rates;

whether a project is viable in the long term, or whether it will become a stranded asset,
which may impact ratepayers;

geographic discrimination in the level of electrical service to customers throughout the


province;

the safety and reliability of the current service and the proposed project;

the environmental impact of the construction and operation of the Project;

the impact of the project on neighbouring properties; and

the impact of the project on First Nations communities, and whether the Applicant has
adequately identified, consulted and, if necessary, accommodated any impacted First
Nations Community.

The Supreme Court of Canada is clear, that there is no recipe for the determination of what public
convenience and necessity means. Each situation must be determined by the Commission, and
cannot be determined without a substantial amount of administrative discretion, based on the
particular facts of the application and in context of the regulatory framework (Union Gas Co. of
Canada Ltd. v. Sydenham Gas & Petroleum Co. [1957] S.C.R. 185 (S.C.C.). Whether an application

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 209 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

96

meets the test of the public convenience and necessity is not a simple objective fact, but is a
matter of opinion.

BC Hydro sets out who it considers to be stakeholders with an interest in this application.
(Exhibit B-1, p. 6-26) These stakeholders include:

1. Neighbouring property owners;


2. MLAs for the project area, and their staff;
3. Peace River Regional District and their board of directors (PRRD);
4. Senior staff and elected officials for the City of Dawson Creek, Town of Pouce Coupe and
the City of Chetwynd;
5. Montney gas producers active in the Project area;
6. Metis;
7. Crown land tenure holder (trappers, grazers, etc.);
8. Local environmental and community non-profit non-governmental organizations (NGO)s;
9. Members of the general public in the Project area; and
10. Local and regional media.

In addition, BC Hydro has identified a number of First Nations stakeholders, dealt with in
Section 9.0.

Commission Determination

The Commission Panel acknowledges that given the requirements of the UCA and relevant
jurisprudence, the finding of a project to be in the public interest is an evidence based process.

With respect to identification of stakeholders, and the public, the Panel finds that BC Hydro has
been reasonable. With respect to the public interest issues, further questions that arise. Is the
Project that is chosen for the application the best alternative? Will it meet the anticipated needs
for the business and residential community in the Dawson Creek area? What are the anticipated

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 210 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

97

needs for the business and residential community, and is that need consistent over the long term?
Does it meet BCs Clean Energy objectives? Who is the public? Have the relevant stakeholders
been identified and consulted? The public interest is always a matter of interpretation, and
considers the customers who are supported by the project, the community, and the stakeholders
who are impacted by the project. This framework sets limitations on the scope of the review of the
Application. Although this Application was initially complicated by the controversy surrounding the
nature of the business of the new customers who are the driving force behind the need for the
DCAT Project, the Panel must make its decision about whether the Project is in the public interest
within the context of the Project itself, and not within the context of the business of the new
customers.

7.2

Adequacy of Public Consultation

This section addresses the adequacy of the Applicants efforts to consult the public. For public
consultation to be adequate, the Panel considers that an active two-way approach is appropriate.
The intent of the consultation process, as informed by the CPCN application guidelines is to identify
the public who may be impacted by the Project, inform those stakeholders with a description of the
project, and feasible project alternatives, and identify project risks to those stakeholders.
Respecting the two-way process, an Applicant must not only inform, but must also provide
meaningful opportunity for input and feedback from stakeholders.

The Applicant is expected to identify potential risks and measures that the Applicant has taken to
mitigate those Project risks. Additionally, the Applicant is also expected to address other issues
and concerns identified by stakeholders, during the consultation process, whether by describing
measures taken to alleviate the issue, or by providing explanation as to why no further action is
required.

In reviewing the relevant evidence for proof of adequacy of public consultation, this Panel will
consider both the quantity and quality of consultation efforts. It is apparent, by the sheer numbers
and diversity of the list of Interveners registered in this Application, the community affected by the
potential Project is aware of DCAT. Interveners include municipal government, private land
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 211 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

98

owners, industrial and commercial users, First Nations, and a variety of NGOs, including BCPSO,
and BCSEA.

BC Hydro lists the many activities it has conducted to consult stakeholders respecting the Project.
Its public engagement activities included: letters and notifications; presentations and meetings;
Project website; Project update information sheets; newspaper and radio advertisements; public
open houses; and published media interviews with BC Hydro regarding the Project. This
engagement process was used to introduce the Project and to obtain feedback for the reference
route and substation locations. (Exhibit B-1, pp. 6-27 to 6-28)

BC Hydro identified potential impacted home owners as key stakeholders. (Exhibit B-1, p. 6-29)
The Robinsons, home owners who are self-identified as impacted key stakeholders, registered as
Interveners. The Robinsons own land adjacent to the BMT proposed site 1. Approval and
development of site 1 would result in the Applicant needing some of the Robinsons property, in
order to facilitate the development. The Robinsons suggest that proposed Site 2 option would also
impact their land. The Robinsons have two issues with this Project: first, whether the proposed
BMT expansion is necessary at all, and second, whether it could be constructed on a different site.
(Exhibit C11-1; Exhibit C11-6, p. 1)

Although BC Hydro has not specifically addressed the Robinsons evidence directly, Table 6-6 in the
Application lists a summary of issues identified through the public engagement process. Item 1
identified the concern that the Project is not needed, and addressed that concern. Item 2
addressed the concern that the Hydro line should be on the highway road allowance not on private
property. BC Hydro noted the need to balance a number of competing issues, including
environmental and First Nations impacts in determining the route. Under the heading of
Environment, property owners identified the issue that the right of way would have a negative
impact on wildlife in the area. The Applicant responded that no habitats critical to wildlife species
at risk have been identified along the route. In response to pole placement, noise issues, and the
visual impact, BC Hydro responded that it would work with owners on pole placement, that
conductor design has been chosen to minimize line noise, and that efforts, such as potentially
leaving a tree screen will be made to mitigate the visual impact. In terms of the impact of a new

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 212 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

99

line to a property owners health, BC Hydro states that it is guided by the opinions of such agencies
as the World Health Organization, which opines that Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) levels
created by power lines do not pose a health risk to humans or livestock. (Exhibit B-1, Table 6-6,
pp. 6-41 to 6-46)

Commission Determination

The Commission Panel finds that BC Hydro has adequately consulted the public. While the
Commission Panel acknowledges the Robinsons concerns, especially their concern that the Bear
Mountain Terminal site plan has increased substantially, the Panel notes that it must consider all
stakeholder interests, and balance sometimes competing interests. Although the specific evidence
of BC Hydro respecting the Robinsons consultation process was not entered into evidence, save
and except BC Hydros suggestion that the Robinsons were consulted, the Panel accepts BC Hydros
evidence of plans to mitigate impact on neighbouring properties. The Panel directs BC Hydro to
specifically follow through on its plan to build a berm and/or a hedge to provide a visual and
noise barrier between the BMT site plan and the Robinsons property. The Panel accepts
BC Hydros evidence that this property is the best location for the expansion of BMT, and finds no
evidence to support the Robinsons contention that the Project should be expanded on another
neighbours property.

7.3

Obligation to Serve

This section deals with BC Hydros obligation to serve, in the context of public interest. Does
BC Hydro have an absolute obligation to serve all customers, or are there underlying conditions?

BC Hydro provides that all members of BC Hydros rate classes, regardless of when they joined the
rate class, are entitled to receive benefits of low cost heritage energy. (Exhibit B-22, p. 4) BC Hydro
further suggests that new load ought not to be discriminated against, with respect to rate or
service. BC Hydros rates, and the related terms and conditions of service, do not distinguish
between customers based on the use to which power is put. (Exhibit B-22, p. 5) Such a distinction
would be a significant deviation from its obligations, and would require extensive consultation with
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 213 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

100

stakeholders. Further, BC Hydro states that its obligation to serve is an essential part of its
mandate. Mr. Sanderson, BC Hydros legal counsel, suggests that the obligation to serve is
absolute; Mr. Sanderson went through the origins of the obligation to serve, tracing its origins to
the Magna Carta, citing Chastain v. BC Hydro ((1972), 32 DLR 3rd, at 443). In that case, BC Hydro
attempted to collect security from customers who were poor credit risks. This case provided that a
public utility cannot discriminate against customers. Mr. Sanderson states: Hydro must serve all
those who come to it ready, willing and able to meet the requirements that this Commission has
said are necessary for customers to meet in order to be entitled to service. (T2:145)

BC Hydro states it has never declined service to any customer willing to assume its responsibilities
under TS 6, explaining it does not have the discretion to refuse service to an eligible customer that
requests it. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 78)

Shell submits that BC Hydro has an obligation to serve all customers, in accordance with TS 6, and
that BCUC does not have the discretion to interpret TS 6 in a manner that would be discriminatory
against Shell. In this regard, Shell submits that it has made considerable investment in the Dawson
Creek area, relying on BC Hydros obligation to serve. In addition to the wording in TS 6, Shell relies
on section 39 of the UCA, which provides, upon reasonable notice BC Hydro must provide service,
at reasonable rates, to all customers who are willing to pay the reasonable rate, so long as such
customers are reasonably entitled to it. (Shell Final Submission, pp. 1, 7) The City of Dawson Creek
also cites BC Hydros obligation to serve as mandated by section 39 of the UCA. (The City of
Dawson Creek, Final Submission, pp. 2-3)

BCSEA submits: Second, BC Hydros argument that the need for DCAT is defined by the
obligation to serve the new natural gas production load logically precludes consideration of the
pros and cons of the load to be served by DCAT. (BCSEA Final Submission, p. 3)

In considering the question of the obligation to serve, the CEA compares this Application to other
applications that have appeared before the Commission, and submits:

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 214 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

101

Although the CEAs detailed positions on these and other matters are set out
below, in brief the Application is no different than other relatively recent
applications to the BCUC for the Vancouver Island Transmission
Reinforcement/Sea Breeze VIC (VITR) the Interior Lower Mainland (ILM) or
Central Vancouver Island (CVI) transmission projects. No one in these regulatory
processes expressed any interest in migrating into the issues described above.
Certainly parties in BCUC proceedings should not be shackled by precedent or
from positions previously taken but the facts or valid reasons for change have to
exist. (CEA Final Submission, p. 3)

In short, the CEA submits that the forest industry, as an example, is not required, under a denial of
an obligation to serve, to provide its own energy for its production, and that the only reason this is
even a question in this Application is because the natural gas industry has an ample supply of
natural gas to provide its own energy needs.

CEC submits that it is disinclined to see BC Hydros new customers be declined service, provided
they are able to meet the prescribed requirements for qualifying to have the investments made to
provide them service. (CEC Final Submission, p. 18)

BC Hydro submits the obligation to serve is weighed against the Commissions determination that
the provision of service must be just and reasonable. (BC Hydro Final Submission, p. 3)

Commission Determination

The Commission Panel considers BC Hydros obligation to serve as one part of the many
considerations involved in a CPCN Application. The Panel further considers that the obligation to
serve is subject to the Commissions judgment that such service is adequate, safe, efficient, fair and
reasonable.

The Commission Panel recognizes BC Hydros own interpretation of its obligation to serve all
customers who come to it ready, willing and able to meet the requirements that the Commission
deems necessary for customers to meet under TS 6. Clearly, if BC Hydro has new customers
applying for new service, and it has capacity, then it would seem reasonable that BC Hydro should
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 215 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

102

not discriminate. Further, the Commission Panel acknowledges BC Hydros obligation to serve
under section 39 of the UCA.

However, the Commission Panel wishes to emphasize that the absolute obligation to serve is
always in context: the service must meet the appropriate electrical standards; options must be
weighed diligently; and the service must be adequate, safe, efficient, fair and reasonable. (UCA,
section 28) If the Project does not meet the necessary prerequisite conditions, that is, adequate,
safe, efficient, fair and reasonable, then the obligation to serve is not absolute. The spirit and
intent of the UCA support this notion, that the obligation to serve must be adequate, safe, efficient,
fair and reasonable. Therefore, the Panel will not approve a CPCN application simply because a
new customer requires service.

7.4

Alignment with Clean Energy Act and Provincial Government Policy


7.4.1 British Columbias Energy Objectives

BC Hydro notes that the DCAT Project meets, in particular, three of the governments energy
objectives that are set out in section 2 of the CEA and provides its reasoning as follows:
(i)

Reduce B.C. greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to the legislated targets for 2012, 2016,
2010 and 2050 set out in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act. (CEA, subsection
2(g))

BC Hydro states that upgrading the transmission system in the Peace Region will allow natural gas
producers to connect to the BC Hydro electric system providing clean energy to meet their
compression requirements rather than the alternative of using natural gas driven compressors.
Based on the forecast electrical load related to gas production, BC Hydro estimates the
avoided/reduced GHG emissions to be in the range of 1 million tonnes per year in BC. (Exhibit B-1,
p. 2-16)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 216 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

103

(ii)

Encourage the switching from one kind of energy source or use to another that
decreases GHG emission in British Columbia. (CEA, subsection 2(h))

BC Hydro states that in the absence of the proposed upgrades to the infrastructure, natural gas
producers will procure gas driven compression to meet their compression requirements.
Furthermore, natural gas producers have indicated to BC Hydro that once they commit to a
particular technology at a site, there is little to no likelihood of switching from that technology.
Therefore, BC Hydro submits, it is critical for it to have sufficient capacity at the time of customer
requests for electric service, because otherwise decisions will be made to use more GHG intensive
gas compression. (Exhibit B-1, p. 2-16)

(iii)

Encourage economic development and the creation and retention of jobs. (CEA,
subsection 2(k))

BC Hydro states the upgrading of transmission infrastructure in the Peace region will bring low
cost electricity into the fastest growing industrial sector in B.C. and enable it to make a significant
contribution in encouraging economic development. It is anticipated that with the production
levels identified in the Dawson Creek Area Load Forecast, the industry will need to invest billions of
dollars in the Montney basin. BC Hydro believes that by providing industry with a choice of natural
gas or electricity, it will make a positive contribution to the overall economics of development in
the Montney basin. BC Hydro acknowledges, however, that the choice between gas and electricity
for compression will not be the primary determinant of the extent of development in the Montney.
In this regard, BC Hydro states that at the margin it is a significant decision that must be made by
producers and the choice of reasonably priced electricity may tip the balance in favour of
development in particular circumstances. (Exhibit B-1, p. 2-17)

In addition, the following energy objective has received significant attention in this proceeding:

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 217 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

104

(iv)

Generate at least 93% of the electricity in British Columbia from clean or renewable
resources and to build the infrastructure necessary to transmit that electricity. (CEA,
subsection 2(c))

BC Hydro raised this issue in the context of local gas-fired generation alternatives to the DCAT
Project by outlining its views on the limits on gas-fired generation imposed by CEA. (Exhibit B-22,
Attachment 2, pp. 59-60)

7.4.2 Other Considerations under s. 45(3.3) of the UCA


BC Hydro submits the other considerations referenced in subsections 46(3.3)(b) and 46(3.3)(c) of
the UCA do not apply in this Application. First, BC Hydro has not yet filed its final IRP for approval
by government, and there is no applicable IRP by which the BCUC must be guided. Moreover,
BC Hydro submits that the 2009 Long-Term Acquisition Plan is not an approved IRP. Second,
BC Hydro submits that because the BC Government has not prescribed planning guidelines or clean
or renewable resources targets in relation to s. 19, the criterion in subsection 46(3.3.)(c) is not
applicable. (BC Hydro Final Submission, p. 4)

7.4.3 Special Direction No. 9


As outlined in the regulatory and policy framework introduction, section 2.1 of SD No. 9 directs that
in deciding whether to issue BC Hydro a CPCN, the Commission must consider and be guided by the
governments objective of encouraging public utilities to develop adequate transmission
infrastructure in the time required to serve persons who receive or may receive service from the
public utility.

BC Hydro first states that the current capacity constraints of the Peace region transmission system
coupled with the significant anticipated load growth provide a compelling reason to construct the
project even without SD No. 9. BC Hydro then emphasizes how SD No. 9 underscores the
importance of planning to ensure inadequate transmission capacity does not hamper economic
development in the province. (Exhibit B-1, p. 2-18)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 218 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

105

7.4.4 Submission by Parties


BC Hydro submits the DCAT Project supports the objectives set out at paragraphs 2(g), 2(h) and 2(k)
of the CEA and does not detract from any of the other British Columbias energy objectives.
BC Hydro further submits that although the Project will increase rates, it will not detract from the
objective set out at paragraph 2(f) to ensure the authoritys rates remain among the most
competitive of rates charged by public utilities in North America. This is because BC Hydro does
not interpret the objective 2(f) to discourage BC Hydro from serving all new load demand even
though all new loads increase average rates for the reason that the cost of new supply exceeds the
average cost of supply in the system. In BC Hydros submission, its core obligation to serve, in fact,
trumps the impact on rates and therefore the DCAT Project does not detract from the competitive
rates objective. (BC Hydro Final Submission, p. 4)

Regarding SD No. 9, BC Hydro further submits that in addition to considering the obligation to meet
the MRS requirement, the Commission must also have regard to the timelines of BC Hydros efforts
to upgrade its system. (BC Hydro Final Submission, p. 5)

BCSEA submits the evidence is insufficient to make a clear determination that DCAT would or
would not result in an overall decrease in GHG emissions either within BC or globally and makes
some additional observations. First, BCSEA notes that BC Hydros Final Submission de-emphasizes
the claimed BC GHG emissions reductions benefits of DCAT in the Application. Second, if selfsupply is not to be considered an alternative to DCAT then the GHG consequences of DCAT cannot
be compared meaningfully to the GHG emissions consequences of self-supply. Third, BCSEA
submits that the claim of avoided/reduced GHG emissions in the range of 1 million tonnes per year
in BC is not quantitatively supportable. (BCSEA Final Submission pp. 1-3)

CEC submits that it will be more economical for BC Hydro to meet the 93 percent clean energy
objective through transmission options than through local natural gas fuelled options. The CEC
further submits the evidence supports that the DCAT Project contributes to the BC energy objective
of reducing greenhouse gases. (CEC Final Submission, pp. 13-15)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 219 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

106

BC Hydro did not address these issues in its Reply.

Commission Determination

The Commission Panel finds that the DCAT Project aligns with the CEA and Provincial
Government policy. In making this determination, the Panel accepts BC Hydros submission that
the Project supports the objectives set out at paragraphs 2(g), 2(h) and 2(k) of the CEA and does
not detract from any of the other British Columbias energy objectives.

The Panel agrees with BCSEA that the evidence is insufficient to allow a definite determination
regarding the overall impact on the GHG emissions of the DCAT Project. Nevertheless, this issue is
not a key reason for granting the CPCN as the project need has already been established on other
grounds. The Panel only has to find here that the Project aligns with the CEA overall.

7.5

Environment and EMF


7.5.1 Environmental Assessment

BC Hydro states that the DCAT Project does not meet the threshold requirements that would
trigger an automatic review under the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act or the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 1992. BC Hydro retained AMEC Earth and Environmental
Limited to conduct an EOA of the Project to determine whether, taking into account mitigations,
the Project would result in significant adverse effects to the environment.

The EOA examined route options in the east, central and western segments of the Project,
including the preferred route. Information was collected on fish and aquatics, vegetation, human
environment, and archaeological resources. AMEC found that the DCAT Project has the potential
to adversely affect the environment, especially during construction. However, the EOA concludes
that following the implementation of appropriate mitigations:
(i)

The Project will have a low or negligible effect on almost all the Valued Ecosystem
Components (VECs) and the Valued Social Components (VSCs); and
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 220 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

107

(ii)

There is no measurable difference among the options under consideration for almost all
VECs and VSCs.

Based on the EOA, AMEC has recommended a number of measures to avoid, reduce, mitigate or
compensate for the potential adverse environmental effects of the Project. In terms of specific
reviews the EOA included:

Fish and Aquatic Resources: groundwater, fish and fish habitat;

Vegetation and Soils;

Wildlife: amphibians and reptiles, birds, mammals, wetlands;

Socio-Economic Effects: during construction and the operations phase;

Land and Resource Use: land use planning, crown tenures, agriculture and private land use
activities, trapping, hunting and recreational fishing, forestry; and

Archaeological Resources.

BC Hydro states that upon approval of the Project, it will prepare a construction EMP which will
detail the permitting requirements and best management practices to be implemented during
construction. Furthermore, the contractor will be required to write site specific Environmental
Protection Plans prior to the start of the construction. (Exhibit B 1, pp. 5-1 to 5-24)

7.5.2 Electric and Magnetic Fields


BC Hydro states it calculated the expected EMF for the 230 kV transmission line between the SLS
and DAW Substations, based on normal operation during average representative load, and the load
with one circuit out of service, calculated one meter above ground level. The expected magnetic
field values in milliGauss (mG) were measured directly under the transmission line, as well as at the
ROW boundaries. BC Hydro shows that the expected magnetic field is approximately 20.2 mG and
55.7 mG directly beneath the transmission line conductors for normal and contingency operation
respectively. The magnitude of the magnetic fields is expected to further decrease to about .7 mG
and 5.9 mG at 50 meter distance from the centreline. These readings are to be compared to the
maximum limit of exposure to magnetic fields recommended by the International Commission on
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 221 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

108

Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) of 2,000 mG. (Exhibit B-1, pp. 5-25 to 5-28)

With regard to the electric fields, the ICNIRP guideline limit is 5 kV/m. BC Hydro expects the
magnitude of electric field during normal operations to be just below 1.5 kV/m directly under the
transmission line and to drop to less than 0.1 kV/m at a 50 m distance from the centerline. Even
with one circuit out of service the electric field is still well below the ICNIRP limit at 2.5 kV/m at the
centerline.

Commission Determination

The Commission Panel is satisfied that BC Hydro has performed its due diligence in terms of
environmental impact, subject to the First Nations issues, and that the Project meets the ICNIRP
Guidelines. The Panel also agrees with the CEC submission that the evidence with respect of the
routing of the transmission line and various environmental impacts and the efforts BC Hydro has
taken to study and manage the impacts appears to be developed to an appropriate utility standard.

Accordingly, the Commission Panel accepts the routing and environmental treatments BC Hydro
has applied to developing the DCAT Project.

7.6

Systemic Impact

BC Hydro has stated that the DCAT Project will have a small footprint. However, some parties have
suggested that the impact has the potential to be more systemic, including a spider web of
electrical distribution lines to supply dispersed customer load, and raised questions concerning the
location of electrical substations in relation to customer load. The Panel will now consider the
siting of customer load and the issues arising from that.

WMFN submits that the proposed DCAT Project is not just about DCAT - in its very nature, it is a
project that will support and lead to other developments in the region. That is its chief purpose.
Indeed, BC Hydro is quick to point out the level of anticipated development in the area that DCAT
will serve in terms of justifying the need for the Project to proceed, including shale gas
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 222 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

109

development in the Montney basin. (WMFN Final Submission, p. 54) Chief Wilson, in the oral
hearing, testified that: ...Shell is going to tie into it. All the other companies are going to tie into it.
It's going to turn into this spider-web of stuff out there. (T3:497)

CSI submits that it is unaware of any evidence submitted by BC Hydro that shows any plans for
transmission lines and any system substations to serve the other numerous industrial oil and gas
customers that have submitted applications in the area. It seems contradictory and short sighted
for BC Hydro to claim that the need for DCAT is driven entirely by industrial customer load but not
have any system substation to serve the generic industrial customer geographical loads. CSI also
submits that the loads to which CSI is referring are those noted in the bubbles on the submitted
drawings in Exhibit B-30, BCUC 4.4.8.1. CSI notes that the only substation in the DCAT proposal is
right next to the Bear Mountain Wind Farm, which is many kilometers from the load centre of the
majority of the proposed industrial load customers. CSI finally submits that for DCAT (and in the
future GDAT) to be properly planned and designed to serve industrial load customers, system
substations should be planned for efficient and effective interconnection and service.

CSI submits the process and practices previously in place at BC Hydro and the former British
Columbia Transmission Corporation (BCTC) need to be changed to accommodate the services
required for the Oil and Gas customers. The existing model in BC has worked for services such as
mines and other single, isolated industrial customers. In particular, it cites the example of
Louisiana Pacific, which was required to construct its own substation (designated LAP in some of
the figures provided by BC Hydro). As a result, the proposed DCAT Project is unable to utilize this
substation. (CSI Final Submission, pp. 6-7)

BC Hydro disagrees with CSI, stating that there is no evidence to support the allegation that new
customers will need to construct long lines at their own expense to connect to the system. It
submits that not all customers will be required to connect to the BMT substation and some
customers may choose to interconnect along the line, where technically appropriate. It further
submits that Shell is considering this option. Further, BC Hydro states that it will accommodate a
broad variety of interconnection points. (BC Hydro Reply Submission, pp. 11-12)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 223 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

110

With respect to the location of proposed electrical compression along the gathering lines, BC Hydro
states that it has been advised that for the four gas producers, electric driven engines are more
likely to be utilized for natural gas compression at the gas plants, which are more centralized and
designed for greater throughput, than at the smaller compressor stations distributed throughout
the field. The load requirement for a compressor is generally independent of the field position and
will be designed on specific parameters such as suction pressure, discharge pressure, gas quality,
and capacity. The size of gathering lines and sales lines are engineered to meet the process
requirements of the compressor station. (Exhibit B-22, Attachment 2, p. 8)

Commission Determination
Although the systemic impact issue has been raised by WMFN, and will be addressed as part of the
Commission Determination on First Nation Consultation, the Panel considers it to also be of
broader public interest.

Gas drilling and extraction operations in the Dawson Creek area are distributed over a significant
geographical area. BC Hydro states that electrical compression is more likely at a centralized
location. However, this statement in itself acknowledges that there is at least a possibility that
there will be some electrical compression at less centralized locations. Thus there exists the
possible emergence of one or more electrical networks, each run by a private entity.
Accordingly, the Panel acknowledges the concerns of the WMFN, and agrees that there may be the
potential of a spider web. With regard to CSIs contention, that new customers will need long
lines to supply the electricity to the site of their load, the Panel notes that while there is no
evidence to support this statement, there is no evidence to refute this either.

There is a potential for this issue to be exacerbated by sub-optimal siting of substations and other
interconnection points on the transmission system. While the Panel makes no determination on
whether BC Hydros approach is optimal or not, it notes that there is a lack of evidence on the
location of the new industrial loads. Under normal circumstances, there would be an approved IRP
to consider in fact, the UCA provides that the Commission must consider an IRP, as a requirement

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 224 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

111

for a CPCN proceeding. (s. 46(3.3) UCA) However, there is no such document before the Panel, nor
is there any other evidence of the location of the planned loads.

It is generally accepted that within a utility service area a single provider can plan, build and
maintain an electrical transmission and distribution infrastructure more efficiently than can
multiple providers. This approach, apart from being the most economically efficient approach, can
more effectively reduce environmental impact. In the Panels view, this is a key benefit of utility
regulation.

The approach generally taken in the BC Hydro service area is that BC Hydro plans the transmission
and distribution system, with Commission oversight. There may be exceptions, where a different
utility provides service in a small pocket for example Birds Eye Cove or for a customer owned
purpose-built line to serve a specific plant, such as the Louisiana Pacific case cited by CSI. However,
the Panel considers a circumstance where, say, four or more industrial customers each build and
own a network to serve its own geographically distributed loads to be substantially different. The
Panel questions why BC Hydro doesnt plan and build the electrical network in the Peace region as
it does in other areas. The Panel notes the City of Dawson Creeks statement in its Final
Submission: The residents of Dawson Creek (both present and prospective) have a right to
electrical service which meets the standards enjoyed by other residents of the Province. To this,
the Panel adds the question: Is the Dawson Creek area including both the First Nation residents
and the non-First Nation residents - not entitled to the same level of oversight and planning as is
provided for any other area in BC Hydros franchise territory?

The Panel also questions whether, if BC Hydro planned a network to serve known and expected
loads, what the impact, if any, on the DCAT Project alternatives would be. Would the same
substations be required? In the same locations? What would the impact on cost be? The Panel
notes that BC Hydro has split this project into two phases, in order to provide flexibility to the
planning process and the Panel has approved Alternative 1 for Phase 1 for this reason. However,
this flexibility comes at the cost of greater uncertainty as to the impacts of the overall project
because this approach could further exacerbate the spider web potential.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 225 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

112

There is no evidence before the Panel about the number or location of these loads, or how the new
customers plan to provide electricity to them. Accordingly no determination about the systemic
impact can be made at this time. However, the Panel directs that as part of the GDAT Phase 2
application, BC Hydro provide more detailed information about the location of customer loads
and the routing and ownership of all transmission and distribution lines that are expected to be
built.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 226 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

113

8.0

RATES AND TARIFFS

This section addresses rate and tariff matters, including review of current rates applicable to new
customers, rate impact of the DCAT Project on existing and new customers, applicability of the
System Extension Guidelines, application of Tariff Supplement 6 to the Project, and the proposed
revisions to the Electric Tariff.

8.1

Rates and Rate Impact


8.1.1 Review of Current Rates

Three of the five new industrial customers will receive service under Rate Schedule 1823,
Transmission Service Stepped Rate which currently includes a demand charge of $6.263 per kVA
plus an energy charge of $0.03261 per kWh for customers without a customer baseline load (CBL)
and $0.07360 per kWh up to and including 90 percent of the Customers CBL and $0.07360 per
kWh above 90 percent of the customers CBL for customers with a CBL. T&C for transmission
service are contained in Tariff Supplements 5 and 6.

Two of the five new industrial customers have opted for distribution service under Rate
Schedules 1600, 1601, 1610, 1611 - Large General Service (150 kW and over) which includes a basic
charge a demand charge and an energy charge as outline in the table below. T&C for distribution
service customers are contained in the Electric Tariff.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 227 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

114

8.1.2 Rate Impact F2013 F2035


The first year in which BC Hydros revenue requirement is forecast to be affected by the Project is
F2013. The total forecast costs to be recovered in rates for the period F2013 to F2035 are shown
below.
Table 7.1

Component

P50
(in millions)
F2013-F2035

P90
(in millions)
F2013-F2035

Amortization
$102.9
Finance
$160.5
ROE
$125.5
O&M
$31.8
TOTAL
$420.7
Source: Exhibit B-1, Appendix I, Tab Summary

$120.6
$188.5
$147.3
$35.7
$492.1

An initial increase in BC Hydros revenue requirements is forecast in the early years as the Project
goes into service as illustrated in the graph below. The revenue requirement increase would be
highest (in dollar terms) in F2015, the first full year the Project is in service, at around $24.5 million
for the P50 Cost Estimate (0.5 percent) and $28.7 million for the P90 Cost Estimate (0.6 percent).
(Exhibit B-1-3, p. 4-26)
Figure 7-1

Rate Impact Comparison P50 and P90 Cost Estimate

0.70%

0.60%

P50 Cost Estimate

P90 Cost Estimate

Percent (%)

0.50%

0.40%

0.30%

0.20%

0.10%

0.00%
2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

Fiscal Year

Source: Exhibit B-1-3, p. 4-26

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 228 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

115

8.1.3 Rate Impact Including the Cost of Energy F2013-F2035


The BC Hydro rate impact model takes into account all incremental costs for the DCAT Project area
reinforcement, including capital and operating costs associated with the facilities for which
BC Hydro has sought a CPCN to serve existing and forecast customers and load in the DCAT area
but it does not include the incremental cost to obtain the electrical energy required to service the
new load. (Exhibit B-14, BCUC 2.25.3)

BC Hydro stated that the incremental value of energy required to supply the forecasted load would
be $129/MWh, which is the weighted-average, levelized and adjusted firm energy price from the
2010 Clean Power Call. (Exhibit B-14, BCUC 2.25.1; Exhibit B-15-1, CEBC 2.2.4)

The figure below represents the P50 and P90 cost estimates including the incremental value of
energy required to supply the forecasted load. As the figure illustrates, the peak rate impact when
the cost of energy is taken into consideration, is in the region of 2.5 percent while the peak rate
impact excluding the cost of energy is closer to 0.5 percent.
Figure 7-2

Source: Exhibit B-14, BCUC 2.25.3

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 229 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

116

On March 23, 2012, BC Hydro revised the incremental value of energy required to supply the
forecasted load by reducing the costs to $50/MWh for the period up to F2017 as the system is
forecast to be a surplus during that period as a result of SD 9. (Exhibit B-22, Q 67 & 68) The update
indicated a peak rate impact in the range of 1.6 to 3.0 percent depending on the level of load
forecast. (Exhibit B-29, BCUC 3.8.2)

8.1.4 Submissions by Parties


BCSEA submits that DCAT puts upward pressure on rates because it facilitates new load on the
BC Hydro system. It further argues that the project as defined has an unacceptable impact on rates
because TS 6 does not provide for a substantial contribution from new customers. In its view, the
Commission should give consideration to the total rate impact, including the cost of energy to
service the incremental customer loads. (BCSEA Final Submission, pp. 5, 13)

AMPC submits that rate pressure from the cost of incremental generation to supply the load, will
be acute, although the rate impact of any specific project need not be considered at all. However,
it also submits that it is crucial that the rate impacts of projects forecast over a reasonable planning
horizon be considered when determining an appropriate contribution policy that will then be
transparently and consistently applied to new customers. (AMPC Final Submission, pp. 6, 20)

CEA suggests that BC Hydro would use all-inclusive rate impacts for portfolio analyses in an
integrated resource plan but not necessarily for individual project evaluations. (CEA Final
Submission, p. 8)

Air Liquide submits that there is nothing in the language of TS 6 to suggest that the cost of energy
required to service new customer loads should be taken into account by the Commission. Further,
the cost will be the same regardless of which project alternative is used. (Air Liquide Final
Submission, p. 6)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 230 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

117

BC Hydro submits that the cost of energy to serve incremental customer loads in the DCAT area is
not relevant to the decision to approve the Application, because energy cost to serve load is
generally common to all alternatives, and should therefore not be included in the analysis.
BC Hydro also submits that it procures its energy supplies on a consolidated basis, ensuring it has
sufficient energy to meet the demands of all of its customers in the province. It states that since it
does not purchase energy for a specific project, therefore specific energy should not be attributed
to that project. (Exhibit B-14, BCUC 2.25.2)

Commission Determination

In the Panels view, granting a CPCN should not be conditioned by a consideration of the impact on
rates, of the cost of energy required to serve new load. Therefore the Panel will not consider any
rate impact of the incremental cost of energy to supply the new load in the Dawson Creek area.

The Panel disagrees with BCSEAs argument that the project facilitates new load which will have an
unacceptable impact on rates because TS 6 does not provide for a substantial contribution from
new customers. Provincial policy entitles all BC Hydro customers, whether existing or new, to a
share of heritage energy. Accordingly, as the base of customers grows, the share of heritage
energy allocated to existing customers will be adjusted downward proportionately. Energy to meet
consumption needs in excess of the amount of heritage energy available is obtained, typically at
prices in excess of the price of heritage energy, through various means, including from IPPs and the
spot market. Most BC Hydro customers receive energy on a tiered, or stepped, tariff. The principle
has been established by previous panels when setting stepped rates, that the top tier rate should
reflect the marginal cost of new supply. It is only through such principled pricing policies that
support economically efficient consumption decisions, that fair allocations of the costs of energy to
supply new customers can be achieved. The Panel notes that the Provincial Government has
announced a comprehensive industrial rate review within the next two years. Accordingly all
parties will have an opportunity to provide input to help ensure that rates remain fair and
reasonable.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 231 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

118

8.2

Applicability of the System Extension Guidelines

The Commission requested that parties address various issues about the applicability of the Utility
System Extension Test Guidelines to the application of TS 6 in this hearing. (Exhibit A-31) The
Panel will now consider those submissions.

Shell asserts that the BCUC is foreclosed as a matter of jurisdiction from applying the Extension
Guidelines, to the extent that they are inconsistent with TS 6, by BC Regulation 158/2005 and
BC Hydros statutory obligation under s. 3(b)(iii) of the Heritage Contract Act. It further submits
that, to the extent that the Guidelines are consistent with TS 6, the question of whether they
should be applied should be considered as part of a larger rate review process. (Shell Final
Submission, p. 9) Air Liquide agrees with Shell stating: Air Liquide submits that the Guidelines
should not be applied to TS 6. The Commission only has jurisdiction to apply the Guidelines insofar
as they are consistent with TS 6. The Commission should properly make such a determination in
the context of a larger rate review process in which all stakeholders can be heard. (Air Liquide
Final Submission, p. 2)

CEA argues that the Guidelines should not apply to TS 6, because a system reinforcement is not a
system extension. It maintains that DCAT is an: upgrade, expansion, reinforcement, or call it
what you like, but not an extension to the BCH transmission system that requires the application of
the Utility System extension test Guidelines. It further submits that: Contributions in Aid of
Construction are not to be confused with any payments that may be required under TS 6. (CEA
Final Submission, p. 5)

AMPC concurs, stating that the Guidelines are 16 years old, voluntary and focussed on small
customers and, as such they have little relevance. (AMPC Final Submissions, p. 14) Similarly, ARC,
Encana and Murphy assert that TS 6 has been in force for 20 years, and BC Hydro should not now
be required to interpret it in any different manner than on the past. (ARC, Encana and Murphy
Final Submission, p. 2)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 232 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

119

However, the CEC is of the view that, as Guidelines, they may provide a useful reference for the
nature of definition of issues and previous efforts to consider resolution of the issues, although TS 6
stands on its own. (CEC Final Submission, p. 24)

BCSEA submits that the Guidelines guide the Commissions public interest review of BC Hydros
proposed application of TS 6. It advances two ways in which the Commission intended the
Guidelines to be applied: in deciding a utilitys application for approval of a proposed system
extension policy; or in the course of reviewing a system extension policy, for a particular system
extension, within a CPCN. It is the latter case which is applicable here, and in this application of the
Guidelines, the BCSEA considers the general principle that the costs of system extensions be
allocated to those customers who cause them to be important. (BCSEA Final Submission, p. 8)

BCSPO submits that the Guidelines should apply to TS 6, and identifies several key areas where TS 6
doesnt reflect the guidelines, including using net revenues in the calculation of benefits; evaluation
based on a DCF evaluation and the recovery of costs in the System Reinforcement costs as opposed
to a connection fee. (BCSPO Final Submission, pp. 21-22)

In reply, BC Hydro submits that employing the Guidelines as an interpretive aid is flawed since they
were issued after the TS 6 had been agreed on and filed as a tariff. Therefore, the Guidelines cant
be a useful interpretive tool. (BC Hydro Reply Submission, p. 8) BC Hydro also disagrees with
BCSEAs position, stating that it is obliged to apply the system extension policy embedded in its rate
schedules. Accordingly, only the application of TS 6 can be considered. (BC Hydro Reply
Submission, pp. 10-11)

Commission Determination

The Panel finds that the System Extension Guidelines should not be applied as is, but when not
inconsistent with TS 6, and in areas where TS 6 is silent, they can be considered. In making this
determination, the Panel considered the voluntary status of the Guidelines and the fact that TS 6 is
a tariff approved by the Commission.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 233 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

120

8.3

Application of TS 6 to the DCAT Project


8.3.1 Calculation of the Maximum Offset

Tariff Supplement 6 provides a formulaic approach to calculating costs and benefits of system
extensions. When assessing benefits, it provides the Maximum Offset that BC Hydro will allow
towards the cost of system reinforcement. The Maximum Offset is a measure of the benefits a
transmission extension is expected to provide and is calculated as follows:

The variables in the formulae above are defined in TS 6 as:


I=

BC Hydros maximum offset towards the cost of System Reinforcement;

R=

the incremental revenue as calculated by BC Hydro from the estimated incremental load
during the first year of normal operations;

E=

the estimated incremental operating and maintenance expense of supplying the


incremental load during the first year of normal operations;

D=

one-half the annual depreciation associated with the estimated total costs of System
Reinforcement; and

B=

other benefits to the BC Hydro system, as determined by BC Hydro.

BC Hydro states that, as applied to this project:


1. R is determined by estimating the revenue to be received from the customer in the first
12 months after it begins normal operations; and
2. E is determined by estimating operating costs associated with the specific portfolio of
incremental facilities that BC Hydro must construct to serve the new load. That is, BC Hydro
applies an annual operation and maintenance cost to the new facilities that have been
identified as System Reinforcements, calculated as a percentage of the capital cost.
(Exhibit B-22, p. 81)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 234 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

121

Depending upon the value of the Maximum Offset, a new customer will either pay a refundable
deposit, a Contribution in Aid of Construction (CIAC), or a combination of both. Section 5 states
that the new customer will pay any amount by which the construction costs exceed the Maximum
Offset and, in addition, provide a security deposit in the amount of the Maximum Offset.

As outlined previously, the DCAT Project is designed to serve existing load, two distribution voltage
customers and three transmission voltage customers. Therefore, BC Hydro states that this required
some decisions to be taken in interpreting TS 6. It began its assessment by determining that
60 percent of the estimated DCAT Project costs were properly assigned to the five new customers,
and that this was a rounding from a calculated allocation of 64 percent. BC Hydro then determined
that all five customers should be treated equally to one another regardless of their supply voltage.
Accordingly, BC Hydro requests certain amendments to its Electric Tariff. (Exhibit B-22, p. 83)

In its supplemental evidence, BC Hydro summarizes the subsequent steps that it undertook to
determine the cost and security responsibility of each customer as follows:
1. Determine System Reinforcement costs for each customer;
2. Apply the first step in the offset formula by comparing BC Hydros net revenue from each
customer in the first year of normal operations times 7.4 to the System Reinforcement cost;
and
3. Determine the pro-rata security to be collected from each customer in light of its allocated
System Reinforcement cost. (Exhibit B-22, p. 83)

BC Hydro stated that it has sought to discern and apply the plain meaning of the tariff in the
absence of express language dealing with this situation. BC Hydro has not considered if this
approach is appropriate for all cases that may be covered by the hypothetical circumstances of the
question, but does believe that it is appropriate in this case. (Exhibit B-30, BCUC 4.8.1.1)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 235 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

122

For the five new DCAT customers combined, BC Hydro calculates the Maximum Offset at
$429 million, by applying the above formula with the following assumptions:
R=

$58 million/year from five customers providing security with a combined load of 176 MW

E=

$1 million

B=

assumed to be zero

D=

$2 million.

(Exhibit B-5, BCUC 1.48.2)

It is unclear exactly what rate assumptions were used to determine that R = $58 million, but it is
unlikely that energy costs are included. Q111 in the Supplemental Evidence states: R is
determined by estimating the revenue to be received from the customer in the first 12 months
after it begins normal operations. (Exhibit B 22, p. 81)

Based on the inclusion of approximately seven years revenue being applied to the system
reinforcement costs for this Project, for the five customers providing security, BC Hydros maximum
offset as calculated in TS 6 is be $429 million, which exceeds the estimated cost for system
reinforcement assigned to customers of $131.5 million. This results in a refundable security
requirement from the five customers of $131.5 million and no required contribution. (Exhibit B 5,
BCUC 1.40.1, 1.48.2)

8.3.2 Interpretation of TS 6
In its earlier scoping decision, the Panel determined that it is appropriate for parties to provide
evidence and ask questions as to the application of TS 6 to the DCAT project so as to allow the
Commission Panel to determine whether the DCAT project is in the public interest. (Exhibit A-28,
Order G-56-12) The Panel will now consider these submissions.

BC Hydro utilizes TS 6 to determine the extent to which the new customer or load is responsible for
the cost of additions or alterations by assigning cost responsibility between BC Hydro and individual
customers for System Reinforcements. (Exhibit B-22, p. 76) BC Hydro submits that in this project,
the cost of reinforcing the system will be substantially recovered from new customers to the
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 236 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

123

benefit of existing customers. It maintains this is because existing customers will only be allocated
less than half of the project cost, stating that between 92 and 100% of the remaining 60% of the
reinforcement costs will be covered by the security that the new customers will be providing. It
further submits that these new customers will be making this contribution either through their
rates or, alternatively, by forfeiting their security. BC Hydro states that there is virtually no risk that
the assets will be stranded before they are paid for. (BC Hydro Final Submission, p. 10)

However, BC Hydro is not actually collecting a contribution from any of the five new customers. Its
application of TS 6 to this Project results in a requirement for a deposit only. Many Interveners felt
that the new customers should be assessed a contribution and that TS 6 should be found deficient
because it doesnt provide for a contribution in this instance. In AMPCs view, TS 6 is not
sufficiently robust or well defined to address the high growth scenarios expected in BC today and
its intended application by BC Hydro to major projects lacks clarity. (Exhibit C3-10, p. 9)

BC Hydro submits that while TS 6 has been in existence since 1991, controversy has arisen now
when BC Hydro has sought to apply it to members of a new industry in the province which has not
historically been a major user of electricity and has not been typically represented before the
BCUC. (BC Hydro Final Submission, p. 15) BC Hydro states that in the past 10 years TS 6 has been
applied 23 times, in which 11 cases resulted in a System Reinforcement. In all of these, the offset
formula produced a result in excess of the cost of the System Reinforcement. (Exhibit B-22, p. 81)

AMPC stated that all new customers become eligible for postage stamp rates upon receiving
service, and should be required to contribute to the cost of the infrastructure with a contribution
payment before they can access the stable postage stamp rate. Further, absent the safeguard of a
well-designed contribution policy, new customers demanding service in locations that are
disproportionally expensive to serve could cause rate shock for all existing customers. A good
contribution policy protects existing customers from the risks of such escalation and provides new
customers with a price signal to encourage more efficient selection of energy choices.
(Exhibit C3-10, p. 5) (Exhibit C3-12, AMPC 1.2.1, 12.2)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 237 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

124

BCSEA submits that whether DCAT is in the interests of current and future ratepayers is largely
dependent upon who pays for DCAT and that the five new customers should make a financial
contribution to system reinforcement. (BCSEA Final Submission, p. 7)

Air Liquide adopts BC Hydros submissions regarding TS 6 and further submits that no party has
identified an error in the application of TS 6 in this hearing. (Air Liquide Final Submission, pp. 2, 6)
ARC, Encana and Murphy Oil, jointly submit that TS 6 has been in force for more than 20 years and
should not now be applied any differently than it has in the past. (ARC, Encana and Murthy Final
Submission, p. 2) CAPP submits that this application is not the appropriate forum to consider
broad, far reaching tariff changes and that this project should be considered in light of the current
tariff. (CAPP Final Submission, p. 2)

However, AMPC submits that the Commission can consider whether the outcome of applying TS 6
is in the public interest. In support of this position, it cites section 59(4) and 59(5) of the UCA. It
further submits that absent a principled mechanism for customer contributions under TS 6, and
without an application by BC Hydro to amend TS 6, given the link between customer contributions
and project need, the appropriate action for the Commission is to deny BC Hydros application
pending a revised tariff with an appropriate customer contribution policy. (AMPC Final Submission,
p. 9)

BC Hydro disagrees, arguing that the Commission has agreed that this hearing is not the place to
mount a campaign to modify TS 6. It submits that this hearing should be limited to whether
BC Hydro has correctly interpreted the existing provisions of TS 6. (BC Hydro Final submission,
p. 16)

Commission Determination

The Commission Panel finds that the calculation of benefits in TS 6 may not accurately reflect the
actual economic benefits to BC Hydros customers. The Panel considers a key determinant of
economic benefits to include the full impact of the project on rates. As discussed previously in this
Decision, the impact on rates of the project, including the cost of energy depends upon the

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 238 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

125

assumptions of energy surplus. In the absence of a surplus, the impact is high, otherwise it is quite
low. The Panel is of the opinion that this may be the result of an out-dated rate structure that
doesnt fairly allocate costs between transmission customers and other classes of customers. In
any event, the fact that the result of the System Offset calculation in TS 6 does not change, no
matter which scenario applies, renders this calculation of little value when considering economic
benefits to ratepayers.

Accordingly, the Panel is not persuaded that the economic benefit to BC Hydro and its ratepayers is
related in any way to the benefit arrived at in the calculation made pursuant to TS 6. In particular,
in the calculation of (R-E) in the System Offset calculation, R includes the revenues from both the
sale of energy and the delivery charges, while E only includes some incremental delivery expenses.
The Panel notes that this issue was considered by the panel in the System Extension review, and
the Guidelines recommend that the cost of energy be included in any benefit calculation.

The approach in TS 6, and applied by BC Hydro to this Project, may be a more appropriate proxy for
benefits under different economic circumstances. For example, if the average costs to supply
energy to all customers exceeds the marginal cost to acquire incremental energy any increase in
load will, generally speaking, drive the average cost down for all customers. In these
circumstances, TS 6, which utilizes an estimate of potential gross revenue, less some incremental
costs, but not including energy costs, provides a proxy for this load-building benefit. However, if
marginal energy generation and/or acquisition costs are greater than average costs, there is no
direct economic benefit from building load that will accrue to existing ratepayers. There may be
intangible or possible future benefits to increased load. Further, there may be benefits that accrue
to BC generally and therefore taxpayers, by the industrial or commercial development that a
system extension brings. However, the Panel does not consider that BC Hydros ratepayers should
be financially responsible for benefits that all British Columbians share.

BC Hydro continues to claim that the cost of reinforcing the system will be substantially recovered
from new customers to the benefit of existing customers. However, this does not seem likely to
the Panel, given that the new customers are providing a deposit, which, if forecast loads
materialize, will be refunded. The only scenario in which the new customers would contribute to

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 239 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

126

the reinforcement costs is if they place a deposit and then take no energy or at least less energy
than anticipated.

The Panel agrees with BC Hydro that the deposits from the five customers provide some protection
from asset stranding. However, if expected loads are realized in the first few years, the new
customers could earn out their deposit in 8 years or less, which, given the uncertainty of the load
forecast and the volatile nature of commodity markets, still leaves significant stranding risks. In the
event that all deposit monies are refunded, BC Hydro is left with no contribution whatsoever from
the new customers and its ratepayers are faced with the full rate impact of the project costs.

The Panel agrees with AMPC that new customers should be provided with price signals that
encourage efficient economic decisions. To this end, TS 6 should provide a robust methodology to
calculate accurate price signals. Any misalignment of price signals could skew industrial consumers
choices. For example, the absence of a contribution requirement could potentially make an
electricity option appear more economical to the gas producers than gas compression, even if
natural gas compression, with a carbon tax, is a more economically efficient outcome.

If TS 6 is indeed not robust enough to adequately proportion the costs and risks of transmission
reinforcement between existing and new customers in the current economic circumstances, the
Panel must determine what, if any, jurisdiction it has to direct a different approach. The Panel has
previously determined that issues respecting the application of TS 6 to this project are in scope
insofar as they determine the public interest. In addition, section 59 of the UCA requires the
Commission to determine whether a rate is unjust, unreasonable or discriminatory.

Section 59 of the UCA, however, does not provide the Commission with the ability to adjust or
change a rate that it has found unjust, unreasonable or discriminatory. Section 58 states that it
may determine a just, reasonable and sufficient rate only after a hearing. While this hearing has
provided an opportunity for a significant amount of discussion of TS 6, the Panel is not persuaded
that it meets the requirements for a hearing as required by section 58(1). This is a CPCN
application, not a rate design hearing.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 240 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

127

The Panel notes that in the Reasons for Decision accompanying Order G-4-91 (which approved
TS 6), the Commission indicated that it was given the assurance that the agreed T&C of the
Electricity Supply Agreement and Facilities Agreement would have no financial impact on any other
rate classes, stating: The agreement of the parties, coupled with the lack of inter-class financial
impact has been most persuasive in convincing the Commission to accept the negotiated
documents. This Panel questions whether BC Hydro has been as diligent as it could or should have
been to ensure that as economic conditions changed, rates underwent an appropriate redesign
exercise to update TS 6.

In summary, the Panel agrees that there are a number of issues concerning TS 6 that require a
more fulsome review. However, the Panel is also mindful that the five new DCAT customers
entered the process with BC Hydro in good faith, relying on its expertise with its own tariffs. They
have made investments in plant and equipment consistent with receiving electric service. As
important as sending accurate economic indicators is, it is equally important, in the Panels view, to
provide prospective customers with fair and predictable treatment. The Panel also notes the
following:
1. TS 6 covers only the calculation of contributions and deposits, which amount to a rate
impact of considerably less than 1 percent;
2. The rate impact from the incremental energy demand is highly dependent upon surplus
power assumptions. From the evidence provided, given the surplus, there will be no impact
on rates for the cost of incremental energy until 2017 at the earliest;
3. The Provincial Government expects to review the Transmission Service Rate and the
industrial tariff over the next two years, given their age, the BCUC report, and the Provinces
economic development priorities.

Accordingly the Panel is not persuaded that the CPCN for the Project should be denied pending
an amendment of TS 6 as suggested by AMPC. TS 6 has been approved by the Commission, and
subsequently has been applied on a number of occasions. There is no evidence before the Panel
that any previous issues have arisen in these applications of TS 6.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 241 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

128

The Panel also finds that it is not appropriate to alter or modify TS 6, in this instance only, to
remedy any perceived shortcomings. For example, if the application of TS 6 does not otherwise
result in the requirement for a contribution, it is not appropriate for one to be arbitrarily imposed.
However, the Panel will make specific findings and recommendations regarding the interpretation
of TS 6 as it relates to generation reinforcement and the Phase 2 project in the following sections.

Panel Recommendation

The Government has indicated a review of industrial rates will be conducted within two years after
completion of the BC Hydro F2012-F2014 proceeding or May 2012. If the review of transmission
service rates is not concluded by mid 2014, or if it does not include a review of TS 6, this Panel
recommends that the Commission should consider a review of TS 6 and invite all interested
parties to participate in the review as this is a significant and urgent issue.

8.3.3 Generation Reinforcement


Section 2 of TS 6 provides that System Reinforcements do not include any additions or alterations
to generation plant and associated transmission, or transmission lines at 500 kV and over, unless
the new or incremental loads exceed 150 MV.A. BC Hydro confirms that none of the DCAT Project
customers has a load exceeding 150 MV.A. (Exhibit B-22, p. 76) Two issues arose in this
proceeding from the approach to generation reinforcement in the application of TS 6. The first is
whether the 150 MV.A threshold should apply to the group of new customers as a whole. The
second is how the threshold should be applied to a new customer that adds load incrementally
over a period of time such that at some point it exceeds 150 MV.A. The Panel specifically
requested parties to provide submissions on this issue and also on the issue of whether, in the
event that energy to supply the new load came from market purchases or IPPs, the purchase cost
should be considered a generation cost.

With regard to whether the five new customers should be aggregated, BCPSO submits that TS 6 is
an agreement between BC Hydro and individual customers, and should be interpreted as such.
(BCPSO Final Submission, p. 25)
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 242 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

129

Shell submits that the definition of customer in TS 6 is: A Customer is a customer who takes, or is
proposing to take electricity from BC Hydro and that the whole focus of TS 6 is individual load. It
further submits that as Shell is unrelated to any of the other customers, it would be entirely unfair
to group Shell with unrelated customers, for the purpose of determining thresholds, would be
arbitrary, and discriminatory; and would fail to comply with the terms of TS 6. (Shell Final
Submission, p. 14)

Shell has currently committed to 120 MW of load. With regard to the possibility of it taking an
additional amount of load, it states that it has identified the possibility of future load in excess of
that amount. However, this depends upon whether or not full field development is realized and
submits that therefore this is highly speculative. (Shell Final Submission, p. 14)

BC Hydro was asked how it would handle a situation where a customer stages an application with
first phase requirement of 100 MW, for an entire service totalling 150 MV.A or greater - would the
customer avoid contributing to generation reinforcement costs that would otherwise be payable if
all load was added at the same time? It responded that: the 150 MV.A provision of TS 6 does
not specifically address the timing of incremental load increases. If it appeared that the customer
planned to develop the entire project (even though in phased approach) in a relatively short period
of time, and had sized its own electrical equipment so as to serve the full, aggregated load, it is
likely BC Hydro would treat it as a single Customers Plant and apply TS 6 accordingly. On the
other hand, if the customers plans for expansion, or adding of additional load, were tentative, with
the possible additional load being added several years in the future, and subject to other
contingencies, then it is likely BC Hydro would not treat it as a single Customers Plant at the time
the application for service was received from the customer. (Exhibit B-30, BCUC 4.3.1)

CEC submits that it is supportive of a pragmatic approach to the determination of compliance with
this threshold and submits that the Commission may want to encourage BC Hydro to be more
robust in its application of the provisions of TS 6. (CEC Final Submission, p. 22)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 243 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

130

BC Hydro agrees, stating: it is not appropriate to aggregate the load of multiple customers when
determining whether the 150 MV.A threshold is met. (BC Hydro Final Submission, p. 20)

Commission Determination

The Panel finds that the TS 6 should be applied to individual customers, and not an aggregation
of customers. The Commission Panel notes that BC Hydro has also aggregated the new customers
for the purpose of calculating project costs, before proportioning these costs according to their
estimated load requirements. The Panel is of the view that this is an appropriate approach.
However, any specific application of the terms and conditions of TS 6 must be done on an
individual customer basis.

With regard to a customer that takes additional load subsequent to the TS 6 calculation, the Panel
also considered the policy underlying the Customer Base Line as a comparison. In this case, the
customers first tier rate applies to an amount of energy that is determined by an analysis of their
historic load. However, when undergoing an expansion, due, for example, to an economic upturn
and an increased demand for product, a customer is entitled to apply to have the baseline reset at
a higher value. This approach recognizes that tariffs are generally applied in such a way that
changed or changing circumstances are taken into consideration in their application. Accordingly,
the Panel also finds that it is appropriate to consider load added subsequent to the new
customer taking service when applying TS 6.

While the Commission Panel agrees with a pragmatic approach, it considers BC Hydros wait and
see approach to additional load to lack transparency and clarity. In particular, the Panel is of the
opinion that there should be a specified time period during which the calculation remains open for
adjustment during that period. The Panel notes that TS 6 provides a benefit for the five new
customers in the event that additional new customers attach to the system within 5 years. In this
eventuality, their deposit is recalculated and refunded by an amount that recognizes the additional
new load. The Panel also notes other sections of TS 6 which implicitly recognize a time period, such
as the benefit calculation, which extrapolates first year benefits over 7.4 years and the refund
calculation, which provides for, all else equal, deposit refunds in 8 years.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 244 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

131

Panel Recommendation
The Panel makes no specific directive with regard to the inclusion of generation reinforcement in
the TS 6 calculation in the event that any of the five industrial customers increase the amount of
load. However, the Panel recommends that this issue be examined in the forthcoming industrial
tariff review.

8.3.4 Tariff Supplement 6 and GDAT Project Costs


Having approved BC Hydros phased approach to the DCAT project as a means of meeting its MRS
commitments, the issue now for the Commission Panel is whether the system reinforcement costs,
for the purpose of the calculations of deposits/contributions in TS 6 should include estimates for
GDAT.

BC Hydro has not sought any deposit or CIAC with regard to the GDAT project from any of the five
new customers. It submits that all five of these new loads will be served prior to the
implementation of GDAT and at that time these customers will be treated as would any other
existing customer. It argues that it would be incorrect to include GDAT costs. It further argues that
even if it were to do so, the increase in project cost would not trigger the need for a contribution.
(BC Hydro Final Submission, p. 22)

CEC argues that customer security is being based on a project cost estimate for a project which
does not deliver the required N-1 level of service. There is an implied commitment by BC Hydro to
provide the Stage 2016 project, which the customers can rely on but they are not being asked to
commit security on the basis of the full costs required to provide the service. Consequently other
customers on the BC Hydro system will be more at risk than they should be. It also argues that the
customers putting up security will be relieved of the security commitment on the basis of their full
revenues against a partial security commitment, thus relieving them more quickly than would
otherwise be the case, again this raising the risk to the other BC Hydro customers. (CEC Final
Submission, p. 10)
W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 245 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

132

CEC further submits that The GDAT project as undefined as it may be is clearly defined by the
requirement to meet the N-1 standard of service for the Dawson Creek Chetwynd area loads. To
the extent that this represents costs for investments in future stages there should be nothing in the
estimating approaches or subsequent reinforcement approaches which prevents the
Commission from identifying the public interest in the fairness involved in considering the DCAT
and GDAT projects within this CPCN. BC Hydros submission that the GDAT is not before the
Commission is not the case. In the CECs submission the 2016 Common Stage 2 is clearly a part of
the CPCN application. (CEC Final Submission, p. 25)

With regard to the relationship between the DCAT and the potential $114 million GDAT projects,
AMPC stated that if both facilities proceed, and if both facilities receive the same tariff treatment,
then up to $335 million in new infrastructure, 76 percent to 90 percent attributable to new
industrial facilities, will escape a reasonable level of customer contribution obligation. It further
noted that this outcome is inconsistent with the user pay/cost causation principle that customer
contribution policies (including TS 6) are intended to give effect to. (Exhibit C3-10, pp. 10-11)

AMPC also submits that the GDAT project must be considered, as it forms an integral part of
BC Hydros plans to provide adequate service to customers in the area and that . BC Hydro
should not pretend that GDAT does not exist because its final configuration is imprecise. (AMPC
Final Submission p. 20)

BC Hydro replies that TS 6 does not contemplate the indefinite future in determining customer
contributions. If customers are fortunate enough to take service at a time when their load can be
served without any system reinforcement costs being incurred, no contribution will be required.
However, if they take service at a time when a specific project is required, they will be required to
make a contribution or to provide security. In no circumstances are they required to make
contributions based on expected future increases in load, if has BC Hydro has not yet determined
what facilities will be necessary to serve that load. It further argues that there is no right, under
TS 6 for BC Hydro to charge customers for possible future specific assets that have not been
identified. (BC Hydro Reply Submission, pp. 5-6)

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 246 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

133

In contrast to the position of other Interveners, BCSPO submits that since DCAT can only supply
73 MW of this load at the required N-1 reliability condition, this is the value that should be used in
the determination of the BC Hydro offset. The balance of the 176 MW (i.e., 103 MW) is part of
what is driving the need for the GDAT project and should be linked to that project and not DCAT. In
order to credibly use the 176 MW in the offset calculation, the cost being offset would have to
include both the DCAT and GDAT projects, which is not precisely known at this time. (BCSPO Final
Submission, p. 20)

Commission Determination

The Panel finds that the DCAT Project TS 6 calculation should not include the estimated costs of
the Phase 2 GDAT project. The scope and timing of GDAT is uncertain at this time the timing
being heavily dependent upon the materialization of the load forecast.

The service provided to the five new industrial customers by the DCAT project and the incremental
increase in reliability resulting from a future GDAT project create issues for this or possibly future
Commission Panels to consider. One such issue is whether there is an obligation to provide future
N-1 service to a new network-connected customer that elects to receive N-0 service by providing a
security deposit for a less expensive project than that required for full N-1 service. If an obligation
does exist, or the customer later demands N-1 service, then another issue arises as to whether a
security deposit is required for any required reinforcements. If there is no obligation, then can
BC Hydro rely on the controlled load shedding of network connected load indefinitely to remain
compliant with Mandatory Reliability Standards?

The Panel has previously found that BC Hydro can meet its MRS reliability obligations through load
shedding agreements, such as the ones it currently has in place with the five new customers.
BC Hydro has stated its intention to provide full N-1 service through the second project phase
following the completion of DCAT and that at that time, the five new customers should be treated
as would any other existing customer. In this regard, the Panel notes the potential applicability of
TS 6 to existing customers. TS 6 defines customer as: A customer who takes or is proposing to

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 247 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

134

take Electricity from B.C. Hydro pursuant to an Electricity Supply Agreement on the terms and
conditions of Rate Schedule 1821, as amended or replaced from time to time. The Panel is of the
opinion that customers should not be relieved of their full deposit or contribution responsibility
merely because a project is phased, instead of being completed at one time. Accordingly, the
Panel determines that if the Phase 2 GDAT project is found to be needed in order to provide
service to these five new industrial DCAT customers, the requirement for additional deposit or
contribution should be assessed at that time.

The Panel takes no position on whether full N-1 service is at the customers option, or whether
BC Hydro can require customers to upgrade to this service from the interruptible service they
will be taking when and if the GDAT project goes ahead. Further, any GDAT deposit/contribution
requirement may also be shared by other customers that attach between DCAT and GDAT. This
will not be clearly known until the GDAT project is brought forward to the Commission by
BC Hydro. The issue before this Panel is whether to approve the CPCN for phase one DCAT
therefore this issue of deposit or contribution for GDAT is one that the future panel assessing the
GDAT project will be in a better position to consider. Accordingly, this Panel makes no
determination about whether the five new customers should be reassessed when the DCAT project
begins.

Panel Recommendation

1. The forthcoming industrial rate review should consider how deposits and contributions
should be assessed when a project is phased.
2. The issue of additional deposits/contributions by DCAT customers should be examined by
a future Panel when the Phase 2 GDAT CPCN application is heard.

W.A.C. Bennett Riprap Upgrade Project

Page 248 of 787

Counsel's Final Written Argument on behalf of


British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Book of Authorities

135

8.4

Proposed Revisions