P. O. Box 79
Pasqua, Saskatchewan S0G 5M0
Phone: (306) 332-5697
Fax: (306) 332-5199
Toll Free: 1 (888) 820-2202

STATEMENT TO THE MEDIA BY CHIEF MATTHEW TODD PEIGAN
January 23, 2018
Concerning the news release of Quill Lakes Watershed Association dated January 22, 2018
The purpose of this news release is to respond to the news release issued yesterday by the Quill
Lakes Watershed Association No. 14 (QLWA), advising that it is "withdrawing its current
construction proposal of the Common Ground Flood Mitigation Project".
The QLWA news release was never sent to us by QLWA or the government, even though we
commenced a judicial review application to challenge the Minister's decision on the project.
They did not even bother to notify us of their decision. We only found out about it late
yesterday, from the CBC. When we finally received a copy of it, we sent it to the lawyers for
QLWA and the Minister, and asked them for comment.
Apparently, QLWA takes the position that because they have decided to "withdraw" this project,
our court application is "moot". They want us to withdraw our court application.
The Minister has not yet told us his position on the QLWA project "withdrawal". We understand
that the governing party is in the midst of electing a new Premier this weekend, so a response
from the Minister may take more time. We welcome the opportunity to hold meaningful
discussions with the Minister in order to resolve the concerns set out below. We have already
raised these concerns with the Minister.
The position of the Pasqua is that this application is not moot until a court says so. It is easy for
QLWA to try and pull the rug out from under this court application by asserting it has
"withdrawn" the project. But how do we know the withdrawal is genuine, and final? How do
we know that QLWA is not going to just change their design slightly, for example by moving the
discharge point of the project by 10 feet, and call it a different project? How do we know that
QLWA will not simply reapply for approval of the same project in a few months' time? They
could very well do either, just to avoid our judicial review application.

 -2Certainly, their reasons for "withdrawing" the project are completely unbelievable. They have
known about the need to get Water Security Agency (WSA) approval since early in 2017, and
they have known about WSA's requirement for "appropriate studies " since at least the middle of
November 2017. The only thing that has changed since then, is that we filed our judicial review
application in December 2017, which threatened to expose the illegality and environmental risks
of this project. We also asked QLWA and the Minister to agree to a court order "preserving the
status quo" – enjoining the project - until our application was decided.
So for QLWA to say now that they do not have enough time to complete the studies WSA has
requested, is just not credible. If they have run out of time, it is because of their own inaction.
Also, it makes no sense at all how withdrawing a project completely is going to help QLWA meet
their objective of handling the spring 2018 run-off any faster than carrying on with the current
project. So there is nothing in this news release which rings true. We believe the real reason
they are "withdrawing" this project is to attempt to avoid our judicial review application, and the
injunction motion. They knew the writing was on the wall.
We are not prepared to play this game. If they are truly and finally withdrawing this project, then
they should agree to a court order which prohibits them from proceeding with it. Then, they will
be prohibited from reapplying for the same project in a few months' time. If they try to change
the project just slightly, we will be back in court to argue that this is a complete abuse of process.
Also, we are very concerned about the dishonourable way in which the Minister and WSA
worked behind the scenes, in an apparently biased manner, to help QLWA avoid doing an
Environmental Impact Assessment for this project and generally avoid complying with the
approval requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). It causes the Pasqua real
concern that this Minister's staff worked so actively in a partisan manner to undermine his own
legislation. That is especially true when those actions put at risk the environment and human
health of all the Treaty 4 first nations on Last Mountain Lake and the more than 55,000
concerned residents of Saskatchewan represented in our court application.
There is obviously a real risk that this could happen again. The QLWA, in its news release,
promises that it will "will continue to seek a managed solution to protect or minimize future
damages due to flooding". Their lawyer told us the same thing. That means they are going to
come back with another project.
So, as a minimum, we want an assurance from the Minister that that all future similar projects –
projects involving the diversion of polluted salt water from the Quill Lakes area into Last Mount
Lake and the Qu'Appelle River system – will undergo a full environmental assessment under
Saskatchewan's EAA. No more ignoring the requirements of the EAA. No more patently
unreasonable, illegal, "exemption decisions". No more backroom deals with proponents who are
their buddies. As a minimum, the Minister should be prepared to make this public commitment.
We also want to be assured by the Minister that, going forward, all of our rights are respected.
That includes our aboriginal rights to consultation and accommodation and to traditional hunting
and fishing. It also includes our right, and the right of all impacted Saskatchewan residents, to be
notified of potential government decisions which could impact us environmentally, and our right
to respond and make our concerns known. Finally, that includes our right to have our

 -3environment and human health protected, and not indiscriminately trampled, by the government,
as it did in this case.
Finally, we had to spend significant legal costs to commence this judicial review application and
fight to have our day in court. We were forced to take this ministerial decision to court because
the Minister refused to apply the clear requirements of his own environmental assessment
legislation, and failed to protect us from the clear and serious environmental consequences of
this project. Both QLWA and the Minister conspired to fast-track this project and do an end run
around the normal environmental safeguards which would have been afforded us under the EAA.
With the help of our lawyers from Toronto (Jack Coop of Fogler, Rubinoff LLP) and Calgary
(Ryan Lake and Aron Taylor of Maurice Law), we filed a judicial review application record that
is over 300 pages long, consisting of a 20 page notice of application and five affidavits from not
only myself, but also the Last Mountain Lake Stewardship Group, the Calling Lakes
Ecomuseum, the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, and an independent scientific expert from
the University of Saskatchewan, Dr. Peter Leavitt. Our application detailed how our aboriginal
rights were trampled, how the public's right to be notified and respond was violated, how the
Minister completely ignored his own legislation and acted in a biased manner, and the severe
environmental impacts of this project.
Mr. Coop also wrote to the lawyers for the Minister and QLWA last week, and on the record he
demanded that the entire exchange of emails obtained by Calling Lakes Ecomuseum – detailing
the backroom discussions of the Ministry, WSA and QLWA (the emails reported on by the CBC
yesterday) – be placed before the court in support of the allegation of bias we had already made
in the application.
Thanks to the good work of our lawyers, we now have QLWA withdrawing this particular
project. But it has promised to start another one. So we expect QLWA and the government to
fully compensate us for the costs we have thrown away on this case.
It is not just a question of our costs thrown away. This kind of dishonourable conduct by the
Crown should not be condoned by the court – a Minister actively hiding plans to exempt a major
project from the EAA (when instead, he should have been consulting and accommodating us),
playing fast and loose with his own legislation, working in cahoots with a project proponent,
failing to protect the public, and then, when the aggrieved public commences legal proceedings
to challenge his actions and the writing is on the wall – the proponent conveniently "withdraws"
the project to avoid censure by the court. And worse, the proponent promises another project
which could be exactly or substantially the same. The court should show its disapproval of the
proponent's and Minister's conduct by ordering significant costs against them.
So this case is not over by a long shot. We cannot afford to play a shell game with either QLWA
or the Minister when so much is at stake – our aboriginal rights, our environment, our health.
We want these assurances, or we are not going away.
Chief Matthew Todd Peigan
Pasqua First Nation
###