Page 1
1
File No. MA 005-12 1
THE MINING ACT 2
IN THE MATTER OF 3
Mining Claims P-4251521, 4251523, 4251524, 4
both inclusive, situate in the BMA 522 862 Area, 4251514 5
to 4251520, both inclusive, situate in the BMA 523 862 6
Area, 4250189, 4251434, 4251510 to 4251513, both 7
inclusive, 4254220, situate in the BMA 524 862 Area, 8
4248438, 4248439, 4251502 to 4251509, both inclusive, 9
situate in the BMA 525 862 Area, 4256490, situate in the 10
BMA 526 862 Area, situate in the Porcupine Mining 11
Division, TB-4251534 to 4251542, both inclusive, situate 12
in the BMA 521 863 (TB) Area, 4248592, 4251525, 4251527 to 13
4251533, both inclusive, situate in the BMA 522 863 (TB) 14
Area, 4251698 to 4251700, both inclusive, 4251881, 4252051 15
to 4252056, both inclusive, 4252058, situate in the Dusey 16
River Area (TB), 4251543 to 4251546, both inclusive, 17
situate in the Hale Lake Area, 4251688 to 4251697, both 18
inclusive, situate in the Kagiami Falls Area (TB), 4251656 19
to 4251658, both inclusive, 4251660 to 4251662, both 20
inclusive, situate in the Sherolock Lake Area, 4248432 to 21
4248434, both inclusive, 4252059 to 4252064, both 22
inclusive, situate in the Tanase Lake Area (TB), 4251547 23
to 4251550, both inclusive, 4251651 to 4251655, both 24
inclusive, situate in the Tillett Lake Area and 4251663,25
Page 2
2
situate in the Venton Lake Area (TB) and 4251664 to 1
4251667, both inclusive, both inclusive, situate in the 2
Wowchuk Lake Area, situate in the Thunder Bay Mining 3
Division, recorded in the name of Canada Chrome 4
Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as the "Mining 5
Claims"); 6
(Amended October 24, 2012) 7
8
AND IN THE MATTER OF 9
Mining Claims P-1192735, 1192740 and 1192743, 10
situate in the BMA 523 862 Area and 1192755, 1192756, 11
1192759, 1192769 and 1192772, situate in the BMA 524 862 12
Area, situate in the Porcupine Mining Division, recorded 13
in the name of Canada Chrome Corporation by transfer, 14
after the above-noted application was filed, on the 11th 15
day of April, 2012, (hereinafter referred to as the 16
"Transferred Mining Claims"). 17
(Amended October 24, 2012) 18
19
AND IN THE MATTER OF 20
A referral by the Minister of Northern 21
Development and Mines to the tribunal pursuant to 22
subsection 51(4) of the Mining Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M. 14, 23
as amended, of an application under the Public Lands Act, 24
R.S.O. 1990, c P.43, as amended, (PLA) for disposition25
Page 3
3
under the PLA of surface rights over portions of the 1
Mining Claims and the Transferred Mining Claims: 2
3
4
B E T W E E N: 5
6
2274659 ONTARIO INC. 7
Applicant 8
- and - 9
10
CANADA CHROME CORPORATION 11
Respondent 12
13
14
PURPOSE: Hearing on the Merits 15
HELD ON: Monday, February 11, 2013 16
HELD AT: Office of The Mining and Lands 17
Commission 18
700 Bay Street, 24th Floor 19
Toronto, Ontario 20
21
---------------------------- 22
PUBLIC SESSION 23
---------------------------- 24
25
Page 4
4
HELD BEFORE: Linda Kamerman - Chair 1
Mining and Lands Commissioner 2
3
Marianne Orr 4
Deputy Mining and Lands Commissioner 5
6
APPEARANCES: 7
8
Chris W. Sanderson, Q.C. For 2274659 Ontario Inc. 9
Toby Kruger 10
Marko Vesely 11
12
Neal J. Smitheman For Canada Chrome 13
Richard Butler Corporation 14
Kim Potter 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 5
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
2
INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS: PAGE NO. 3
4
SUBMISSIONS BY MR. SANDERSON:...................... 13 5
SUBMISSIONS BY MR. SMITHEMAN:...................... 17 6
SUBMISSIONS BY MR. SANDERSON:...................... 18 7
RULING:............................................ 22 8
LASZLO BODI: Sworn................................ 24 9
EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. BUTLER:................ 25 10
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. VESELY:................... 71 11
PAXTON HARTMANN: Affirmed......................... 84 12
EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. BUTLER:................ 84 13
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. VESELY:................... 113 14
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. BUTLER:...................... 149 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 6
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 1
INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2
PAGE NO. 3
EXHIBIT NO. 17: Colour map, entitled "Alignment A 31 4
Preliminary Geological Plan and 5
Profile-I-02, Canada Chrome Preliminary 6
Infrastructure Corridor Feasibility Study 7
Northwest Ontario." 8
9
EXHIBIT NO. 18: Extract of Appendix 12 from the 66 10
Hartmann affidavit. 11
12
EXHIBIT NO. 19: Excerpt from CD-ROM at tab M of 74 13
Mr. Lavigne's affidavit, "Geology and 14
Terrain Unit Geotechnical Data Report." 15
16
EXHIBIT NO. 20: Cerlox-bound document containing 75 17
portions of Mr. Hartmann's affidavit, 18
Appendixes 9, 10, 11 and 12. 19
20
EXHIBIT NO. 21(a): Updated page 12 of 25 of 98 21
Paxton Hartmann's affidavit. 22
23
24
25
Page 7
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 1
INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2
PAGE NO. 3
EXHIBIT NO. 21(b): Updated page 13 of 25 of 98 4
Paxton Hartmann's affidavit. 5
6
EXHIBIT NO. 21(c): Updated page 19 of 25 of 98 7
Paxton Hartmann's affidavit. 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 8
8
--- Upon commencing at 10:01 a.m. 1
CHAIR: Just a couple of things before we 2
proceed this morning. The first is that Ms. Orr and I 3
have had occasion to discuss our preferences on the 4
hearing of final submissions, and we prefer to hear them 5
in person. We prefer to go straight through and do what 6
we can through the end of this week. 7
One other matter that I'll raise, and I 8
haven't heard from Mr. Smitheman on this, or the Minister 9
or the Surveyor General, but in 1906, the Mining Act 10
created the mining commissioner as an officer of the High 11
Court and there were clear injunctive powers in that 12
particular rendition of the Mining Act, which were removed 13
in 1908, so I just put it to you that, you know, we do 14
wonder about whether or not we're the proper forum for the 15
particular motion, but that's set for Wednesday, so I 16
won't say more than that. 17
MR. SMITHEMAN: I might just say something 18
about that. I think we should deal with that point 19
because we're proceeding with the hearing. 20
CHAIR: Yes. 21
MR. SMITHEMAN: We'll be making submissions on 22
Wednesday. 23
CHAIR: Yes. 24
MR. SMITHEMAN: And I don't want to, with25
Page 9
9
respect, take up these commissioners' time, this 1
Tribunal's time with this application for an injunction, 2
as it were, and an application for prohibition. I think 3
we should deal with that point right now because we're 4
taking the position that the motion for an injunction, as 5
it were, should not proceed on Wednesday for a number of 6
reasons. 7
And one is that the commissioners do not have 8
the jurisdiction for starters. Another is we don't even 9
know who the parties are to this injunction. It's for an 10
order of prohibition against the Surveyor General. 11
There's a request for an injunction against MNR. 12
There's -- I think there's another one for an injunction 13
to enjoin the Mining Recorder, and nothing at all to do 14
with the parties to this proceeding. That's a separate 15
and distinct proceeding, and it may impinge upon, from 16
Cliffs' point of view, what this proceeding is all about, 17
but that's something separate and apart, and we should not 18
even be considering it and we shouldn't be complicating 19
the matter that's rightly before the commissioners at this 20
stage. 21
So that's my position on this return motion on 22
Wednesday, because I don't see -- the way I envision this 23
unfolding is that we'll complete evidence by I should 24
think tomorrow, and then I would suspect -- and what I25
Page 10
10
would expect to happen is then we'll commence submissions 1
on Wednesday and Thursday, and hopefully, that should be 2
enough to end it. If not, we've got another day in March 3
to finish it, but if we have to deal with this injunction 4
and make a determination about how to proceed with this 5
injunction at that time, I think it's something we should 6
deal with right away. Thank you. 7
MR. SANDERSON: Just briefly, Madam 8
Commissioner. My friend is free to make all those 9
arguments and no doubt will on Wednesday. This is 10
ancillary relief that I just wanted to give the parties 11
notice that we would be seeking in final argument. 12
The reason I made it returnable Wednesday was, 13
as of Friday, it was still possible that we would have 14
arguments split up, and so I just wanted to get it in 15
place early, but given the commissioners' preference to 16
hear final argument Wednesday, that's fine. We'll just 17
deal with that when we come to the relief sought. My 18
friend will make his submissions about whether that's 19
appropriate and you'll decide. I don't expect it to add 20
more than 10 minutes to my submissions on the merit. 21
CHAIR: Mr. Smitheman, you mentioned -- 22
MR. SMITHEMAN: But there's a motion. There's 23
a motion, and they're relying on certain evidence and 24
they've named the respondents, and on the motion, we have25
Page 11
11
a right not only to make submissions, but to submit not 1
only argument, but in addition, to provide evidence on the 2
motion. 3
So we need to deal with that, because this -- 4
what my friends are trying to do -- they can't just make 5
argument on this. What they're trying to do, effectively, 6
is stop the respondents from bringing the claims to lease. 7
That's what they're trying to do. In the middle of this 8
hearing, that's what they're attempting to do, and they've 9
known about it. The respondent put -- in Mr. Smeenk's 10
affidavit, it was right in there that the claims were 11
going to lease. This is no surprise. 12
So suddenly, at this stage, what we're finding 13
is this Notice of Motion for injunctive relief, and if 14
that's what we're going to do, then I request an 15
adjournment to deal with this Notice of Motion right now 16
so I can respond to it, provide affidavit evidence. 17
It doesn't lie in my friend's mouth to say, 18
"Well, we'll just deal with this in our submissions." 19
This is a Notice of Motion for an injunction. The proper 20
parties aren't even -- I don't even know if they've been 21
served. They're trying to enjoin the Surveyor General 22
from -- and they're trying to enjoin the, I'm sorry, 23
prohibit the Surveyor General, enjoin the Mining Recorder 24
from allowing our claims to go to lease, and you can't25
Page 12
12
just tag this on to the application. 1
If that's what they want to do, then we need 2
time to respond to this, and if it's all part and parcel 3
of this, either it's not part of this application and 4
we're not dealing with it at all, or if it is, then we 5
need time to respond and file materials and cross-examine. 6
Thank you. 7
MS. ORR: Mr. Sanderson, Mr. Smitheman has 8
made some very good points and that is with respect to the 9
fact that the bodies or people or parties that are named 10
in that motion include three entities that are not here as 11
parties. How would you propose bringing them in at this 12
point, and why should this process be stopped in order to 13
take on this particular motion which really seems to be a 14
separate matter apart from what we're dealing with? 15
First of all, have these other bodies been 16
served with this notice? 17
MR. SANDERSON: At this moment, two of three 18
have, Commissioner. 19
MS. ORR: Which two? 20
MR. SANDERSON: On Friday, we provided notice 21
to counsel for MNR, and MNR has -- actually, I misspoke. 22
One has. The Surveyor General is ultimately 23
responsible -- MNR is ultimately responsible for this -- 24
MS. ORR: Well, the MNR is not here as a25
Page 13
13
party, per se. 1
MR. SANDERSON: No, I accept that. 2
MS. ORR: So that would require another 3
additional -- 4
SUBMISSIONS BY MR. SANDERSON: 5
Let me explain. Let me explain how I see this 6
happening and I may be right, I may be wrong, but I don't 7
think it raises the complexities that Mr. Smitheman is 8
suggesting it does. 9
My submission on Wednesday would be that to 10
now proceed to lease would be an abuse of your process, 11
having listened to this hearing for 18 months, however 12
it's been. So I will be grounding my submissions in this 13
Commission's ability to protect its own processes from 14
abuse. My friend will have an opportunity to respond. 15
That will be part of the relief we seek, not on the basis 16
of any new evidence at all, but rather, on the evidence in 17
this proceeding. 18
So my submissions will be entirely based on 19
the record before you. My friend will have the 20
opportunity to make whatever submissions he wants on the 21
record before you. I've not suggested filing any new 22
evidence. Simply what's already before you in the 23
substance and main part of this proceeding. 24
MS. ORR: Well, Mr. Sanderson, why was this25
Page 14
14
only brought now? As Mr. Smitheman has pointed out, this 1
material, this information was in Mr. Smeenk's affidavit 2
which has been sitting out there for quite some time now. 3
Why bring it during the middle of a hearing? 4
MR. SANDERSON: Because until Mr. Smeenk said 5
on the record that the requisite steps for taking the 6
property to lease had been complete, with the exception of 7
an action by, or step to be taken by the Surveyor General, 8
which he was pressing to have taken, there was not 9
material before this Tribunal that formed the basis for 10
the application we bring. 11
It's true that we were aware of those facts as 12
of the cross-examination of Mr. Smeenk which was in 13
January, but it wasn't -- I'm sorry, December, but it 14
wasn't yet before the commissioners, and we wanted to make 15
sure that you had notice and Mr. Smitheman had notice that 16
we were going to be seeking this as final relief, as part 17
of our final relief. That's why the motion on Friday, but 18
the key piece of evidence on the record here for you came 19
out with the cross-examination of Mr. Smeenk. He was the 20
one who advised you that all the steps were in place, and 21
we need that, it will be my submission, we need to have 22
you accept his evidence have that effect in order to 23
succeed on this application. If we're still -- if we were 24
not yet at that stage, we wouldn't be bringing this25
Page 15
15
application. 1
MS. ORR: Well, why weren't these other 2
parties notified at that time as well? 3
MR. SANDERSON: I'm sorry? 4
MS. ORR: The application for -- if you were 5
aware, Mr. Sanderson, that the application for a lease was 6
being pursued by Canada Chrome back in December at least, 7
as I believe that the affidavits were actually filed 8
sometime before then -- 9
MR. SANDERSON: The affidavits were. This is 10
the cross. 11
MS. ORR: Since you're aware of that 12
information at least in December, I'd like to know what 13
effort's been made to notify the Surveyor General and the 14
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, and the 15
effective recorder, Mining Recorder, at that time to put 16
them on notice that, "Wait a minute. We can't have you 17
processing the lease application because we've got 18
something going in front of the Commissioner." 19
MR. SANDERSON: Right. I don't want to give 20
evidence. I'm not going to, but with respect, I think 21
that's a different question than whether they were given 22
notice of this motion. In other words, to respond to your 23
question, I would have to -- 24
MS. ORR: Well, it gets in part to my asking:25
Page 16
16
Why are you bringing this now? 1
MR. SANDERSON: Because it's part of the final 2
relief we seek to obtain from you in this proceeding. 3
It's a temporary relief. 4
If the commissioners were able to issue a 5
decision immediately, we wouldn't be seeking this. This 6
is interim relief respecting the fact that we expect the 7
commissioners at the end of argument will need time in 8
order to issue a decision, and it is in anticipation of 9
that, given the sense of urgency that Mr. Smeenk's 10
testimony brings to the situation, that guides us to say, 11
well, during that period, to have this entire process 12
rendered moot, because now it's gone to lease and there is 13
no longer a conflict between a mining claimant and Cliffs, 14
rather, there's a conflict that there is a lease granted 15
of the surface, fundamentally rendering this entire 16
process academic would be with respect to travel. 17
And so it's to prevent the possibility of that 18
happening that this application is an appropriate piece of 19
relief to seek pending your decision. It will be in place 20
only for so long as it takes the commissioners to actually 21
issue an order coming out of this proceeding, and if you 22
look at the motion, it's expressed that way. 23
CHAIR: Mr. Smitheman. 24
MS. ORR: Mr. Smitheman.25
Page 17
17
SUBMISSIONS BY MR. SMITHEMAN: 1
What this is really all about is an attempt to 2
enjoin the respondent, without saying so, without naming 3
the respondent, because what this Notice of Motion says is 4
that if the respondent tries to bring its claims to lease, 5
it asks that the commissioners prohibit the Surveyor 6
General from doing that. It asks that the commissioners 7
enjoin the Mining Recorder from recording the leases, and 8
the MNDM from allowing any claims to be taken to lease 9
pursuant to section 181 and 184 of the Mining Act. 10
Aside from the jurisdictional questions, this 11
is really a not-very-well disguised attempt to get a qui 12
timet injunction against the respondent; namely, to stop 13
the respondent from attempting to bring its claims to 14
lease. That is improper, and in any event, the respondent 15
needs to respond to this Notice of Motion for an 16
injunction, and it cannot and should not be done at this 17
time in this hearing. 18
MS. ORR: So Mr. Smitheman, are you -- 19
MR. SMITHEMAN: It's an ambush. 20
MS. ORR: Are you calling upon the Tribunal to 21
not hear this motion, even without you submitting a 22
response? 23
MR. SMITHEMAN: I'm saying that -- here's what 24
I'm requesting then, to put it simply:25
Page 18
18
Either this Notice of Motion gets struck and 1
we continue with the hearing, or we adjourn to deal with 2
this Notice of Motion so that we can properly respond. 3
The other parties who have been named can become parties 4
to the motion, they can file materials, evidence, and deal 5
with this issue because I expect that these are issues 6
that are of grave concern to the jurisdiction of the three 7
additional parties. 8
MS. ORR: And -- 9
MR. SMITHEMAN: We can't just have this 10
hanging out there. Sorry, go ahead. 11
MS. ORR: And what would be the basis for the 12
notice getting struck at this point? 13
MR. SMITHEMAN: There's no jurisdiction and 14
it's inappropriate at this time. My friend just can't tag 15
this along as part of his submissions and relief that he 16
requests by simply filing a Notice of Motion to the 17
respondent only. I mean, it's just -- it's simply 18
improper, and speaking of abuse, this is a classic abuse 19
of process, in my respectful submission. 20
MS. ORR: Thank you. 21
MR. SMITHEMAN: So we want an adjournment. 22
SUBMISSIONS BY MR. SANDERSON: 23
Let me just speak to the last point, just the 24
adjournment issue and the process issue.25
Page 19
19
Without -- you know, I've said what I've said 1
and I think we can proceed in the way that I've mentioned, 2
but let me just speak to one point. 3
If there were -- and the commissioners hear 4
any merit to the notion that the respondents need time to 5
deal with this, then there's a simple solution to that, 6
and if they don't want to hear it as part of the principal 7
argument, we can finish the argument this week, just the 8
way that Mr. Smitheman's suggesting we probably could, and 9
if the commissioners want to hear the motion, then that 10
can be done on the March 12th date we already have 11
reserved, and that will give my friend lots of time. 12
I maintain the motion is an appropriate relief 13
to seek in the main argument. It's based on the record 14
before you. If you should be persuaded otherwise, the 15
simple thing is all right, well, then let's have the 16
argument on the record before you, on everything else and 17
we'll use the March 12th date to resolve this issue. 18
MS. ORR: Mr. Sanderson, I doubt that Mr. 19
Smitheman's client would be the only party that the 20
Tribunal would like to hear from with respect to this 21
motion. 22
MR. SANDERSON: Well, and so that gives us 23
until March 12 if that were the case to sort out -- 24
MS. ORR: We don't know whether or not all25
Page 20
20
those parties would be available on March 12 for that 1
particular -- for this motion. 2
MR. SANDERSON: Well, that's a challenge I 3
guess that I'll face, but my expectation is that those 4
parties may very well not see the need to appear, but I'm 5
not going to -- I'm not going to -- 6
MS. ORR: Don't know. 7
MR. SANDERSON: -- commit to that yet now. I 8
will say this, though, that from my perspective, this is 9
similar to a situation where you're demanding documents 10
from a third party. They may have the right to be heard. 11
They're not a party in the proceeding, but if you're 12
seeking those documents from them, and the commissioners 13
are considering whether to issue an order to that third 14
party for that effect, then they do have standing to come 15
to speak to that motion, I quite accept, which is why I'm 16
trying to get in touch with them. 17
But I can report back by Wednesday morning as 18
to whether the proposal I just made is -- will accommodate 19
them. I would be surprised, frankly, if that were the 20
problem, given that they are coming to this merely with 21
counsel and they have a month's notice. I'm sure there 22
are counsel who can appear by then on their behalf on 23
March the 12th. 24
MS. ORR: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last25
Page 21
21
part of -- 1
MR. SANDERSON: Well, it just seems to me that 2
if it's for this one narrow issue, a motion a month from 3
now, it seems unlikely that that will pose an obstacle to 4
their presence that's insurmountable. In other words, 5
there's no counsel engaged on this already, so they have a 6
month to determine their position and appear. 7
MS. ORR: Well, be that as it may, I think 8
that the Tribunal will be interested in hearing from those 9
parties at the very least, those entities at the very 10
least, so that's going to have to be a matter that will be 11
waiting out there in the ether. 12
I think, in the meantime, we will take a break 13
and determine how to deal with this particular matter. 14
MR. SMITHEMAN: My position, just so I make it 15
clear, is that that's not the way it works. We have -- 16
they're asking for, essentially, extraordinary remedies 17
against three parties. Those parties may want to file 18
materials, make submissions. We don't know if that can be 19
done on the 12th. That is not a solution. That's why I'm 20
taking the position that my friend either withdraw this 21
completely or the respondents get an adjournment. Thank 22
you. 23
MS. ORR: Thank you. 24
MR. SMITHEMAN: With costs.25
Page 22
22
--- Recess at 10:22 a.m. 1
--- Upon resuming at 10:27 a.m. 2
RULING: 3
MS. ORR: With respect to this Notice of 4
Motion and the arguments that have been made this morning, 5
the Tribunal agrees with Mr. Smitheman, and as a result, 6
the motion, Notice of Motion is struck and we are going to 7
be proceeding with the hearing today. Thank you. 8
Who is our first -- the first order of 9
business is Mr. Tattersall? 10
MR. SANDERSON: Yes, I hope so. We have Mr. 11
Tattersall here this morning, Commissioner. You'll recall 12
that I guess it was on Thursday morning, you ruled that 13
Mr. Tattersall should appear to listen to questions, or 14
sorry, just to quote you from page 74, line 18 of the 15
transcript: "We're prepared to listen to questions being 16
asked of Mr. Tattersall on that excerpt." That was the in 17
camera or the excerpt that was discussed on the voir dire 18
with respect to that excerpt. 19
So as I understand this morning, we're going 20
to produce Mr. Tattersall in camera for the purposes of 21
speaking to the excerpt only. 22
MS. ORR: All right. 23
MR. SANDERSON: And Mr. Tattersall is here for 24
that purpose.25
Page 23
23
MS. ORR: Having said that, we will be 1
clearing the room, those not parties to the action, to the 2
matter. Mr. Tattersall, who is called already, please 3
take your place there in the box. 4
MR. SMITHEMAN: Does that order extend to Mr. 5
Smeenk as well as it did the other day? 6
MS. ORR: Well, I think at the time, we 7
discussed the fact that it's -- just give us a minute. 8
MR. SMITHEMAN: Sure. Sorry. 9
--- In camera proceedings in separate volume. 10
--- Recess at 11:33 a.m. 11
--- Upon resuming at 11:53 a.m. 12
MR. SMITHEMAN: Quick point of clarification: 13
Notwithstanding the sign, I'm told that we can have coffee 14
in here; is that correct? 15
CHAIR: I think it may be a necessity. Those 16
signs were put up prior to my having taken over 20 years 17
ago, and I've never -- I don't drink coffee, so I haven't 18
paid them much mind, but by all means, drink coffee. 19
MR. SMITHEMAN: Thank you. 20
CHAIR: Or power drinks, if you need. 21
MR. SMITHEMAN: Gin. 22
CHAIR: Well, we'll draw the line. 23
MS. ORR: Save that for when you get home. 24
CHAIR: I had a case in Kirkland Lake at the25
Page 24
24
legion, where I always hear cases in Kirkland Lake, and a 1
representative for one of the parties asked me if he could 2
smoke since it was the legion, and it was before you could 3
not smoke indoors, and I said, "No, and you can't have a 4
pitcher of beer either just because it's the legion." So 5
we'll hold to those rules. 6
MR. VESELY: One other housekeeping matter: 7
We thought it helpful to note for the record that we are 8
no longer in camera and that the public is back in. 9
CHAIR: Okay. Certainly. Thank you. Thank 10
you very much, Mr. Vesely. Mr. Butler, you have a witness 11
for us. 12
MR. BUTLER: Yes. Prior to our morning break, 13
you'd identified Paxton Hartmann. In fact, we're going to 14
begin with Mr. Laszlo Bodi, please. 15
CHAIR: Okay. My apologies. 16
LASZLO BODI: Sworn. 17
THE WITNESS: Do I stand or...? 18
CHAIR: You can sit. If you require water, 19
hopefully -- 20
THE WITNESS: No. 21
CHAIR: You're okay? 22
MR. BUTLER: Madam Commissioners, during Mr. 23
Bodi's testimony, I'll be referring to the affidavit of 24
Paxton Hartmann, and the exhibits contained thereto. That25
Page 25
25
is 8(a) of the commissioners' list. 1
CHAIR: Thank you. 2
MR. BUTLER: And you may have noticed that 3
some of the figures in that report are a titch small and 4
I'll be providing you with larger exhibits, but I'll 5
introduce those as I come to them. 6
CHAIR: Thank you. I was going to comment on 7
that. 8
MR. BUTLER: There's a lot of information 9
there. We'll try and get through it. 10
MS. ORR: I think your exhibit number should 11
be 9(a), should it not, Mr. Butler? 12
MR. BUTLER: Is that 9(a)? Yes. That is 13
correct. Thank you. 14
CHAIR: Whenever you're ready. 15
MR. BUTLER: Thank you. 16
EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. BUTLER: 17
Q. Mr. Bodi, could you just please state your 18
full name for the record again? 19
A. My name is Laszlo Bodi. 20
Q. And do try to keep your voice up as much 21
as possible. 22
Mr. Bodi, what I'd like to do is just take you 23
through your CV to begin. It's located at tab A of the 24
affidavit of Paxton Hartmann. It's the fifth page in.25
Page 26
26
There is actually two CVs there, both Mr. Hartmann's and 1
Mr. Bodi's. 2
So, Mr. Bodi, you have an M. Sc. in civil 3
engineering from Budapest University; is that correct? 4
A. That's correct. 5
Q. Could you tell us what your area of 6
expertise is? 7
A. My masters degree is road -- 8
THE REPORTER: I'm sorry, your masters 9
degree...? 10
THE WITNESS: Road, railway, and geotechnical 11
engineering. 12
BY MR. BUTLER: 13
Q. Do you have other areas of expertise as 14
well? 15
A. I spend my entire life on these things. 16
Q. Okay. Could you give us -- who is your 17
present employer? 18
A. Tetra Tech. 19
Q. And prior to Tetra Tech, where were you 20
employed? 21
A. Immediately prior to that, I was lecturing 22
in Abu Dhabi in Dubai, and prior to that, I lived in 23
Sudbury and I was working for Trow Consulting Engineers, 24
T-R-O-W, and I was working as a geotechnical engineer,25
Page 27
27
senior geotechnical engineer in Sudbury serving in 1
northern Ontario. 2
Q. And are you a member of the Professional 3
Engineers of Ontario? 4
A. I am. Yes, I am. 5
Q. With respect to a project of this nature, 6
you mentioned your work in northern Ontario. Have you 7
ever been involved in other projects involving road or 8
rail in northern climates? 9
A. In northern Ontario. 10
Q. Could you give us a couple of examples, 11
please? 12
A. We are working on the Sudbury bypass. I 13
was involved in Muskoka Route 34, road construction. This 14
is near Parry Sound, and would involve some testing 15
process in a few roads in Sudbury area, Sudbury, Sault 16
Ste. Marie area. 17
MR. BUTLER: Madam Commissioners, based on Mr. 18
Bodi's experience, we tender him as an expert witness in 19
the area of geotechnical engineering. 20
MR. VESELY: We have no objection to his 21
qualifications. 22
CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Vesely. So recognized. 23
MR. BUTLER: Thank you. 24
BY MR. BUTLER:25
Page 28
28
Q. So what I'd like to do now is take you to 1
tab B of the affidavit of Paxton Hartmann. This is, in 2
fact, the Material Availability Assessment Report. Now, 3
Mr. Bodi, did you draft this report? 4
A. No. 5
Q. And do you know who did? 6
A. According to my information, that was 7
Paxton. 8
Q. Okay, but let's talk about how you 9
contributed to this project. Could you give us a brief 10
review of the work that you undertook as part of this 11
assessment? 12
A. I understood that the project involves the 13
evaluation of certain components for road and railway, the 14
construction or design, and I was involved in the 15
geotechnical component of the project. 16
These infrastructure components must be built 17
over a certain distance in the north, and I was involved 18
to analyze the available data that was available for 19
geotechnical purpose. 20
Q. And let me stop you there. What was that 21
available data, in what form? 22
A. I was given a report prepared by Golder 23
Associates, and in that report, I was given information 24
about the soils in the infrastructure corridor, and soil25
Page 29
29
profiles marking all the soil conditions around the 1
proposed infrastructure corridor. 2
MR. BUTLER: And if I could just pause there 3
for one moment, Madam Commissioners, the Golder report 4
identified by Mr. Bodi is appended to the affidavit of 5
Maurice Lavigne as a CD. It is a very, very large 6
document, so we've provided it in CD form, but that's the 7
information and data that Mr. Bodi is referring to. 8
MS. ORR: So this is the report that is 9
produced for Canada Chrome? 10
MR. BUTLER: That is correct. 11
MS. ORR: From Golder. 12
MR. BUTLER: That is correct. 13
MS. ORR: Thank you. 14
CHAIR: Golder north as opposed to Golder 15
south, or did we have two Golders? 16
MR. BUTLER: Here we go. Absolutely. There 17
was -- there is Golder for Canada Chrome, and that is this 18
report. 19
CHAIR: Okay. 20
MR. BUTLER: Let's leave the north and south 21
out because I think that will actually add a wrinkle that 22
no one will particularly appreciate. 23
CHAIR: Okay. 24
MR. BUTLER: So thank you.25
Page 30
30
BY MR. BUTLER: 1
Q. You mentioned the soil profiles that 2
Golder provided. I have -- these are contained in the 3
affidavit of Maurice Lavigne, and they were also provided 4
as part of the appendices to the report that we're now 5
turned to, but I thought I would print them out in larger 6
size. I don't think I need to have them noted as an 7
exhibit because they are already contained in affidavit 8
materials, but I just thought it would be of assistance to 9
see these in a larger size for the commissioners. 10
MS. ORR: So could you identify specifically, 11
Mr. Butler, where these would be found in the Lavigne 12
affidavit? 13
MR. BUTLER: They are in the CD. 14
MS. ORR: Oh, they are -- 15
MR. BUTLER: In the DVD. 16
MS. ORR: -- within the body of the CD itself. 17
MR. BUTLER: That's correct. As well, in a 18
slightly more accessible location, with the expert report 19
that is in the affidavit of Mr. Paxton Hartmann we also 20
provided a CD, because there was a large number of 21
appendices and these are also contained in that appendices 22
as Appendix 14. 23
MS. ORR: Well, I think that because the CD 24
contents are not visible right now, we should make this a25
Page 31
31
separate affidavit, sorry, a separate exhibit. 1
MR. BUTLER: I'm happy to do that if that's of 2
assistance. 3
CHAIR: No objections? We're at 17. Just 4
going to read off Exhibit 17: "Alignment A Preliminary 5
Geological Plan and Profile-I-02, Canada Chrome 6
Preliminary Infrastructure Corridor Feasibility Study 7
Northwest Ontario." Thank you. 8
EXHIBIT NO. 17: Colour map, entitled 9
"Alignment A Preliminary Geological Plan and Profile-I-02, 10
Canada Chrome Preliminary Infrastructure Corridor 11
Feasibility Study Northwest Ontario." 12
MR. BUTLER: Thank you. 13
BY MR. BUTLER: 14
Q. Mr. Bodi, could you just explain for the 15
commissioners what we see in the exhibit before us, and 16
then we'll move on to how it was used, but just a brief 17
explanation of what we see here would be helpful. 18
A. There are two components on the drawing. 19
The top is the site plan. This is the horizontal 20
alignment for the proposed infrastructure corridor, and 21
the one at the bottom, this is a vertical cross-section of 22
the alignment. This is indicating the soil profile along 23
the centreline of the proposed road and railway. 24
Q. Great. Please have a seat. Now, could25
Page 32
32
you tell us what information you used from that Golder 1
profile? 2
A. I used the second one, the bottom part one 3
that indicates the soil condition along the alignment. If 4
we look at the profile, Golder went to the site and they 5
had a large number of boreholes along the alignment. They 6
investigated the soil condition along the alignment, and 7
based on their field work and lab results, they created 8
the soil profile from the start of the corridor to the 9
end, 330 kilometres, and this particular one is the first 10
page out of the section, and this shows the soil profile 11
from the start, from 0 to 370, 3.7-kilometre section. 12
Q. Now, just before we go on to that data, it 13
might be of some assistance to the commissioners to know a 14
little bit about the geology and the soils in that area. 15
Could you just give us a brief description of the geology 16
of the area over which the corridor passes? 17
A. The corridor belongs to northern Ontario 18
and this part of Ontario is a very large wetland. The 19
area is mostly covered with swamp, with peat, small lakes, 20
and the soil condition, the soil, all the soils that you 21
can find at this part of the world is a result of the 22
glacial action in the past. The ice was the one that 23
mixed all different types of soils into certain soils. 24
Should I go into depth to explain what do I25
Page 33
33
mean when I say "soil" or I can skip that? 1
MS. ORR: Please. 2
CHAIR: That would be very useful. 3
THE WITNESS: Because when you have to explain 4
the geology for an area, that we always have to split the 5
rock, the underlying solid rock, and whatever on the top 6
of the rock is what we call soils, because from geology, 7
when you had the solid rock at any part of the globe, with 8
time, the surface is weathering, is breaking up into 9
smaller pieces, and once the solid rock is breaking up 10
into smaller parts, smaller particles, these smaller 11
particles that they do not stick together, these are the 12
ones that we call soils. 13
And around the world, we have six different 14
types of soils based on the -- whatever the representative 15
size of individual grains are. Every -- the soils in the 16
rock, the solid rock is one rock mass, is completely 17
solid, solidified from the magma or solidified from 18
certain soils in some areas. 19
Once the rock is breaking up into soils, then 20
there are different agents that are sorting these 21
different types of soils. Again, we have the six -- out 22
of the six soils, the most widely known, the largest one 23
is the boulder. If you imagine, let's say a size of the 24
watermelon, anything that is bigger than the 20025
Page 34
34
millimetre, that is a boulder, what -- for the general 1
public is not really soil, but for the engineers is soil 2
already because is not solid rock. 3
When that watermelon breaks up in smaller 4
pieces and it becomes the size of an orange, then we call 5
it a cobble, C-O-B-B-L-E, and these are the two largest 6
soils. Usually, they are -- because they are too large, 7
they cannot travel too far from the original. 8
Let's say that just if you imagine a mountain 9
and the rock is breaking up on the surface, first the 10
large pieces are dislocated from the surface of the 11
mountain and they usually stay there because no wind, no 12
water can move these large because they are heavy, and 13
once they are breaking up into even smaller pieces, once 14
the size of one grain becomes smaller than 60 millimetre, 15
about that much, then we call it gravel. 16
MS. ORR: Sorry, your -- what would, if you're 17
sticking with oranges -- 18
THE WITNESS: Okay. Let's make it a -- 19
MS. ORR: -- what would that size be that you 20
just described? 21
THE WITNESS: Let's call it a lime, a nice 22
green lime. That's approximately 60 millimetre. 23
MS. ORR: What did you call that lime again? 24
THE WITNESS: Gravel. G-R-A. That's the25
Page 35
35
gravel. This is the third in the road from boulder, 1
cobble. The gravel is the third type of soil which is 2
most of the time -- when we are talking about soil, 3
usually we don't deal with the cobbles and the boulders 4
because these are too big for the general engineering 5
purpose. We often use them for shore protection at the 6
seashore against wave action and so on, or rip-rap to 7
protect -- 8
THE REPORTER: Or...? 9
THE WITNESS: Rip-rap, R-I-P, dash, R-A-P. 10
Rip-rap. These are a mass of cobbles and boulders we use 11
against wave action, and river banks to stabilize river 12
banks and so on. So these are -- but these are not really 13
used for other purposes, major engineering purposes like 14
making concrete or using fill under foundation or behind 15
retaining wall. 16
From 60 millimetre, if you go to 2 17
millimetres, the size of 2 millimetre, I can just show it, 18
2 millimetre is a poppy seed maybe. Maybe if you glue two 19
poppy seeds together, maybe you have that. 2 millimetre. 20
MS. ORR: Thank you. That's very descriptive. 21
THE WITNESS: I was lecturing for so many 22
years, I had to come up with some ideas for students. 23
So this is the important thing, but this is 24
the borderline between sand and gravel. Once the25
Page 36
36
individual grain is smaller than 2 millimetres, then it's 1
sand, and it goes all the way to 0.06 millimetre, which is 2
exactly the dust, because you can distinct the individual 3
grains. When you see a sand, when you have sand in your 4
hand, you can see the individual grains because these are 5
larger than 0.06 millimetre, and when smaller than that, 6
then we call it silt. 7
The silt is the one, if you would have -- you 8
call it dust in a container, then it's the -- is the same 9
as the silt, the silt particles. These are so small, they 10
can be picked up by wind or by water, and transported 11
further along the path. 12
And the last one, the smallest soil is the 13
clay, the clay, C-L-A-Y. Clay is the smallest one. When 14
the individual particles are smaller than 0.002 15
millimetre, that is the soil that is we call clay, and the 16
major difference between the clay, not only that this is 17
the smallest one, but those particles are flat like a 18
coin. All the others are rounded, but the clay, the clay 19
are flakey, and that's the reason that that part of the 20
world up there in the north, most of the soils are, the 21
last two, silts and -- 22
THE REPORTER: Most of the soils are...? 23
THE WITNESS: Most of the soils up in the 24
north are silt and clays because they were transported to25
Page 37
37
that area by the water. 1
About millions, we are talking of millions of 2
years, so then the soil was created at that part, and when 3
the ice, during the ice ages, we had I think four or five 4
really significant ice ages, when the ice was advancing 5
from the north, from the North Pole, and everything was 6
freezing, freezing, the ice was growing and growing, and 7
the south end of the ice sheet was a little bit further 8
south from the U.S./Canada border. At the last point was 9
about more than 10,000 years ago. 10
And when the ice came, whatever soil was 11
there, all the soils what we have discussed, the different 12
factions, the ice mixed everything together, so when you 13
had the mix of soils, which included silt, clay, sand, 14
gravel, cobbles, boulders, everything, everything was 15
worked together by the ice. 16
THE REPORTER: Everything was...? 17
THE WITNESS: Worked. Worked together, pushed 18
together, mixed together, and then there is a type of -- 19
it's not the soils, the mix of soils, and they gave a 20
different name, and the name of that mix of soils is till, 21
T-I-L-L, which is they use as a name in soil mechanics, 22
geotechnical engineering. It's not the name of the soil, 23
but is a name of a mix of soils that was created by the 24
advancing ice sheet.25
Page 38
38
So most of the soils, because of this ice 1
action during the glaciation, the ice, almost the entire 2
north was -- anything that is soil above the solid rock, 3
it was till, which is a mix of all these, including high 4
percentage of silt and clay particles. 5
When the ice was retreating between the 6
glaciations, we call them interglacial periods, and the 7
ice was melting, and we are having the same action still 8
going on, the ice is retreating, still going back, and it 9
will come back eventually, but we won't go into that. 10
Anyway, today the ice is still keep going back 11
and when the ice was retreating, the melted water flooded 12
large areas, and that large whole north, northern part of 13
Ontario was, of course, flooded by this huge amount of 14
water that came from the melted ice. 15
To the south, the ground level was higher. To 16
the north, the drainage was blocked by the ice, so created 17
a large lake at that part, so anything that was -- that 18
new soil came in, into that part of the world, of Canada, 19
of Ontario, that was brought in by most of the time moving 20
water from the other part that was bringing in again the 21
two smallest soils, the silt and the clay. 22
So we have the solid rock, generally, at the 23
base. On the top, we have the till, which is the mix of 24
clay, silt, sand and gravel, and cobbles, and then on the25
Page 39
39
top, between the glaciations, usually we have so-called 1
interglacial layers. These are generally silt and clays, 2
silt and clays, which are again the smallest soils, 3
especially the clay is responsible for the very poor 4
drainage, because again, I told you that the clay 5
particles are flat. They are flakey. They sit on each 6
other like coins, so they block the movement of the water. 7
The water is not going anywhere. It's staying there. 8
And if you go up to the north and you fly over 9
the north, that's what you going to see, that everything, 10
all these millions of lakes there, because the poor 11
drainage because of the underlying till, which is again 12
included sand and gravel and other soils, but the 13
permeability was controlled by this water. 14
P-E-R-M-E-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y. 15
BY MR. BUTLER: 16
Q. Okay. I've got you there. Stop. 17
A. Okay. Sorry. 18
Q. That was excellent. Thank you. Let's 19
take that background. We know the geology of the area and 20
we know what it looks like presently. 21
What I'd like to do is just take you to -- 22
well, I'll take you, just for the commissioners' benefit, 23
a much smaller version of what Mr. Bodi just said is at 24
page 10 of 25 of the report. That gives some background25
Page 40
40
on the geology of the area. 1
Now, taking the Golder report, what were you 2
able to do with the information generated in the Golder 3
report? 4
A. Okay. Again, I should refer to that 5
drawing again. If you will have the full, on the other 6
drawings, you can see the colouring of different soils. 7
They have different symbols, and if we would have the 8
front page, this is I-02. 9
On I-01, there is a legend that explains the 10
names of the different soil formations on that section. I 11
refer the yellow one. The yellow one represents the solid 12
rock. If you see where the solid rock is, the yellow one, 13
it's in the middle and a little bit to the right. So 14
those are where the solid rock comes up close to the 15
surface. In some instances, you can actually see the rock 16
sticking out from the ground anywhere where the yellow is. 17
Between them, that -- the purple one with the 18
broken 45 degree line, that represents the till deposit, 19
the till that I explained that is a mix of all different 20
sorts of soils, and then you can see the greenish one and 21
the reddish one, those are all silts and clays. 22
Again, the yellow was the solid rock before 23
anything happened in that part of the world, the till 24
represents the major reverting of all the soils together25
Page 41
41
by the ice sheet, and the clay represents -- the silt and 1
the clay represents the interglacial period, when the 2
small size soils were brought in, into that huge lake or 3
sea that was flooding the whole northern Ontario, all the 4
way up to the Hudson Bay. 5
And then you can see on the top at certain 6
points, the small plus signs, the small plus crosses on 7
the surface, almost everywhere on the left and right. 8
This is the peat. Right here. This part here. These, 9
all these depressions, of course, these are marshland. 10
These are the swampy areas where you have peat, and the 11
reason you have peat because under that, you have silt and 12
clay. You have silt and clay everywhere. No drainage. 13
Whatever water was brought in were depressions everywhere. 14
That water cannot drain anywhere. The drainage was 15
provided only by the major rivers. All these rivers at 16
that part of world, they flow to the north. 17
There are three watersheds in Ontario. The 18
watershed is where any -- when the precipitation comes to 19
the surface, to the earth, then depending on what 20
direction the water can go, they drain into one direction. 21
If all the rivers are going in one direction, 22
that's we call one watershed, and the separation line is 23
somewhere north of Kapuskasing, where south of that, all 24
the rivers, all the precipitation is flowing either into25
Page 42
42
the St. Lawrence River or down to the Mississippi, and 1
anything to the north flows to the James Bay and Hudson 2
Bay. 3
So all those rivers, Attawapiskat River, the 4
Albany River, the Moose River, they all flow to the north, 5
and that watershed is the one which is poorly drained. 6
Once the rivers are overflowing, they are the one that are 7
just taking any excess water into the James Bay and Hudson 8
Bay. 9
Q. So with respect to the profiles that 10
you've mentioned and the various elements, how did you 11
record that information? 12
And if it assists the commissioners, this is 13
similar to the maps that, or to the profile that Mr. Bodi 14
has. This is an excerpt from his -- one of his appendix 15
that was attached to the affidavit of Paxton Hartmann, and 16
might be of -- Mr. Bodi, would it be of some assistance 17
for you to refer to this chart as you're explaining? 18
A. For my next stage, yes. 19
Q. So as I say, this is one, part of one of 20
the appendices to the affidavit of Paxton Hartmann. I've 21
blown up the map portion and the table portions. 22
MS. ORR: Mr. Bodi, before you get any 23
further, I notice that with respect to the description 24
that you took us through of the bedrock and the soils,25
Page 43
43
there is a legend that is located on this document. 1
THE WITNESS: Yes. 2
MS. ORR: And I take it that that legend is 3
the legend that you're using when you're describing the 4
colours; is that right? 5
THE WITNESS: To a certain extent, because 6
this one here doesn't give you the name of the soil. 7
Let's say when they say fluvial deposit on the drawing, it 8
doesn't say what type of soil, but this is when you have 9
soil deposit by flowing water. 10
MS. ORR: All right. So -- 11
THE WITNESS: You -- 12
MS. ORR: But with respect to the colours and 13
the diagrams, the markings that we do have on here, 14
organic deposits in that legend are referring to peat? 15
THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct. 16
MS. ORR: And the glacial, lacustrine and 17
glacial marine deposits, that would be sand and -- sorry, 18
the -- what would that be? 19
THE WITNESS: The codes inside, inside the 20
profile, there are actually names of the soils. 21
MS. ORR: I see. 22
THE WITNESS: These are representing much 23
better. If you see one borehole, let's say see the first 24
one --25
Page 44
44
MS. ORR: Which, what borehole is that? On 1
the left-hand side? 2
THE WITNESS: On the left-hand side. 3
MS. ORR: Yes. 4
THE WITNESS: The "PT". Very small. "PT" 5
means peat. 6
MS. ORR: Yes. 7
THE WITNESS: "M" is means silt. "M" is the 8
code of silt. "L" means low plasticity, and then you see 9
on the next one, there is another one, "CL". So these 10
letters mean exactly, to a geotechnical engineer, exactly 11
the name of the soil, the top of the soil. 12
MS. ORR: I see. All right. Thank you. 13
THE WITNESS: Because once you have to 14
identify the soils in a soil report, you don't want to 15
write the names of the soils all the time. There's an 16
international code. I can't write on this one. The 17
gravel is "G". The sand is "S". The silt is a poor guy. 18
"S" is already gone for sand, so they had to pick another 19
letter, so they use the "M". I don't know why, but that's 20
the code for silt, and the "C" is for clay. 21
So all these profile -- and the "P" is the 22
peat in the soil. 23
MS. ORR: All right. Just one more question 24
so that I -- at least I can get positioned here with25
Page 45
45
respect to where this is. 1
Mr. Butler, I think you asked the witness 2
where this particular cross-section could be located on 3
the corridor or where would this cross-section be located? 4
Did you ask the witness that? 5
MR. BUTLER: I'm -- 6
MS. ORR: Whether it's south or north or what 7
of this? 8
MR. BUTLER: In fact, what I was planning to 9
do is have Mr. Hartmann explain that a little bit better, 10
but it's perhaps a good time to do that. 11
If the commissioners would turn to Figure 1.3 12
of the report, it will give you some assistance. 13
MS. ORR: I'm just looking for a location at 14
this stage. I'm not asking you to change your -- 15
MR. BUTLER: No, no. Absolutely. Absolutely. 16
BY MR. BUTLER: 17
Q. So, Mr. Bodi, with respect to the station 18
numbers that are identified on that particular exhibit -- 19
A. Yes. 20
Q. -- if you look at Figure 1.3 from the 21
Material Assessment Availability Report, could you explain 22
to the commissioners how the station numbers on the 23
profile match up with the station numbers in 1.3? 24
A. The station numbers on the drawing at the25
Page 46
46
bottom, the zero is at the start of the corridor at the CN 1
Rail. Of course, the reason we have -- 2
Q. And maybe you can mention what would be at 3
the very top? What station number is at the top according 4
to Figure 1.3? 5
A. Station number 330. 6
MS. ORR: All right. Thank you. That helps 7
position. 8
THE WITNESS: The reason we have to have 99 of 9
these pages, because they are broken up to smaller 10
sections, the 99 pages cover the entire corridor. So you 11
can see every one kilometre -- one centimetre here on the 12
drawing represents one kilometre in real life. 13
MS. ORR: Thank you very much. 14
BY MR. BUTLER: 15
Q. Okay. 16
A. And if you take a look at the top part of 17
the drawing, this is the side panel. You can actually see 18
the enlarged side panel on the top. 19
Q. So then moving to the next figure, if you 20
could perhaps explain the table to the commissioners and 21
the process by which you achieved that. You can stay 22
seated. 23
A. I want to show it. I don't like to sit. 24
Sorry.25
Page 47
47
MS. ORR: It might be -- 1
THE WITNESS: I feel better, I'm sitting 2
and -- 3
MR. BUTLER: Okay. 4
MS. ORR: Mr. Butler, it actually might be 5
useful if you just move those maps and tack the diagrams 6
that Mr. Bodi is -- onto that board behind you, so that we 7
see what he's referring to, with binoculars. 8
THE WITNESS: That's correct. Sorry. Okay. 9
My work was to create these tables, and in these tables, 10
you will see numbers in different groups and I will 11
explain how I came up to evaluate these numbers. 12
On the left side, this particular page is 13
between 120 and 150 kilometre on the alignment. 14
BY MR. BUTLER: 15
Q. Could you maybe give some indication for 16
the commissioners where that would be on Figure 1.3? 17
A. Is about right here. On your drawing? 18
Q. If you could show them on -- because they 19
have a copy of that. 20
A. Right here. The station number 120. 21
Station number 120. 22
Q. So just for the record, we're looking at 23
the map in Figure 1.3. On the right-hand side is 24
STA-120+000, and that is the area that Mr. Bodi is25
Page 48
48
referring to. 1
A. The first number in the station number is 2
always how many kilometre is that point away from the CN 3
Rail line at Nakina. That is the zero point. 4
Q. That's okay. Go ahead. 5
A. Where you have the soil profile here, and 6
we discussed it, shows different rocks and soils, 7
different formations, this was provided by Golders. They 8
did all the boreholes and they identified approximately 9
what were the soil within the boreholes and they created a 10
profile, and this is what I had to accept, that this is 11
the soil condition along the alignment. 12
Then I received the vertical alignment for the 13
proposed road or railway. Of course, this is the soil 14
profile. This straight line here, that represents the 15
road line or rail line. We have only one, of course, on 16
this one, but for my work, I had two lines, one for the 17
road and one for the railway. 18
Q. And why would you need two? Why would 19
they be different? 20
A. Just usually, with road, you can have 21
higher grades. Usually, the road route, you follow the 22
ground river. When you design a rail line, usually the 23
elevation for the rail line cannot be too steep. It has 24
to follow a certain maximum slope, and so that's the25
Page 49
49
reason the rail line usually follows a shallow change in 1
the vertical alignment. 2
Once you have that line, the first what I did, 3
I identified -- I took 10-kilometre section. That's why I 4
have 120 to 130. Within that zone, you can see that when 5
you have the designed elevation for the road or the 6
railway, at certain point, you have to excavate soil 7
because the existing ground is higher, and at certain 8
point, you have to bring in soil because you have to build 9
your embankment. These are the points where the designed 10
road or railway is above the ground level. 11
So for every 10-kilometre section, I 12
identified what is the ratio between the cut and the fill 13
sections. If I would take, if I would take only this 14
part, 100 percent is in fill because there is no cut. The 15
soil doesn't come out from the elevation, doesn't come up 16
above the designed road level. 17
MR. SMITHEMAN: Elevation. 18
THE WITNESS: In this section, that length is 19
in cut, this is in cut, this is in fill, this is in fill, 20
and so on. For every 10-kilometre section, I identified 21
how many percent were being cut, how many percent were 22
being fill. 23
BY MR. BUTLER: 24
Q. And does it show --25
Page 50
50
A. These are in these numbers. Cut and fill 1
sections. Of course, the sum of those two numbers must be 2
100, 100 percent. If you see for this, for this 3
10-kilometre section of the corridor, between 120 and 130, 4
7 percent were being cut and 93 percent will be in fill. 5
So this is a good indication for the design 6
that later on, if the design engineer will see these 7
numbers, he realize that most of his alignment will have 8
to -- you have to bring in soil to build up for the -- for 9
build up the grade for your road or railway. 10
In the brackets under those two numbers, I 11
indicated the range for the individual earth work. For 12
the cut, I said based on this profile, the height for the 13
cut will be between 0.5 and 3 millimetre. This is again 14
helping designers later on. If I would have had a number 15
here, let's say 14, then the designer would know in 16
advance that they will have a huge cut on their alignment. 17
The other one, for the fill section, I 18
indicated the height of the fill, approximate range of 19
height, so on. Everything explained here on the header. 20
All those numbers are explained in brackets. 21
The next one -- again, these two numbers add 22
up to 100. These are indicating the ratio between cut and 23
fill for one section. 24
The next one, in the next stage, I wanted to25
Page 51
51
see the distribution of the different soils along the 1
alignment at the subgrade. What is the type of soil where 2
the design level of the road or railway is? Let's say at 3
this point, at this point, the subgrade will be rock 4
because at this point, the designed elevation is inside 5
the rock, so that will be rock. It will be part of rock. 6
So this is for Station 0 to something. That's 7
why there is zero rock. It means at that part, right 8
here, there was no rock, and then at this part, there is 9
peat and peat, then clay, then peat, then till, and so on, 10
and I collected all the information for a whole 11
10-kilometre section, and I identified that for that 12
length, for that 10-kilometre length within that, let's 13
say I'm going over 100 metre peat, then I go into rock. 14
Then I go to till and so on, and I identify those numbers. 15
For that section, there will be no rock, 5 percent till, 16
no sand, gravel, 9 percent silt and clay, and 86 percent 17
peat. 18
So these, these numbers, these five numbers, 19
these are the different soils along the alignment. 20
That's -- it means for this particular design at -- we 21
have 86 percent of the area where you will build your 22
whatever, road or railway, you have to face that peat. 23
Means for 10 kilometre, anywhere you want to build your 24
railway, you will have 8.6 kilometre where you have to25
Page 52
52
deal with the peat, and these are, of course, large number 1
all along because that's what you have. You have a 2
marshland up there. 3
And then I have another group of numbers under 4
the cut. Again, if you add up these numbers, this must be 5
100. 86 plus 9 plus 5. 100 percent. And these numbers 6
here, these are within the cut. Then I went in and this 7
is the one where you will cut, where you will remove, 8
remove soil, and then you will be able to build your road 9
wherever you will need the fill. 10
And I calculated this part and I identified 11
the distribution of different -- if there are different 12
soils within that cut section, that if -- if I would cut 13
into a solid rock mountain, then I would have 100 percent 14
rock. Of course, when you have within the cut, if you 15
have different, more different types of soils, I 16
identified the ratio between them. For this section, with 17
the 120, 130, the excavated soil, what will be excavated 18
from the cut section will be 66 percent peat, 23 percent 19
silt and clay, no sand, 11 percent till, and no rock. 20
Again, for every 10-kilometre section, you 21
have those numbers, and this is basically what I did. 22
Q. Do you want to -- you can probably have a 23
seat. I'm going to ask you some more sort of questions 24
generally about the results.25
Page 53
53
So with respect to the role of peat, because 1
you mentioned the amounts of peat that are in the area 2
along the corridor, what is the complication that arises 3
from peat in the road or railroad? 4
A. The peat gives you -- when you have to 5
design an infrastructure like road or railway, you have to 6
build, possibly you have to -- the problem is when you 7
have to build over it. When you remove it, you just store 8
it somewhere. So when it comes up from the cut, you just 9
dispose it somewhere, but when you have to build on it, 10
you have two problems. 11
First of all, the peat has two bad 12
characteristics: One, has no strength; two, highly 13
compressible. These are -- both represent a challenge. 14
Anything you build on it, first of all, if you build a too 15
high embankment, because the strength is too low, the good 16
chance is that you would have lots of problems during 17
construction. Your embankment will keep failing. 18
And I mention that -- you asked what I did for 19
roadwork in northern Ontario, and I mentioned Muskoka 34. 20
This is exactly what happened. They build an embankment 21
over peat and soft clay environment like here, and they 22
continuously have had failure during construction. 23
So the other thing is once you build on it, 24
and you have the problem with potential failure, and the25
Page 54
54
biggest problem is the long-term compression because the 1
peat is fully saturated, but like a sponge. When you 2
build on it, you will have settlement. Anything you put 3
on the top, the higher to build up, the more settlement 4
you can experience. 5
And depending on the structure of the peat -- 6
see, the peat is a general term for organic material. We 7
have different peats depending on the -- how advanced 8
the -- we have the organic material that is decomposing in 9
a wet environment. Depending on the advanced stage of 10
this decomposition, some of the peats have still wood 11
pieces, wood fragments before they decay. Some of the 12
peats are older, and they are advanced stage and they are 13
mixed a little bit soil, so this compressibility is 14
changing from location to location. 15
Once you have that peat, you have to go in. 16
Possibly you will have to remove. If you don't want to 17
have any trouble during construction, the best thing is to 18
remove. Of course, that can be very expensive at certain 19
time, so that will be a -- it's always a challenge. 20
Again, you have two problems: Strength and 21
compressibility. 22
Q. And so you also mentioned that there are, 23
within the route, areas of rock outcrop which you talked 24
about, the cut areas. What would be the use for that25
Page 55
55
material? 1
A. Everywhere where you -- when you have to 2
have the road corridor, railway corridor, we know that you 3
will need a lot of embankment. You have to build your 4
embankment, lots of areas. So you have to have the 5
material. So when you excavate rock or inert soil, which 6
is not organic, rock or inert soil, again, back -- the 7
distinction between inert soil and organic soil, the peat 8
is an organic soil, the others are inert, I-N-E-R-T, 9
because inert soils are coming from rocks. Sand, gravel, 10
all these are from rocks. So even a piece -- a piece of 11
sand is a piece of rock. Is just too small. 12
Q. Perfect. With respect -- and just to 13
bring the commissioners up to speed with respect to the 14
report, much of the methodology that Mr. Bodi has been 15
describing is at pages 15 of the expert report, although 16
in a somewhat truncated fashion. 17
We've talked a little bit about the rock. 18
Could you explain to the commissioners the importance of 19
non-frost susceptible materials? 20
A. Well, we didn't discuss that. We were 21
discussing organic soils so far. We have the first frost 22
susceptibility. When you have water in soil, and most of 23
the time, especially in wetland, we have water that -- the 24
groundwater table is very high, and when -- during25
Page 56
56
wintertime, which is quite long in that part of the world, 1
during winter, the water inside the soil is freezing, and 2
once the water is freezing, it changes its volume by 9 3
percent. The volume of the ice is 9 percent greater than 4
the volume of the water that the ice is coming from, and 5
once the ice is, or the water is freezing, it changes its 6
volume, and then it can lift up in certain cases even 7
two-storey buildings. When we have frost-related problems 8
in the north and cracking of buildings, these are related 9
to these ice lenses which are -- ice lenses. 10
Now, when it comes to soil and frost 11
susceptibility, then we have not only this problem that 12
the water is freezing once, because let's say we have 13
gravel, which are the large grapes. Back to the lime, 14
yes? So when you have that and it's full with water, all 15
the voids are filled with water, and the water is 16
freezing, it changes the volume and that's it. That's it. 17
There is no more, no more extra water. If I want to 18
increase the ice volume, I would have to go and get some 19
more water and add. 20
When you have large granular soils like sand 21
or gravel, the void size between them is relatively large, 22
so the water is not climbing up. When you have the 23
smaller soils, like the silt and the clay, which is 24
pediment and soil deposits up there, they have very small,25
Page 57
57
very small channels. The voids are very small, and there 1
is the so-called capillary action. 2
If you remember what we learn in physics in 3
elementary schools, when you have the small channels, they 4
bring up the water from lower levels, and the capillary 5
rise is higher when the channels are smaller. 6
If I have a handful of gravel, I put it in 7
water, and the water is halfway to the gravel, no water 8
goes up. If I take the silt, is like a sugar cube. If I 9
put the corner of the sugar cube in the coffee, what 10
happens to the coffee? It goes up all the way to the top 11
because the capillary action in the small channels. The 12
frost susceptible soils are like that. 13
Q. Okay. Now, what I'd like to do -- if you 14
could look at Figure 1.1 of the report. So we understand 15
the importance of non-frost susceptible material. Could 16
you explain based on this figure, which I understand you 17
assisted with, what layers would be non-frost susceptible 18
material and why? 19
A. If I go back to that, we have -- 20
MR. VESELY: Excuse me. 21
THE WITNESS: -- all this -- 22
CHAIR: I'm sorry. Mr. Vesely? 23
MR. VESELY: I have an objection, depending 24
on, I guess, on how far we're going with this, and that25
Page 58
58
has to do with the role of these, of these two experts and 1
their relative expertise, and in particular, there was an 2
exchange when I cross-examined Mr. Bodi in advance of 3
this, which read as follows, at page 54 onwards of the 4
transcript. Mr. Butler said -- and why I couldn't answer 5
a question: 6
"If he is not an expert in -- if he is not 7
tendered for the purpose of an expert in construction, 8
then he shouldn't be giving expert opinion on that. I 9
believe that is a point of law." 10
And this ended with the following exchange. I 11
said: 12
"Here is the point at which I want to be clear 13
though. I tried to ask him some questions. You have 14
objected to the questions on the basis that he doesn't 15
have -- he is not being put forward on the basis as having 16
expertise in that area. 17
"MR. BUTLER: That is not quite right. I said 18
he has not been tendered for the purpose of this hearing 19
as an expert in those areas." 20
And then I said: 21
"So to the extent that there are matters 22
falling within those areas, we are all clear that it will 23
not be Mr. Bodi's evidence or contribution to the report 24
that will support those?25
Page 59
59
"MR. BUTLER: That's correct." 1
And the topic that is -- we're talking about 2
is construction. So he was not put forward and I was not 3
permitted to ask him questions about construction. What 4
he has done, as he said, is done a study of the soil, and 5
then what's done with that after is a matter for 6
construction expertise. So I simply ask that that same 7
line be respected in the hearing. 8
MR. BUTLER: And I completely agree. I am 9
focused on the materials. We will hear testimony from Mr. 10
Hartmann regarding construction, how they're put together, 11
why. 12
I'm simply taking Mr. Bodi quite near to the 13
end of the logical conclusion of why certain materials, 14
from a geotechnical perspective, are incorporated. I'm 15
not talking about the -- and I don't think I'm -- I'm 16
trying not to lead or foreshadow where I'm going with Mr. 17
Bodi here, but I'm not talking about the construction of 18
the embankment. I just want to discuss the perhaps 19
strength of materials within. Mr. Paxton will -- excuse 20
me. Mr. Hartmann will discuss the construction, the 21
design elements, why decisions were made in that regard. 22
I hope to keep to that boundary. 23
CHAIR: Okay. We'll allow it for now. We'll 24
see where you --25
Page 60
60
MR. BUTLER: If I go too far or -- 1
CHAIR: We'll hear from Mr. Vesely, I'm sure. 2
MR. BUTLER: Exactly. 3
THE WITNESS: Okay. 4
BY MR. BUTLER: 5
Q. So with that in mind, what I'd like you to 6
do is looking at that design, and as I've mentioned to the 7
commissioners, I'm not looking for an explanation of the 8
entire construction, but we discussed non-frost 9
susceptible materials, and what I'd like you to explain 10
is, in an embankment of that nature, why certain materials 11
are put in certain places. 12
A. Without going into construction details. 13
Q. Right. 14
A. The situation is, anywhere where the water 15
in the soil can freeze, it will create problems. Create 16
problem by heaving the structures, and this is only once. 17
This is a potential problem once to a structure. 18
The biggest problem in the long-term is when 19
you have a situation when you have a type of soil 20
environment that has not only water once, but is bringing 21
up water from the deeper levels, and the ice that is 22
generated within the zone that is freezing, there will be 23
a growing ice during the winter period. 24
Now, that ice not only create extra uplift on25
Page 61
61
the structures, whatever is there, we can talk about 1
building, don't have to talk about road or railway, and 2
then it brings up so much extra water that wasn't there, 3
in the spring and the summertime, when that large amount 4
of ice will start to melt, you will have much more water 5
in that part of the soil environment than you had before. 6
And that, that large amount of water, 7
especially in the smaller soils, the silt and clay, will 8
change the consistency of the soil from a stiff 9
consistency to a softer consistency that can generate 10
potential failures. It can generate settlement of 11
buildings, failures, embankment, and so on. 12
So that's the reason, if you have a zone that 13
can freeze, and up there, that zone is quite deep because 14
we know that the first penetration is at least eight feet, 15
which is 2.4 metre, so if you, within that zone, if you 16
have a soil that can bring water from the groundwater and 17
build up the ice lenses and weaken the whole soil 18
environment in the long term, whatever structure is on the 19
top, it will create problems. 20
Q. So with respect to non-frost susceptible 21
material and the estimations that were made in this 22
report, is this an overestimation or an underestimation? 23
A. Can you repeat that again? Regarding 24
what?25
Page 62
62
Q. With respect to the non-frost susceptible 1
material issue, you've mentioned its use in the 2
embankment. Taking this report as a whole, is it an 3
overestimation of the material that will be needed or is 4
it an underestimation? 5
A. On this particular section, when you have 6
to have the material, again, we would like, or 7
theoretically, we would like to have non-frost susceptible 8
soil wherever the soil will freeze, and theoretically, we 9
would have to use that material unless we will be facing 10
maintenance problems in the long term. 11
Q. Okay, but just to -- more precisely, so 12
the report itself, does it overestimate or underestimate 13
the amount of material? 14
A. I wasn't involved in estimating the 15
material itself. So I -- 16
Q. Okay. Well, then we'll leave that. 17
A. Leave it. 18
Q. But in terms of your expertise in geotech, 19
is it preferable -- well, which -- as you said, the 20
non-frost susceptible material -- I think I'll leave it 21
there. Otherwise, I'm going to have to -- I think that's 22
when I was starting to cross closer to Mr. Hartmann's 23
evidence. 24
MS. ORR: All right. So this witness is not25
Page 63
63
able to tell us what is non-frost -- 1
MR. BUTLER: Susceptible? 2
MS. ORR: -- susceptible material? 3
MR. BUTLER: He can, yes. Well, I hope to. 4
MS. ORR: And will you -- 5
BY MR. BUTLER: 6
Q. It doesn't form part of the construction 7
elements, but if you could describe where non-frost 8
susceptible material is sourced? 9
A. Non-frost susceptible soil, I explained, 10
is a soil that has very low percentage of silt and clay. 11
The silt and the clay is the one, those are the small 12
soils that can take water up into the higher level. 13
So if I would want to build a good embankment 14
here, I would love to build it from non-frost susceptible 15
soils, but again, it was my investigation that looked all 16
the soils and I do not see natural, non-frost susceptible 17
soil up on the drawings, up on the alignment I 18
investigated. 19
Q. The drawings. 20
CHAIR: Excuse me. When you say "non-frost 21
susceptible soils," are you looking at sand and gravel as 22
being ideal? 23
THE WITNESS: The ideal is if the silt content 24
is less than 15 -- the silt content controls it. The silt25
Page 64
64
is the one that is the biggest troublemaker and certain 1
clays, which are very highly plastic. 2
So when they identify non-frost susceptible 3
the soil, they do a gradation test. Every soil has 4
different fractions, most of the soils. There are very 5
limited numbers where you have 100 percent clay or 100 6
percent sand. They have different fractions, especially 7
the till up there which is mixed together by the ice. 8
When they separate all those fractions and 9
they identify the percentages, if the silt content is more 10
than different -- there are different classifications, 11
highly frost susceptible, medium and so on, there are 12
different, different levels of frost susceptibility, but 13
when you have silt content up there, then you have -- even 14
you have sand. If you have sand soil, but the percentage 15
is 15 percent or more, then the good chance is that you 16
will have problems with -- frustrated problems in the long 17
run, wherever you are using that material, it's under 18
foundations or buildings or wherever. 19
And because this environment up in the lower 20
land, I said most of the soils are the silt and the clays, 21
the predominant soils. On the top of the solid rock, even 22
the till, the till is definitely -- has high percentage of 23
silt and clays, and then in the lake that was left after 24
the melting ice, most of the soils that were brought in25
Page 65
65
sedimented to the lake bottom. These are silts and clays, 1
and those are mostly frost susceptible. 2
MR. BUTLER: And I don't mean to leave the 3
point hanging, but at this point, without foreshadowing 4
too much, the implications for construction will be 5
addressed, but I'd like to stay to the boundary that I 6
kept with my friend to some degree. 7
CHAIR: Understood. 8
MR. BUTLER: So I see that we're at 1 o'clock. 9
I wonder -- what I'd like to do is just check my notes and 10
make sure I've got everything, but I didn't know if we 11
wanted to break for lunch at this point. 12
CHAIR: Why don't we just break for lunch, and 13
do you need more than an hour to check your notes and have 14
lunch? 15
MR. BUTLER: No, an hour for lunch seems fine. 16
CHAIR: Okay, and this -- are we going to -- 17
can we mark this as Exhibit -- 18
MR. BUTLER: Absolutely. 19
CHAIR: -- 18? No objections? 20
MR. VESELY: None. 21
CHAIR: And what do we call it? 22
MS. ORR: How would you like to label this, 23
Mr. Butler, Exhibit 18? 24
MR. BUTLER: That is a portion of the25
Page 66
66
appendices. 1
MR. VESELY: I would suggest an extract of 2
Appendix 12 from the Hartmann affidavit. 3
MR. BUTLER: I think an extract is more 4
accurate. 5
CHAIR: Thank you. 6
MR. VESELY: Fortunately, it has the page 7
numbers on it, so we can see which it is. 8
CHAIR: And the page, with the page numbers 9
noted. Thank you very much. 10
EXHIBIT NO. 18: Extract of Appendix 12 from 11
the Hartmann affidavit. 12
CHAIR: Okay. We'll see you at 2 o'clock. 13
--- Recess at 1:00 p.m. 14
--- Upon resuming at 2:00 p.m. 15
MR. BUTLER: Just before I begin, Mr. 16
Smitheman is just on a quick call, but Ms. Potter was 17
required back at the firm, so with your leave, she's not 18
joining us this afternoon. 19
CHAIR: Okay. I have one logistical question, 20
if you can indulge me, and that is, if we finish with Mr. 21
Hartmann before the end of tomorrow, will we be going 22
straight to argument or will we wait over until Wednesday 23
morning to start? 24
MR. BUTLER: I haven't discussed that with my25
Page 67
67
friend, and I think it could cost me my job if I give 1
Neal's answer for him, so -- 2
CHAIR: Okay. All right. Well, then during 3
the next break, perhaps it can be something up for 4
discussion. I prefer to take notes on my laptop and I 5
just want to know if I should be bringing it in tomorrow 6
or Wednesday. As I say, nothing major turns on it. 7
Do we require Mr. Smitheman for you to finish 8
your examination? 9
MR. BUTLER: No, not at all. Not at all. And 10
in fact, I am, I believe, complete in my questions. 11
BY MR. BUTLER: 12
Q. One point that I wanted to raise with Mr. 13
Bodi, and it was just really with looking at these two 14
figures, and this is really just clarification for the 15
commissioners. 16
Mr. Bodi, are those -- the figure that's at 17
the top there, and then the chart that you have, are those 18
for the same station areas? 19
A. No, no. This is from Station 0 to 3.7, 20
this 120. This is the first page, what you have to go to 21
page number 50 something to bring up the -- but you can 22
see the station, 120 to 150, so you have the station 23
numbers on the drawing. Just look up on the list. 24
MR. BUTLER: And I just wanted to clarify that25
Page 68
68
for the commissioners because, at some points, I know Mr. 1
Bodi was talking about rock cuts, and in the top figure, 2
but one might wonder why, in the bottom table, the rock 3
numbers are zero, and it's because they don't actually 4
represent the same point on the land. 5
CHAIR: I actually had a question, and it 6
might be something that you may wish to address in-chief 7
and may come up in cross-examination, but you did this 8
distribution of anticipated soil types for the entire 9
length of -- 10
THE WITNESS: 330 kilometres, yes. 11
CHAIR: Okay. And overall, is there 12
sufficient subgrade material within the location to 13
adequately provide an embankment for a road or a railroad, 14
or would materials -- because you talked about 15
permeability and water seeping in and causing the 16
embankment to be degraded, to be unstable. Is there 17
sufficient there? 18
THE WITNESS: When we discussed there are 19
different types of soils and when you build an embankment, 20
you would try to find the one that has the low percentage 21
silt and clay, and there is almost none by nature, because 22
most of -- you can see clay, clay, clay, clay, clay, clay, 23
and rock. Clay, clay, peat, clay, clay, silt, till. 24
So there is not much, but when I was working25
Page 69
69
up there in the north, I had different resources when I 1
was searching for this and that. It's a well-known fact 2
that clean, clean, I mean, clean I think it means low 3
percent silt and clay is hard to find, or you have to 4
produce from some sources. 5
CHAIR: When you say "produce from some 6
sources," what do you mean? 7
THE WITNESS: You can create. If I take the 8
rock and I break it up and I crush it, when you crush it, 9
then you can minimize the amount of smaller grains. 10
CHAIR: As long as it doesn't have too high a 11
percentage of silt. 12
THE WITNESS: When you keep crushing it, you 13
keep -- you know, the crushing process, you have primary, 14
secondary and so on. First, you crush everything. You 15
have the cobbles and the boulders, the lime and the 16
orange. You go into the second stage of crushing, you 17
have the gravel size, and then if you don't go, when you 18
stop at certain point, you control the size, what you 19
create. 20
CHAIR: Okay. 21
THE WITNESS: It's in your control. You 22
create something, depending what is the purpose. 23
CHAIR: So if you have rock -- 24
THE WITNESS: If you have boulder --25
Page 70
70
CHAIR: If you have solid rock, and you crush 1
it no further than the -- 2
THE WITNESS: Than the silt size? The 0.06, 3
yes. 4
CHAIR: Then you're okay. 5
THE WITNESS: Yes, you can. That's the reason 6
crushed rock is used for concrete, is the specification 7
for concrete, and when they use the aggregate for concrete 8
purpose, you have to minimize even further the silt 9
content. You have too much dust on the gravel grains, the 10
cement is not sticking, so the strength of the concrete is 11
weak. 12
So this is the procedure when you -- once you 13
want to create something that is -- that comprises only 14
the sand and the gravel size, because this is what you 15
like to use, let's say -- in our case, for infrastructure 16
corridor, you have to have on the top just gravel, mostly 17
gravel, little bit of sand, because this is high friction 18
resistance, packing nicely under traffic. If you drive 19
over with cars or trucks, you have to have it. 20
The other purpose lets the water draining out 21
of, so you don't have moss everywhere, because it has a 22
higher permeability, the sand and gravel. If you would 23
have silt in it, the silt is blocking the movement of the 24
water and it's freezing in the winter, so the silt is the25
Page 71
71
problem. 1
CHAIR: Thank you. 2
MR. BUTLER: So those are all my questions, 3
and I tender the witness to my friend. 4
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. VESELY: 5
Q. Mr. Bodi, I think you can probably have a 6
seat there. 7
A. We're going to be that long? 8
Q. No. Far from it, sir. I have very few 9
questions for you. 10
In terms of the analysis that you performed, 11
your analysis was limited to the data that was available 12
to you which, in this case, was the Golder data, correct? 13
A. That's correct. 14
Q. Now, I'd like to take you to a document 15
that was marked as Exhibit 1 to your previous 16
cross-examination, though this copy doesn't have the tab 17
on it. 18
Now, and Commissioners, just for your 19
reference, this is a portion of the document that's 20
printed from Exhibit "M" to the first affidavit of Mr. 21
Lavigne. You'll recall Mr. Butler explained that's a 22
CD-ROM, due to its size. This comes from that CD-ROM. 23
And one other -- this is -- what we're looking 24
at here is the narrative portion that comes at the very25
Page 72
72
first 20 pages or so of that report. And one final note 1
for the witness and for the commissioners: 2
Something has happened with some of the fonts 3
in terms of how it's printed. It always appears this way, 4
but you'll see some of the capital letters are not 5
printing and that just seems to be a printing issue. 6
So, Mr. Bodi, do you have a copy of that in 7
front of you? 8
A. Yes, I do. 9
CHAIR: We get to fill in the blanks here? 10
Canada Chrome Proposed. 11
MR. VESELY: Yes. I think if you look at the 12
CD, it might be visible on your screen. 13
CHAIR: Okay. 14
MR. VESELY: Oh. Actually, I'm told it shows 15
like that on the screen as well. So right now, it looks a 16
bit like a Wheel of Fortune episode in mid-play. 17
CHAIR: Okay. If we get stuck, we'll ask. 18
THE WITNESS: Can I create any words we want? 19
MR. VESELY: No. 20
BY MR. VESELY: 21
Q. So, Mr. Bodi, this is from the Golder data 22
which you relied on for your analysis, correct? 23
A. I had a preliminary geotechnical report 24
and that was a different version of the one, but possibly25
Page 73
73
summarize the same, if this is talking about the same 1
data. 2
Q. Could I ask you to turn to page 14, which 3
is the second-to-last page of the extract we have. 4
A. Page 14. Okay. 5
Q. Yes. And you'll see a heading entitled 6
"Use of Report." 7
A. Yes. 8
Q. And in that, the second-to-last sentence 9
of that paragraph reads as follows: 10
"Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly 11
encountered and cannot fully be determined by a limited 12
number of explorations or soil samples." 13
Do you see that? 14
A. Yes, I do. 15
Q. And you understood that that was a 16
statement that was made by the persons who prepared the 17
data on which your analysis was conducted? 18
A. That's correct. 19
MR. VESELY: I'm in the commissioners' hands 20
as to whether we mark this as an exhibit. I don't have 21
any further questions. It forms part of Exhibit "M", but 22
on the other hand, if it's convenient, I'm happy to have 23
it marked. 24
CHAIR: Might as well.25
Page 74
74
MR. VESELY: It's not otherwise printed. 1
MR. BUTLER: That's fine. 2
CHAIR: We'll mark it as Exhibit 19 are we up 3
to, or 20? 19. Exhibit 19, possibly entitled "Geology 4
and Terrain Unit Geotechnical Data Report." 5
MR. BUTLER: And just to -- I will undertake 6
to figure out exactly what that should read as -- I 7
apologize. 8
CHAIR: I was just going to read off the 9
bottom: Golder & Associates. And it's an excerpt, just 10
write this down, it's an excerpt from the CD-ROM at tab M 11
of Mr. Lavigne's affidavit. And I should note that 12
there's a "Draft" printed across it. 13
EXHIBIT NO. 19: Excerpt from CD-ROM at tab M 14
of Mr. Lavigne's affidavit, "Geology and Terrain Unit 15
Geotechnical Data Report." 16
CHAIR: Mr. Lavigne's affidavit is exhibit...? 17
MR. BUTLER: 5(b). 18
CHAIR: 5(b). Thank you. 19
MR. VESELY: What I'm now going to give to the 20
witness and to the commissioners is a Cerlox-bound portion 21
of -- portions of the affidavit of Mr. Hartmann, so a full 22
printed version is quite large because there's tables of 23
calculations. I don't believe that any copy has been 24
fully printed and filed. So we've -- I prepared a book of25
Page 75
75
the relevant extracts that I intend to use with these two 1
witnesses so it can -- more convenient than on CD-ROM. 2
CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. We'll mark this as 3
Exhibit 20, just so that we don't have more paper than we 4
can account for at the end of the day. 5
EXHIBIT NO. 20: Cerlox-bound document 6
containing portions of Mr. Hartmann's affidavit, 7
Appendixes 9, 10, 11 and 12. 8
MS. ORR: Mr. Vesely, could you just please 9
explain for my benefit exactly what we've got here in 10
this, the next Exhibit 20? Is this Mr. Hartmann's 11
affidavit, which is in 7(g)? 12
MR. VESELY: Yes. So -- 13
MS. ORR: Sorry, no. Not 7(g). 14
MR. BUTLER: 9(a). 15
MS. ORR: 9(a), along with other material? 16
MR. VESELY: Yes. So what Mr. Hartmann's 17
affidavit consists of is an Exhibit "A", which is -- 18
you'll have here, which is just the curriculum vitae of 19
the two individuals. 20
MS. ORR: Yes. 21
MR. VESELY: At tab B, or Exhibit "B", which 22
is at tab B here, there's a 25-page report. 23
MS. ORR: Yes. 24
MR. VESELY: So we have a full copy with --25
Page 76
76
also, you'll see there's some charts that are quite hard 1
to read, so we have large printed copies of those, and 2
then attached to that are appendices which are likely the 3
back, the supporting data, and those can be this -- going 4
to be quite large if you printed them all. I don't 5
propose to deal with the bulk of those in 6
cross-examination, so I have attached -- 7
MS. ORR: Where did they come from? 8
MR. KRUGER: If I could speak to this quickly. 9
MS. ORR: Are they from the CD-ROM that's part 10
of the affidavit material of Mr. Hartmann? 11
MR. KRUGER: That's correct, yes, of Mr. 12
Hartmann. Yes. 13
MS. ORR: That's all I wanted to understand. 14
MR. KRUGER: Yes. So these are certain 15
excerpts, Appendixes 9, 10, 11 and 12 specifically that 16
were printed from that CD-ROM. 17
MS. ORR: Thank you. 18
BY MR. VESELY: 19
Q. So, Mr. Bodi, if you could turn, please, 20
to Appendix 12 in that document? 21
A. This. 22
Q. You prepared the text that we see in 23
Appendix 12, correct? 24
A. Yes, I did.25
Page 77
77
Q. And you'll recall you explained towards 1
the end of your examination that what we've been looking 2
at as Exhibit 17 and Exhibit 18 don't relate to each 3
other. They relate to different segments of the route, 4
correct? 5
A. That's -- no relation. We said we have 6
the first one -- we have a set of 99 drawings spreading 7
the 320 kilometres. The first, that's the large drawing 8
with the side panel and the cross-section, introduces the 9
condition at the first 3.7 kilometres. That one is 10
between 120 and 150 kilometre. 11
Q. Correct. 12
A. But they are the same. They are part of 13
the same project. 14
Q. Yes, but not part of the same narrow 15
segment. 16
A. That's correct. 17
Q. What I'd like you to do is turn in Exhibit 18
12, I'm sorry, Appendix 12, to the table that you formed, 19
that you prepared that does relate to the segment covered 20
by Exhibit 17. 21
A. So the first one? 22
Q. Yes. 23
A. From zero to...? 24
Q. Well, I think you'll find it on page 1.25
Page 78
78
A. Page 1, yes, that's correct. 1
Q. And my point or question I wish you to 2
confirm is, you will recall from your evidence you pointed 3
out that there was exposed bedrock shown on Exhibit 17, 4
correct? 5
A. Yeah, that's correct. 6
Q. And that is why, when we look at page 1 of 7
Appendix 12, we will see percentages attributed in the far 8
right column to rock. 9
A. Yes. 10
Q. And if those were zero, then we're looking 11
at a segment in which there is no exposed rock. 12
A. Not exposed. That's an incorrect word, 13
because that number -- you are talking about the right 14
one. 15
Q. Yes. 16
A. You have rock here and rock there. You're 17
talking about the right column? 18
Q. The right column. 19
A. The right column, this one here explains 20
that rock is where the designed elevation of the 21
roadway -- the elevation, the road or railway elevation 22
is. Right here -- 23
MR. SMITHEMAN: Designed. 24
THE WITNESS: Right here, where the elevation25
Page 79
79
is running inside the rock, right here, not only on the 1
inside, this is rock, the subgrade, but even here, there's 2
not running in rock. Even there, the rock is the subgrade 3
because -- the rock is on the surface, but your road level 4
will be higher. You're not cutting in, but the existing 5
subgrade is rock. 6
So that 12 percent, it doesn't mean that you 7
are 12 percent you are cutting rock. It means 12 percent 8
of the line is rock. If you see to the left, this rock 9
outcrop. There is about 100 metre where you will not have 10
the chance to remove rock because your road level is 11
higher than that, but it comes into this percentage 12
because the rock is on the surface. So at or below the 13
design level is rock and not peat. If there will be peat, 14
of course, that wouldn't be here. Then it would be on the 15
peat section. 16
BY MR. VESELY: 17
Q. Right. And so if we were to look at that 18
right-hand column and see a zero, what would, for rock, 19
what does that mean? 20
A. The subgrade right here. See, there is 21
rock here, but it's covered in peat, so here the subgrade 22
soil is peat because the rock is much deeper. 23
Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, Mr. Bodi, in 24
conducting your analysis, you were asked to assume that25
Page 80
80
the road and the rail would have the same horizontal 1
alignment, correct? 2
A. That was the information that was given to 3
me. Yes, that's correct. 4
Q. And just so we're clear on that, 5
horizontal alignment refers to where the route would be 6
located in a northeast/southwest direction? 7
A. That is correct. 8
Q. It's fair to say that is an assumption 9
upon which your analysis was based? 10
A. They gave me two vertical alignments, but 11
they informed me that the horizontal alignment is the 12
same, and horizontally on the side goes -- it follows the 13
same line. 14
Q. And that was an assumption on which your 15
analysis was based. 16
A. Because I had only one drawing. 17
Q. Yes, and -- 18
A. And so for soil purpose, you had the 19
chance to have the soil information for the alignment. 20
Q. So, and in doing your analysis, you 21
assumed the road and rail followed the same alignment. 22
A. I had to, yes. 23
Q. And it's fair to characterize that as an 24
important assumption to your analysis?25
Page 81
81
A. That was -- my analysis was based on that. 1
I shouldn't say "important". It's a little bit -- it's a 2
simple fact that I had one soil profile and two vertical 3
alignments. 4
Q. Well, Mr. Bodi, would you agree that for 5
the purposes of your analysis, it's important to know 6
whether you're talking about soil conditions on the 7
alignment or soil conditions somewhere else. That's a 8
fairly important assumption, isn't it? 9
A. I was asked to evaluate the distribution 10
of the soil along one available section and I did that. 11
Q. Correct. And in doing that analysis, it's 12
important to your analysis that the alignment you were 13
asked to assume is, in fact, the alignment that would be 14
followed. Fair? 15
A. I don't know where are you heading 16
because, again, there's an alignment and there's a soil 17
profile there along this alignment, and I evaluated the 18
distribution. Now, are you trying to ask me that what 19
happened if you are 5 kilometre away from that line or 20
what, because that was my job and I did it. 21
Q. Okay. Do you recall being examined by me 22
in Toronto on January 11, 2013? 23
A. Yes, I remember. 24
Q. You'll recall I asked you certain25
Page 82
82
questions and you gave me answers? 1
A. That's correct. 2
Q. And you were under oath at that time? 3
A. Yes. 4
Q. At page 92 of the transcript, do you 5
recall this exchange? 6
CHAIR: Just one moment. 7
MR. SMITHEMAN: May I approach and just give 8
the witness the transcript? 9
MR. VESELY: Yes. 10
BY MR. VESELY: 11
Q. Actually, if you could turn back, I'll 12
just begin at page 91. Question 289: 13
"Question: I see. Right. 14
"So the road and the rail have the same 15
horizontal alignment? 16
"Answer: That's correct. That was my 17
knowledge. 18
"Question: And to be more precise, it was the 19
assumption that was given to you to work with? 20
"Answer: That's correct. 21
"Question: And that's the assumption upon 22
which your analysis is based? 23
"Answer: That's correct. 24
"Question: And that's an important one25
Page 83
83
because the data you are getting is coming from that 1
alignment. Correct? 2
"Answer: That was investigated. 3
"Question: Right. It's important to know 4
whether we are on that alignment or somewhere else. 5
Correct? 6
"Answer: That's correct." 7
A. Yeah, it's correct. Exactly what I say. 8
Q. And those answers were true? 9
A. Absolutely. 10
MR. VESELY: Thank you, Mr. Bodi. Those are 11
my questions. 12
THE WITNESS: That's it? 13
MR. VESELY: You could have stood the whole 14
time. 15
CHAIR: Just one moment. Do you have any 16
questions on redirect, Mr. Butler? 17
MR. BUTLER: No, I do not. 18
CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. 19
THE WITNESS: Anybody? Any questions? 20
CHAIR: Going, going, gone. No, we're fine. 21
Thank you. 22
MR. BUTLER: If anyone's interested in the 23
glacial history of the area, I'm sure we can have a quick 24
recap.25
Page 84
84
THE WITNESS: Thank you for your patience. 1
CHAIR: Thank you very much. 2
MR. BUTLER: That should probably stay up 3
there. 4
MR. BODI: Excuse me. May I leave? 5
CHAIR: You're excused, certainly. If we 6
don't offer you entertainment value, by all means. 7
MR. BUTLER: We're going to call our next 8
witness, Mr. Paxton Hartmann, please. 9
PAXTON HARTMANN: Affirmed. 10
EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. BUTLER: 11
Q. Mr. Hartmann, could you just state your 12
name, your full name for the record, please? 13
A. Paxton Oliver Hartmann. 14
Q. And could you identify your current 15
position, please? 16
A. My current position: I'm a senior civil 17
engineer at Tetra Tech. 18
Q. Mr. Hartmann, we've had some discussion 19
about your affidavit, so what I'd like to do is take you 20
there first to Exhibit "A", if we could, and I believe in 21
the bound document provided by my friend it should be 22
contained. 23
So at Exhibit "A" is your CV, and I'd like to 24
go through that with you a little bit if I could.25
Page 85
85
MR. VESELY: Perhaps if it would be helpful, 1
just if I can help my friend expedite things, we raise no 2
objection to the qualifications of Mr. Hartmann to give 3
evidence. 4
MR. BUTLER: Well, that was going to be my 5
task, to tender the witness as an expert in civil 6
engineering for the purposes of road and rail design. So 7
if my friend is content to have Mr. Paxton [sic] qualified 8
as an expert in that regard, I can skip that portion. 9
MR. VESELY: I am. 10
CHAIR: Thank you. So qualified. 11
BY MR. BUTLER: 12
Q. So skip over that completely. Let's go to 13
Exhibit "B", if we could, which is the Material 14
Availability Assessment. We're going to go into it in 15
quite some detail, but what I'd just like you to do is 16
give the commissioners an understanding of what it is you 17
did with this report. What was the scope of the work? 18
A. Well, the scope of the work was basically 19
to do a three-dimensional geometric analysis of a road and 20
a rail corridor to come up with the needed volumes 21
required to build such a structure, and also then I was to 22
take the input from Mr. Bodi and apply his expertise in 23
the various distributions of rock, soil and peat onto my 24
geometric analysis to determine how much rock is needed,25
Page 86
86
how much soil is needed, et cetera, for building up what's 1
called a cross-section of a road or rail, and that's 2
displayed in Figures 1.1 and 1.2. 3
Q. We're going to come to those in a moment, 4
but just for the commissioners' clarification, the summary 5
is at page 3 of 25 of Mr. Hartmann's report. 6
A. Yes. 1.2 is the -- basically, is -- well, 7
it is the scope of this analysis that I performed. 8
Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Hartmann, you swore this 9
affidavit some time ago. Since the affidavit was sworn 10
and that report was completed, have there been any 11
amendments? 12
A. Yes, there was an amendment to Figure 3-2, 13
where I used -- based, for example, in this table, 14
originally, Figure 3-2 was based on these numbers on the 15
right-hand side of the columns, and I determined it was 16
more appropriate that these numbers should be used because 17
more representative of the actual cut sections, the 18
material in the cuts. 19
Q. Okay. Let me just stop there. We'll come 20
back a little bit. How were you alerted to these 21
amendments? 22
A. I was asked to clarify Figures 3-2, which 23
has to do with soil availability, and I investigated 24
further through some hand calculations and came across the25
Page 87
87
fact that the second column on that chart is more 1
appropriate for that particular graph. 2
Q. Now, when you say you were answering a 3
question, that was a question by my friend during 4
cross-examination; is that correct? 5
A. Yes, yes. 6
Q. Okay. Now, with respect to the amendment 7
that you've made, was there any change in the analysis 8
that's contained within the report? Did you have to -- 9
A. No, it was the exact same analysis. It 10
simply just replaced those numbers with the numbers in the 11
second column. 12
Q. Okay. 13
A. Everything else was the same. 14
Q. Now, is there any -- sorry. 15
MS. ORR: Just hang on there for one minute. 16
When you say "the second column," what column again are 17
you referring to? What's it entitled? 18
THE WITNESS: Cross-section, "(approximate 19
range of depth is shown in brackets)", and then 20
underneath, it says, "% & type of excavated material 21
(compared to total volume of the excavated soil)", which 22
is the cut, which is this part up here. 23
MS. ORR: All right. Thank you. 24
MR. BUTLER: And, in fact, Madam Commissioner,25
Page 88
88
what I've done is I've provided my friends with an 1
explanation by e-mail which included a document which just 2
highlighted those, which just highlighted the change in 3
the data used, just to answer that -- 4
MS. ORR: All right. 5
MR. BUTLER: -- very question. So I'll just 6
pass that up to you. 7
MS. ORR: Thank you. 8
BY MR. BUTLER: 9
Q. So in terms of the impact, you mentioned 10
that there was no change in the analysis. Is there any 11
change with respect to your analysis or findings regarding 12
the rock within the road corridor? 13
A. No, they're unrelated. It had no impact 14
on the outcome of the analysis, the conclusions which 15
focused mainly on the rock. 16
Q. Okay. And Commissioners, what I'll do is 17
as we go through, I've got updated figures and I'll 18
provide those to you and I've provided those to my friend 19
ahead of time. 20
So let's just talk a little bit more about how 21
you did what you did, so we can explain that to the 22
commissioners. 23
Once Mr. Bodi had provided his data, what was 24
the first step of your analysis?25
Page 89
89
A. Well, before I even received data from Mr. 1
Bodi, I had to provide him with an optimized profile of 2
the rail and road in order for him to make these 3
determinations, and then he fed that information to me and 4
then I progressed with the analysis based on his input 5
from that. 6
Q. Okay. Now, when you say "an optimized 7
profile," what do you mean? And if it assists you, we've 8
got the -- 9
A. Okay. 10
Q. -- the profile that Mr. Bodi was looking 11
to up on the wall beside, so what do you mean when you say 12
"optimized"? 13
A. Okay. Well, what happens is, for 14
instance, this was a profile that was provided to us by 15
KOA. 16
Q. Sorry, and who is that? 17
A. Krech Ojard & Associates. 18
Q. Thank you. 19
A. And basically, this is the representative 20
of, if this were a road, if he was to put a string down 21
the center of the road and magically the strings froze and 22
removed the road, you're left with the profile. 23
And so a rail has much more stringent 24
requirements because you can't have steep slopes because25
Page 90
90
the trains tend to spin when they're going uphill, so they 1
have much gentler hills and valleys along the rail. 2
Now, the road has less stringent and is able 3
to more closely conform to the surface of the existing 4
ground surface, and by optimizing what you do is, 5
basically, you're trying to produce a cut/fill ratio that 6
are as close to 1:1 as you can, because you want to 7
balance your fill and your cut. That's the overall goal. 8
It's an iterative process, but you're trying to minimize 9
the amount of digging and excavating that you're doing, or 10
trying to minimize the amount of material that you bring 11
to the site. 12
So what I did was I took these, this given 13
rail profile, which was not optimized. This had something 14
like 20-something million, off the top of my head, cubic 15
metres of earthworks. 16
What I did was, is I optimized it with the aid 17
of Mr. Azalay [ph] which had a rail background, and we got 18
it down to kind of a minimum amount of total earthworks 19
required, and same for road. We tried to balance it as 20
best as we can, and some segments, because there's 33 21
segments, all 10 kilometres each, overall, as a whole, 22
you're going to try to balance the entire alignment there. 23
It's called a material balance. 24
So, however, in certain individual segments,25
Page 91
91
if you look at it in smaller segments broken down, some 1
may not be as balanced as well as others, but your goal 2
is, this is a 330-kilometre alignment, is that at the end 3
overall, you try to get the best balance that you can 4
achieve. 5
So that's kind of, in a nutshell, kind of what 6
"optimization" means. You're trying to get that, you 7
know, trying to balance out the cut and fill as best you 8
can. 9
Q. Okay. 10
A. On -- 11
Q. Sorry, finish your sentence. 12
A. Oh, just basically, for instance, you may 13
not be able to get a perfect 1:1, 50 percent, 50 percent 14
cut/fill ratio in here, but as you keep adding along, you 15
know, the next 320 kilometres, it's going to average out, 16
you know, throughout the entire project as a whole. So -- 17
Q. So then once you had those -- you can 18
probably sit. Once you had those optimized alignments, 19
you mentioned you provided that to Mr. Bodi and we've 20
heard evidence of what he provided back to you. 21
A. Yes. 22
Q. So could you pick up the methodology at 23
the point that he's provided back to you those cut and 24
fill --25
Page 92
92
A. Okay. Now then -- 1
Q. -- numbers? 2
A. -- Mr. Bodi then gave me these numbers 3
here, which is a distribution of soil and cut, and then I 4
applied that to the computed volumes to see how much 5
available material I would have in order to fill in the 6
voids which would be our fill sections or the embankment 7
sections. 8
Q. Now, let me just stop you there because 9
you talked about the fills. It might assist if you could 10
take the commissioners and explain the design that you 11
did. 12
A. Okay. For instance, on Figure 1-1 on page 13
5, what you have here is what in our field we call a 14
typical section, and it's, basically, it's a general 15
layout of the geometry of the road and a cross-sectional 16
view. It's the basic layers that comprise the 17
cross-sectional elements of, in this case, the roadway. 18
So the top layer is going to consist of a 19
structural material that's going to be based off of 20
well-graded rock, and because that's going to provide the 21
structural strength to carry the loads from live traffic. 22
Beneath that, you're going to have, you know, 23
you're going to have embankment material which could be 24
anything that you can -- that's suitable as determined by25
Page 93
93
a geotechnical engineer for embankment material which 1
would be generally soil, if you have soil, and if you're 2
very lucky, if you have large boulders, cobbles, things 3
like that, it's kind of a general fill material, and that 4
will vary because what you're going to have is the top 5
portion is the load-bearing part, and it's going to have a 6
constant geometry. 7
So that trapezoidal figure that you see at the 8
top is going to remain relatively constant except in areas 9
where you're going to have twists and turns and curves 10
because you're going to have a little bit of warping 11
effect, so that's going to affect your volumes in that 12
case. 13
So if you could imagine this here, moving up 14
and down, the top layer there remains constant, but the 15
one below that is going to vary, so you're going to have 16
different amounts of soil required depending on the height 17
of your embankment, how high your road or your rail is 18
going to be, or in a cut situation, the opposite would be 19
true because you're going to be cutting and excavating 20
into the ground. 21
Q. Now, let me just stop you there. You 22
mentioned that the top layer contains the load-bearing 23
material, and we've heard from Mr. Bodi some discussion 24
about strength of material and non-frost susceptibility.25
Page 94
94
Could you maybe connect those dots for the commissioners? 1
This is the point where I didn't want to go too far with 2
Mr. Bodi, but -- 3
A. Well, in this situation, you have to 4
assume -- well, you're going to need non-frost susceptible 5
materials, but since at a preliminary stage that this 6
report is at, you have to assume that your non -- NFS 7
material, your non-frost susceptible material will need to 8
be comprised of some kind of crushed rock because there's 9
just not enough data available to determine whether 10
certain soils can be used as NFS materials. That would be 11
done at a detailed design stage, which would be much 12
further down the road than the point that we're at now. 13
So if you're in a detailed design stage, what 14
they're going to do is you're going to do much more 15
extensive testing of the soils and make a determination 16
whether there is any value there for embankment material 17
and non-frost susceptible material. 18
CHAIR: Process? Could you please -- 19
non-processed susceptible? 20
THE WITNESS: No, non-frost. I'm sorry. 21
CHAIR: Oh, I'm sorry. 22
THE WITNESS: NFS. Non-frost. 23
CHAIR: I was wondering why... 24
BY MR. BUTLER:25
Page 95
95
Q. Now, based on Mr. Bodi's analysis, and 1
knowing about the area, do you have any opinion on whether 2
or not the materials that would comprise the embankment 3
section, could they be used for the top sections? 4
A. Could you repeat that? When you say the 5
"embankment", are you speaking of the layer beneath the -- 6
Q. Yes. 7
A. -- structural part? 8
Q. Yes. 9
A. And could I make a judgment as to whether 10
it could be used as what again? 11
Q. Essentially, what extent of non-frost 12
susceptible materials, to the best of your knowledge, in 13
the area? 14
A. As far as I know, that there are no 15
non-frost susceptible materials native as soils because 16
there's just not enough testing information available. 17
Q. So could you maybe just flip over the page 18
to Figure 1.2? Now, with that analysis with respect to 19
road, does the same hold true for rail? 20
A. With rail, rail is going to require a much 21
sturdier cross-section, and what you see on Figure 1-2 is 22
again the same concept. It's a typical section except for 23
rail, and it's going to require a much sturdier section 24
because it's going to be carrying heavier loads, and it's25
Page 96
96
also going to have a much longer life span than a typical 1
road would. 2
So you're going to be required to use more 3
rock material in building a rail than you would a road 4
because, on average, I would say rail has a life span of 5
about 80 years, give or take. A road is generally 6
designed with a life span of about 20 years, so it's going 7
to have to be reconstructed and rehabilitated about four 8
times during the life span of the rail. 9
Q. Okay. So thank you. That -- I think that 10
provides us with a nice background. So let's talk a 11
little bit about some of the results. What I'd like to do 12
is take you to Figure 3.2 of your report. That's located 13
at page 19 of 25, and this is one of the figures that you 14
mentioned has some impact on the changes you made, so... 15
MR. BUTLER: So I'll provide you with these 16
updated -- there is also an enlargement, so it's a little 17
bit easier to see. 18
CHAIR: Just let me mark this. We need to 19
mark this as well. 20
MR. BUTLER: Would it be easier for the 21
commissioners if I gave you all of the updated figures at 22
once? Do we want to mark them all at once? 23
CHAIR: It might be -- 24
MR. BUTLER: Would that be easier?25
Page 97
97
CHAIR: What do we call this? 1
MR. BUTLER: I don't think that's anything. 2
It's just a visual for -- instead of pointing at the side. 3
It was really just to explain which numbers were 4
originally used and which numbers are in the versions I'm 5
now handing up. If it assists the commissioners or has 6
already fulfilled its purpose, I think it's fine to -- 7
CHAIR: Okay. 8
MR. BUTLER: So what I'll do is I've given you 9
one map, but let me give you the others that have any 10
change. It's just -- it's actually one more set. 11
CHAIR: When you say "one more set," there are 12
two more? 13
MR. BUTLER: There are two maps, yes. 14
CHAIR: Okay. I'm going to -- doesn't make 15
any sense, but if you don't mind my starting with page 19, 16
I'm going to mark these as Exhibit 21(a), being page 12 of 17
25, (b) being 13, and (c) being 19, and these correspond 18
with the pages in Mr. Paxton's, Mr. Hartmann's rather, 19
affidavit with corrections? 20
MR. BUTLER: The page numbers should be 21
consistent and the graphs are updated. 22
CHAIR: They are updated. 23
MR. BUTLER: So that is, essentially, a 24
replacement page.25
Page 98
98
CHAIR: Okay. 1
MR. BUTLER: But to assist with the 2
commissioners, it's larger. 3
CHAIR: Okay. (a) through (c) corresponds 4
with pages 12, 13, and 19 of the affidavit of Mr. P. 5
Hartmann, 9(a), and with updated -- what did you say? 6
Updated data? 7
MR. BUTLER: Just updated. Data is fine. 8
Yes, updated. 9
EXHIBIT NO. 21(a): Updated page 12 of 25 of 10
Paxton Hartmann's affidavit. 11
EXHIBIT NO. 21(b): Updated page 13 of 25 of 12
Paxton Hartmann's affidavit. 13
EXHIBIT NO. 21(c): Updated page 19 of 25 of 14
Paxton Hartmann's affidavit. 15
CHAIR: Okay. All right. Thank you. 16
BY MR. BUTLER: 17
Q. Thank you. So, Mr. Hartmann, if you could 18
look to Figure 3.2, there is quite a bit of information on 19
this particular figure, so I'd like to go through it with 20
the commissioners. Could you describe what we see here, 21
please? 22
A. Okay. What you see on this particular 23
graph is the -- either the surpluses or the deficits in 24
available soil materials.25
Page 99
99
Q. So let's look, for instance, at the -- in 1
my version, it's sort of a brown and a green on the 2
left-hand side, and on the left-hand side, we see we have 3
the station segments. 4
A. Yes. 5
Q. So, Mr. Paxton, could you just give us a 6
little idea of what we see with respect to -- 7
A. Okay. 8
Q. -- those soil amounts and then maybe try 9
to tie it to the corridor route for the commissioners. 10
A. Okay. It goes from the lower stations as 11
Station 100, which is 100 kilometres from point zero, 12
which is near Nakina, which is down here in this area. 13
Q. Sorry, what's down in that area? Nakina? 14
A. Nakina. 15
Q. So that's station -- 16
A. Zero. 17
Q. Okay. And then so where would Station 100 18
be, the starting point to this graph? 19
A. 100 would be roughly a third of the way 20
up, so it's in this area generally right here. 21
Q. And so for the commissioners' benefit, 22
that is actually the point at which the CCC mining claims 23
are not overlapped by the proposed Cliffs route. There's 24
a deviation there. So this graph then starts at the point25
Page 100
100
of conflict between the routes? 1
A. Yes, it's where the two alignments are 2
trying to use the same area along the corridor. I guess 3
it would be called the confluence point or convergence 4
point, roughly at Station 110, I believe, and it continues 5
on -- the conflict area continues on up to 330, which is 6
up there by Big Daddy. 7
Q. And so what is the information, the brown 8
and the green, what does that tell us about those areas? 9
A. Well, one is -- like, according to the 10
legend here as you can see on the right, it shows the 11
situation of soil with the road alone and then the green 12
shows the situation of the road and then subsequently a 13
rail being built afterwards. 14
Q. Okay, and are those deficits or surpluses? 15
A. The green and the browns are surpluses, 16
and the blues and the reds are deficits. 17
Q. Okay. So as a general overview, is it 18
fair to say there are more soil deficits in the south and 19
more soil surpluses in the north? 20
A. Yeah, the soil deficits are generally down 21
in the south and the surpluses, the more pronounced 22
surpluses are going to be up on the northern half of the 23
alignment. 24
Q. Okay. What I'd like to take you to is the25
Page 101
101
next figure, Figure 3.3. Now, this figure is unchanged, 1
but just simply to assist the commissioners, I've made a 2
much larger version just so they can see the numbers and 3
I'll pass that to you. 4
My friend advises me in the bound version that 5
you have that they've provided, because it's unchanged, 6
you also have a larger version there, so we don't need to 7
mark it as an exhibit. This was just a little easier on 8
the eyes. 9
A. Okay. 10
CHAIR: Okay. The figure number is...? 11
MR. BUTLER: 3.3. 12
BY MR. BUTLER: 13
Q. So, Mr. Hartmann, could you provide some 14
indication as to what we see here? Maybe just give us an 15
overview? 16
A. Okay. What this here shows is when I do 17
my volumetric calculations, what this shows is how much 18
rock is required, so -- and this is in-situ rock, which is 19
basically the material lying directly beneath the 20
alignment, and so this is on a 10-kilometre basis here, 21
segment by segment, and what it shows is the total cubic 22
metres of rock required. 23
Q. Now, to be clear, this is the impact from 24
road construction.25
Page 102
102
A. Yes. 1
Q. Is that correct? So this is, in fact, the 2
rock that's missing? 3
A. Yeah, this is what you would encounter if 4
you was [sic] to build a road, you would have to, for 5
instance, at Station 100, you would have to come up with 6
82,000 cubic metres of rock -- 7
Q. Okay. 8
A. -- in order to complete that segment. 9
Q. Now, just taking a look at this figure, 10
the blue bars which you said are the rock deficit, they're 11
pretty uniform. Is there a reason for that? 12
A. Yes, because the -- like I was saying 13
earlier in Figure 1-1, the load component of the 14
cross-section is comprised of the well-graded material and 15
that remains a constant. It's going to have a constant 16
thickness all the way through, so that geometry is going 17
to remain fixed, and you're going to get some slight 18
variation from segment to segment due to affects of 19
twisting and as the road tilts and curves, and also some 20
segments have more bridges than other segments, so where 21
there are more bridges, there's going to be less material 22
taken out as -- because we have what's called approach 23
embankments that go up into the river and where the 24
bridges cross. So, of course, there's no material25
Page 103
103
required to build up because you're crossing over a river. 1
It's a bridge. 2
So you're going to have variations, effects 3
produced by absence or the presence of bridges in those 4
sections. 5
Q. Okay. Now, let's flip over two pages to 6
page 23 and we have Figure 3.4, and again, I have a larger 7
version that's just simply easier on the eyes. 8
MS. ORR: Thank you. 9
BY MR. BUTLER: 10
Q. So what is this graph? What does this 11
tell us? What additional information? 12
A. What this does is it's a side-by-side 13
comparison showing, as on the previous graph showed the 14
rock, in-situ rock required for the road. The red bars 15
here shows the rock required by the rail. So you can see, 16
based on this graph, it's a pretty significant percentage 17
of the overall requirements here in order to produce the 18
road. 19
Q. So, I mean, just to be clear, the red -- 20
A. Is the rail. 21
Q. -- is the rock? 22
A. Required for rail. 23
Q. So that's what you're missing. 24
A. That's -- exactly. That's how much rock25
Page 104
104
is missing that you would have to come up with in order to 1
complete that segment. 2
Q. And then so what impact does the fact that 3
you have the road being built ahead of time have? 4
A. Well, because of the geology in this 5
region that came from Laszlo's analysis, any depletion of 6
any useful building materials is going to significantly 7
impact the rail option here because it's going to make the 8
economic or financial basis, the model that would be 9
required to see if this is even viable to build is going 10
to significantly impact that because it costs materials, 11
labour and everything to build anything. 12
And in this particular region here, any 13
material that's useful for building anything is precious, 14
and so the depletion of that, as shown by the blue bars, 15
is going to be not insignificant. It's going to be 16
actually quite a factor. 17
Q. And I think you touched upon it briefly 18
when I took you to the road and rail profiles, but why is 19
it, again, that rail has more requirement for rock? 20
A. Well, it requires a sturdier 21
cross-section. It's going to be supporting much greater 22
loads, so you're going to have much thicker layers at the 23
top which is the load-bearing layers. 24
Q. Okay. So if you go to -- I'll take you25
Page 105
105
there in a second, actually. With respect to your report, 1
therefore, what is your expert opinion regarding the 2
impact of building the road before the rail? 3
A. Building the road before the rail, in my 4
best judgment, would be that it's going to significantly 5
impact the availability of useful materials on building 6
anything afterwards, including rail. I mean, anything 7
that comes after that is going to be -- whatever shortage 8
there is now is going to be greatly exacerbated. 9
Q. Now, there's been some discussion in 10
evidence last week about other areas that might provide 11
materials. So, in your opinion, if someone were to say, 12
"Well, listen, don't worry about the material in the 13
corridor because I'm building a mine at the top so I'm 14
going to have lots of aggregate at the top and, in fact, 15
there's quite a bit at the bottom," would that be 16
something that you would be able to address? 17
MR. VESELY: I'm going to object. If I 18
understand this question, and if I am reading his report, 19
this is a completely new opinion for which we have had no 20
notice and no report. If my friend can take the witness 21
to where that is in his report, I'm content to listen, but 22
this is eliciting an entirely new opinion on a new topic. 23
MR. BUTLER: I don't believe it is and I 24
appreciate my friend may not know exactly where I'm going,25
Page 106
106
but I'm taking Mr. Hartmann to his conclusions. I'm not 1
going to -- I wasn't going to take you to that page yet, 2
Mr. Hartmann, because I want you to explain it instead of 3
reading it, but this will actually deal with one of those 4
bullets in his -- it's a summary regarding his 5
conclusions. It's the second bullet down. 6
MR. VESELY: What page? 7
MR. BUTLER: Page 24. And if, for the benefit 8
of the commissioners, if we would like to discuss this 9
further, rather than having me blurt out this information, 10
I think it's better for Mr. Hartmann to do it. We could 11
have him leave and we can discuss it further. 12
MS. ORR: Well, it sounded like a hypothetical 13
question to me. 14
MR. BUTLER: It is a hypothetical. It's -- in 15
my opinion, he's an expert. It's a hypothetical, and it 16
will go directly to -- 17
MS. ORR: I'm prepared -- 18
MR. BUTLER: -- the ones he's made in his 19
report. 20
MS. ORR: I have no problems with it coming 21
in. 22
CHAIR: I don't either. 23
MR. BUTLER: Okay. Thank you. 24
MS. ORR: Please go ahead.25
Page 107
107
BY MR. BUTLER: 1
Q. So without foreshadowing -- here we go. 2
Start again. 3
If someone were to say, "Mr. Hartmann, I'm 4
building a mine at the top end, so we're going to have a 5
lot of aggregate up there and I've got a bunch at the 6
bottom, because we know that there is more aggregates, 7
there is more rock sources down at the bottom, that's 8
going to be fine for me to build this road," what would be 9
your opinion on that? 10
A. Well, I would say that that's not exactly 11
the case because, you know, we're talking about the middle 12
third of this entire alignment. It is not economically 13
viable to be transporting rock and material 150 kilometres 14
away. It's -- due to the haul distances makes haulage by 15
truck, it's just not economically feasible. The prices 16
would be astronomical. 17
Q. So same question, but what about if we had 18
a lot of different aggregate or rock sources to the right 19
and to the left? 20
A. Well, that wouldn't make any sense either 21
to me because if that was the case, then if I was to pick 22
an alignment, I would target those sources. I would not 23
put my alignment 5 kilometres away from my material 24
because that increases the construction costs.25
Page 108
108
Q. So with respect to your report as a whole, 1
would you say that you are -- in the best efforts you've 2
made to determine the amount of rock, rock deficits and 3
surpluses, are you overestimating the amount you might 4
need or are you underestimating, or best case scenario? 5
A. No. Actually, this was based on ideal 6
conditions. This is actually an underestimate because I 7
believe it's probably going to take much more materials 8
than what I was able to compute, but I had to make certain 9
assumptions. 10
One of the assumptions is that the use of NFS 11
material would be coming from aggregate because we have no 12
further information available, and that's probably most 13
likely going to be the case when detailed design does go 14
forward. 15
Could you repeat the last part or the other 16
question? 17
Q. No, that answers my question. I was just 18
going to follow-up and say are there any other factors 19
or -- 20
A. Yes, there are -- 21
Q. -- that you had to make? 22
A. -- other factors also. One thing that was 23
not considered in here is that there's a lot of peat down 24
there, according to Mr. Bodi, and when you build these25
Page 109
109
cross-sectional elements, you're also going to have to 1
excavate a certain amount of peat which we don't really -- 2
wasn't in the scope of this analysis. 3
So not only, according to Figure 1.1, 1.2, 4
that's an ideal case. What you actually will have to do 5
is you're going to have to remove by excavating a certain 6
layer, amount of peat, and build up from there. So that's 7
going to require more materials and rock also. 8
Q. Okay. And you mentioned, when I gave you 9
the example of other potential sources, that you would end 10
up targeting those sources. If you look at this map that 11
we have here, we've got a map that delineates the Canada 12
Chrome mining claims and it has the Golder borehole 13
locations, with which you're familiar. 14
On top in some places are other boreholes and 15
they're marked by a circle with an "X" through them. 16
Those are proposed boreholes for Cliffs' geotechnical 17
work. Is there anything that you see with respect to 18
those that you can give your opinion on? 19
A. Well, I would -- 20
MR. VESELY: Sorry, I object. Again, there is 21
nothing -- all of this data, including Cliffs' proposed 22
boreholes, was available to this witness, and there's no 23
analysis of this in his report. 24
MR. BUTLER: This is -- all I'm simply asking25
Page 110
110
the expert to do is to take a look at a map that's been 1
entered into evidence and give his expert opinion on a 2
delineation of the boreholes. 3
MS. ORR: Well, what could he possibly answer 4
aside from what we see on the map? 5
MR. BUTLER: Well, I was asking him in 6
reference to his previous statement with respect to 7
aggregate and the route selected and whether -- and he had 8
said at the time that if he was looking to use materials, 9
that he would align the route with it, with the materials. 10
So, I mean, I was simply going to take him to that and ask 11
that question, but if that's beyond the scope of my 12
report, then I'm happy to have my friend's objection. 13
MR. VESELY: The great difficulty I have with 14
this is with an expert witness, we're provided a report in 15
part so that we can, with the benefit of expertise on our 16
side, prepare for cross-examination. 17
The introduction of any new material greatly 18
prejudices me in my ability to cross-examine this witness 19
because not only did I not have an opportunity to ask him 20
those questions and explore the topic on 21
cross-examination, but I now have no ability to have the 22
assistance of any expertise to cross-examine him now. 23
And so my objection I press is, to the extent 24
that he's straying outside of his report, the witness25
Page 111
111
ought not to be permitted to give that evidence and new 1
opinions now. 2
MS. ORR: Mr. Butler, is there anything in the 3
report or anything in any materials that are associated 4
with Mr. Hartmann's testimony today that -- where he's 5
engaging and comparing the Cliffs boreholes, or proposed 6
boreholes, and the Golder boreholes? 7
MR. BUTLER: No, there is not, and the 8
difficulty that we encountered was that we have received 9
those, not from Cliffs, but from MNR. So we've been a 10
little bit handicapped in our ability to analyze the 11
Cliffs boreholes because it's actually not until the 12
hearing that we've had them confirmed as the Cliffs 13
boreholes. We really just had them proposed by MNR, but I 14
think we've sort of secured that evidence before the 15
commissioners, but no, there's no comparison of boreholes 16
in Mr. Hartmann's affidavit or in his report. 17
MS. ORR: Well, the question -- I think that 18
there's -- I would agree with Mr. Vesely that the 19
comparing of boreholes, aside from your asking the witness 20
getting into an area that really -- 21
MR. BUTLER: I think that's fair. Perhaps I 22
can -- I'll withdraw that question and -- 23
MS. ORR: I would agree with the objection. 24
MR. BUTLER: I'll withdraw that question, and25
Page 112
112
I'll just simply put it to Mr. Hartmann this way. 1
BY MR. BUTLER: 2
Q. Mr. Hartmann, you're familiar with the 3
Golder boreholes, correct? 4
A. Yes. 5
Q. And those are analyzed in your report; is 6
that correct? 7
A. Well, the boreholes were used to create 8
the stratigraphy in their geotechnical report. That's 9
what these are here. Those are the boreholes. 10
Q. That's right. Now, with respect to only 11
Golder's data and with respect only to Canada Chrome 12
Corporation and its intentions, can you give me any 13
intent -- can you explain to us, please, the relationship 14
between the Golder alignment and rock materials within the 15
corridor? 16
A. Well, the boreholes that were used by 17
Golder, it gives you an indication of what materials are 18
there along the study that was used in this report. So -- 19
Q. And what is CCC's intention with respect 20
to that rock material? 21
A. CCC's intention for the rock material is 22
to use it to build their infrastructure, their railroad. 23
MR. BUTLER: Thank you. Those -- we have no 24
more questions.25
Page 113
113
CHAIR: Mr. Vesely, you don't need time to 1
gather your thoughts or -- 2
MR. VESELY: I think I'm able to begin now. 3
My hope is that if I conduct the cross-examination and we 4
take a break at a convenient time, I expect to be able to 5
conclude today. 6
CHAIR: Okay. 7
THE WITNESS: I was just wondering if I could 8
get a glass of water here. 9
CHAIR: Yes. I'm wondering why you didn't get 10
one. Is there actually a clean glass? 11
MR. BUTLER: It's Laszlo's glass. I 12
apologize. 13
CHAIR: I think the court reporter also might 14
want some water. Just let me just get somebody to fill up 15
our water jugs. Just two seconds. Don't get up. Don't 16
move. Okay. Thank you. Sorry for the interruption. 17
MR. VESELY: No problem. 18
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. VESELY: 19
Q. Mr. Hartmann, I'd like to start with the 20
purpose of your report. In preparing your report, you 21
were never asked by anyone to respond to the affidavit of 22
Chris Tattersall that was filed in these proceedings, 23
correct? 24
A. That is correct. I was not asked to25
Page 114
114
respond to any affidavit you said? 1
Q. Mm-hmm. 2
A. No. 3
Q. And you've never even seen the affidavit 4
of Mr. Tattersall? 5
A. I may have seen an affidavit, but I didn't 6
look at it closely enough to see who it was from or what 7
it was about because I just didn't have time to go read 8
through any kind of other materials. 9
Q. And certainly, you make no mention of Mr. 10
Tattersall's affidavit in your report. 11
A. No. 12
Q. Could I ask you to turn in that 13
Cerlox-bound binder to the body of your report, which 14
you'll find at tab B, and if you could turn to page 25 of 15
the report, please. These are your conclusions, correct? 16
A. Yes. 17
Q. Now, if you take a look at the second 18
bullet, you see what you refer to, local in-situ rock. Do 19
you see that? 20
A. Yes. 21
Q. And when you talk about the availability 22
of in-situ rock, you were referring only to rock located 23
on the railway alignment, correct? 24
A. Located along the alignment which was25
Page 115
115
produced for both analyses, yes. 1
Q. Okay. And similarly, in that paragraph, 2
you see it refers to materials, and materials are sourced 3
"from the area." Do you see that? 4
A. Yes. 5
Q. When you say "from the area," again, 6
you're referring to the area of the alignment? 7
A. The area of the alignment encompassed by 8
the Golder report. 9
Q. All right. And the alignment that you 10
refer to as encompassed in the Golder report is located 11
within those string, or largely within those string of 12
Canada Chrome Corporation claims that run south to north 13
from approximately Exton up to the Ring of Fire? 14
A. Yes. If that's what you're referring to 15
on this chart, yes. 16
Q. Yes. You're pointing to Map 2b behind you 17
there, correct? 18
A. Yeah. 19
Q. In preparing your report, you considered 20
only the amount of rock and aggregate material that was 21
available within the CCC claims, fair? 22
A. Yes. 23
Q. And specifically, in fact, the narrow 24
alignment that runs within those claims.25
Page 116
116
A. Yes, the horizontal alignment. 1
Q. The availability of rock or aggregate that 2
might be available outside of the CCC claims was outside 3
the scope of your analysis. 4
A. Yes, outside the scope of my analysis in 5
this report. 6
Q. Now, could I ask you to turn back two 7
pages, please, to page 23. And commissioners, that's the 8
same depiction that Mr. Butler handed up. 9
And I think you explained for the 10
commissioners that the blue bar represents the shortage, 11
what you conclude is the shortage of rock for building a 12
road alone along each of the 10-kilometre segments? 13
A. Yes. 14
Q. And the red bar represents what you 15
conclude is a shortage of rock for building a rail along 16
each segment? 17
A. Yes. 18
Q. Fair to say that in each one of the 19
segments, the red bar is longer than the blue bar. You 20
pointed that out? 21
A. Yes. Yes. 22
Q. So it's fair to conclude that along every 23
segment of the route, a railroad would require more rock 24
to build than would a road?25
Page 117
117
A. Yes, it's due to the sturdier construction 1
of the rail cross-section. 2
Q. And so if we looked over the whole course 3
of the alignment, from Station 100 at the bottom of this 4
figure to Station 330 at the top, the amount of rock 5
needed to build a railroad over that length is greater 6
than the amount of rock needed to build a road. 7
A. Yes. 8
Q. Now, let's stay with that figure for a 9
moment, Figure 3-4. If you took out the blue bar, you 10
would still have a rock deficit for the railroad on its 11
own along each and every segment of the route, correct? 12
A. Yes. 13
Q. And so in a scenario where one was 14
building only a railroad and not a road, there would still 15
be a deficit of in-situ rock that would need to be 16
overcome somehow. 17
A. Yes. 18
Q. And that's true along the whole length of 19
the route. 20
A. Yes. 21
Q. The whole question of how one might bring 22
in or otherwise make available rock or soil to make up for 23
these deficits is a question that was outside the scope of 24
your analysis.25
Page 118
118
A. Yes, it's outside the scope of this 1
analysis. 2
Q. It's just simply not a question you 3
considered. 4
A. Well, that is a question more for someone 5
who has made a career out of construction engineering 6
rather than consulting and design, which I did. 7
Q. Fair enough. Now, do you recall in -- 8
during your evidence in-chief, we were looking at page 24 9
of your report. Could you turn there, please? And 10
reference was made to the second bullet under the heading 11
"Road Impact Conclusions." Do you see that? 12
A. Yes. 13
Q. You discussed haul distances. Do you 14
recall that? 15
A. Yes. 16
Q. You did not do any kind of analysis in 17
your report to determine what would or would not be 18
economically available material? 19
A. Not in the scope of this particular 20
report, but in a previous scope, yes, but -- 21
Q. Not in the scope of this report? 22
A. No, the analysis is not attached to this 23
report, no, but there has been some analysis done. 24
Q. All right. Well, with respect to this25
Page 119
119
report that we're dealing with today -- 1
A. Yes. 2
Q. -- any kind of analysis of the economic 3
consideration was outside the scope of this report. 4
A. Yeah, a detailed analysis. However, this 5
is not a detailed statement. This is based on general 6
knowledge of civil engineering and construction. This 7
is -- anyone with a few years' experience out of the 8
university would know that. 9
So it's very reasonable for a person that is 10
generally deemed competent in his field would understand 11
that, and matter of fact, it is part of the examination, 12
in order to get a professional engineering licence, you 13
have to understand the economics of any kind of building 14
construction. It's, like I said, general. 15
Q. And fair enough, but a kind of detailed 16
economic analysis, what is and isn't economical, wasn't 17
part of the scope of this report. 18
A. It's not in these 25 pages, no. 19
Q. Thank you. Now, could you turn over the 20
page, back to page 25, please. So if you see, Mr. 21
Hartmann, the third bullet states: 22
"The negative economic impacts on rail 23
construction after the road is built will likely be 24
significant due to the further increases on haul distance25
Page 120
120
due to in situ bedrock supplies being exhausted by road 1
construction." 2
Do you see that? 3
A. Yes. 4
Q. And in reaching that conclusion, you make 5
the assumption that Cliffs will be taking rock from the 6
CCC claims and using it to build the road, correct? 7
A. Well, the assumption was that any person 8
that's coming in there is going to go after what they can 9
get, so yes, whatever the material is there would be 10
assumed to be used for infrastructure construction. 11
Q. And so you assume that in the case of 12
bedrock supplies, as you say, that those would be used by, 13
sourced by Cliffs from within the alignment and used to 14
build the road. 15
A. Of course, yes. 16
Q. All right. And you did not consider in 17
your analysis a scenario in which Cliffs might be sourcing 18
rocks, rock from outside areas of the alignment? 19
A. No, the rock sources was -- it focused on 20
a segmental basis. There's 33 segments in here, 10 21
kilometres each, and it was a segment-by-segment analysis, 22
and it was assumed that whatever material is available in 23
that 10-kilometre segment, could it be used for the 24
construction of a rail or a road.25
Page 121
121
Q. And so okay. So in performing the 1
analysis you just described, you would agree with me, you 2
did not consider a scenario in which Cliffs might be 3
sourcing rock from areas outside the alignment? 4
A. No, it was outside the scope and outside 5
the knowledge that I had to make this analysis. 6
MS. ORR: Mr. Vesely, has that actually come 7
in, in through the Cliffs presentation? 8
MR. VESELY: Yes, but I would -- probably best 9
not to discuss or answer the question in terms of the 10
detailed evidence with the witness here, but yes, we heard 11
evidence of that. 12
MS. ORR: Get into that later. Thank you. 13
MR. SMITHEMAN: Lots of evidence the other way 14
as well. 15
BY MR. VESELY: 16
Q. Mr. Hartmann, could you please turn to 17
page 11 of your report. Sir, could you look at the last 18
paragraph on that page? The last paragraph reads: 19
"As stated previously, while significant data 20
has been available for use in this analysis, the data and 21
the preceding interpretations made from the data should be 22
considered an indication of the geotechnical results, but 23
remain preliminary." 24
Do you see that?25
Page 122
122
A. Yes. 1
Q. And the reason that the results of your 2
analysis remain preliminary is because the underlying data 3
that was provided to you enabled you to only perform a 4
preliminary level analysis or design. 5
A. Yeah, the -- could you repeat that? I'm 6
sorry, the last. 7
Q. The reason that the results of your 8
analysis remain preliminary is because the underlying data 9
that was given to you allowed, at this stage only, a 10
preliminary level design or analysis. 11
A. Yes, and actually, the evidence, or not 12
the evidence, but the data that was used is very 13
sufficiently reasonable for this level of preliminary 14
analysis. This is -- I don't think I've ever had so much 15
data to work with to create a preliminary analysis. 16
Q. Now, I'd like to return to some evidence 17
that you gave with respect to non-frost susceptible 18
material. Do you recall discussing that earlier? 19
A. Yes. Earlier today? 20
Q. Yes. 21
A. Me? Yes. 22
Q. Now, let me just reference, for the 23
benefit of the commissioners, the assumption we're talking 24
about. If you could turn to section 1.3. Do you see in25
Page 123
123
there, there is an assumption on -- this is page 3, 1
section 1.3, that "non-frost susceptible materials will be 2
comprised of well-graded rock material from a bedrock 3
source provided from the project area." Do you recall 4
that? 5
A. Yes. 6
Q. Do you see that? 7
A. Yes. 8
Q. And you explained in your evidence 9
in-chief that you made this assumption because there was 10
just not enough testing as to whether other materials 11
would be available. 12
A. That's right. 13
Q. And so just finally on this point, if you 14
could turn back to page 23 of your report, which is Figure 15
3-4, the red and blue bars, do you have that? 16
A. Yes. 17
Q. To the extent that you were to find from 18
further testing that non-frost susceptible material could 19
be found from sources other than bedrock in the project 20
area, that would then reduce the deficits that we see in 21
Figure 3-4, correct? 22
A. It is possible, but it at this point would 23
be pure speculation because -- I mean, yeah, you might be 24
reducing some, if you were able to find good sources of25
Page 124
124
NFS material that's not bedrock, but then again, it might 1
be negated by the fact that you're going to have to 2
excavate peat, which was not taken into consideration. 3
Q. And so at this point, you just don't know. 4
A. Well, no. What I'm saying is, based on an 5
ideal condition and the assumptions laid out, this is what 6
it will be. Okay. So no, we do have a very good 7
understanding of what's going on here. 8
Q. Well, would you agree with me that at this 9
point, you don't know the extent to which the deficits 10
that we see in 3-4 will be reduced. It's impossible to 11
predict at this point. 12
A. I wouldn't say it's impossible to predict, 13
but it will definitely show a definite trend and -- now, 14
when we're talking about changes in material, I mean, it's 15
possible that they might fluctuate plus or minus 5 percent 16
or 10 percent, but it's not going to be so dramatic that 17
it's going to dramatically alter the outcome of these 18
deficit calculations. 19
Q. Mr. Hartmann, do you recall being examined 20
by me on January 23rd? 21
A. Yes. 22
Q. And you were sworn to tell the truth that 23
day? 24
A. Yes.25
Page 125
125
Q. And I asked you certain questions and you 1
gave me certain answers? 2
A. Yes. 3
Q. And do you recall this exchange? And for 4
the benefit of my friend, this is at page 79 and 80, 5
question 2 -- thank you. 6
MR. BUTLER: Page 79? 7
MR. VESELY: Page 79, Question 284. 8
BY MR. VESELY: 9
Q. Do you recall being -- here, I'll read it 10
to you. Question 284: 11
"Question: To the extent that you were to 12
find through further testing that non-frost susceptible 13
materials could be found from sources other than bedrock 14
in the project area, that would reduce the deficit that is 15
being depicted on figure 3-4. Correct? 16
"Answer: Yes. 17
A. Yeah. 18
Q. Let me just finish: 19
"Question: And you don't know to what extent 20
that would be reduced until you have the results of that 21
testing? 22
"Answer: Yes. That's impossible to predict. 23
"Question: At this stage. 24
"Answer: At this stage, yes."25
Page 126
126
Now, do you recall being asked those questions 1
and giving those answers? 2
A. Yes. 3
Q. And were those answers true? 4
A. Yes. 5
MR. VESELY: Thank you. Is now a convenient 6
time for the break? 7
CHAIR: Why don't we take a 17-minute break? 8
We'll take a 20-minute break. 9
Mr. Hartmann, you're under the unfortunate 10
position of being under cross-examination, so you're not 11
free to discuss your evidence with anybody during this 12
break. You are, however, free to get up, move around, go 13
down, buy a coffee, whatever, but just... 14
--- Recess at 3:32 p.m. 15
--- Upon resuming at 3:53 p.m. 16
CHAIR: Mr. Vesely. 17
MR. VESELY: Thank you. 18
BY MR. VESELY: 19
Q. Mr. Hartmann, I think you've touched on 20
this already, but in preparing your report, you assumed 21
that the proposed road and rail would follow the same 22
centreline or alignment? 23
A. Yes, and that was to make sure that there 24
was a fair analysis going on, that, you know, you're25
Page 127
127
comparing apples and apples because if you, you know, put 1
an alignment so many kilometres away, you don't know what 2
the stratigraphy is there unless you've got the boreholes 3
like those up there. 4
Q. Understood. And to pick up on your 5
example, you certainly didn't work under an assumption 6
that the two alignments might be separated on different 7
mining claims or anything like that? 8
A. No, I had no interest in any of this, 9
actually. For the purpose of my report, I had, you know, 10
no interest in any of this, mining claims here. 11
Q. In preparing your report, you did not look 12
at the information in the affidavit sworn by a fellow 13
named Rick Kruse, did you? 14
A. I'm aware of it, I've seen it, but I did 15
not study it or read it or -- I just didn't have time for 16
that. There was just too much documentation. It wouldn't 17
have affected my analysis one way or the other, so... 18
Q. Okay. Well, let's -- we'll pick up on 19
that, on that point in these next few questions I think. 20
A. But -- I'm sorry, but I just wanted to 21
make one -- if it's okay, if I can make one more statement 22
regarding Figure 3-4. 23
Q. Sure. 24
A. After I finished my report, my analysis,25
Page 128
128
it came to my attention through another colleague that 1
Cliffs had originally intended to build a 12-metre-wide 2
road. This road here is based on a 10-metre-wide road, so 3
a 12-metre-wide road would give you approximately 20 4
percent more material requirements. 5
Q. Thank you, Mr. Hartmann. Can I ask you to 6
turn in your report back to page -- to the body of your 7
report, page 16, please, and what I want to focus on now 8
is the length and the scope of the overlap or confluence, 9
I think was term you used, between the two routes. 10
A. I'm sorry, what was the -- could you 11
repeat the last sentence? 12
Q. Oh, I believe you used the word 13
"confluence" or "conflict area", the areas where the two, 14
the road and the rail overlap. 15
A. For lack of a better word, confluence, 16
conflict area, overlap area. They all basically mean the 17
same thing. 18
Q. Okay. I'll use the term "overlap" because 19
I think that's what you use in your report. 20
So looking at page 16, question -- section 21
3.3, you state, "The area where Cliffs' road alignment and 22
CCC's rail alignment conflict overlap begin around 23
STA-110." Do you see that? 24
A. Yes.25
Page 129
129
Q. And you assumed, in essence, that the road 1
and the rails do not overlap at all from 0 to 110, and 2
then they overlap completely from 110 onwards, correct? 3
A. That's correct, yeah. 4
Q. And it's fair to say that's a pretty 5
fundamental assumption in your analysis? 6
A. Well, it has to be because we're 7
interested in the area of the alignment which has two 8
competing proposed uses, so yeah, you would have to 9
analyze that piece. 10
Q. Okay. Now, for these next couple of 11
questions, you're going to need three documents, the 12
report that you have in front of you, and Exhibits 13 and 13
15(a), and so we've given over the break the witness 14
copies of those two, Commissioners, but if you could 15
please have handy Exhibit 13 and 15(a). They are two of 16
the larger maps. 17
So, Mr. Hartmann, I'm going to start by 18
looking at Exhibit 13, which should look like this with 19
the yellow and green squares. 20
MS. ORR: I'm not there yet, so bear with me. 21
MR. VESELY: Certainly. 22
MS. ORR: I have 13. I see 15(a) now, yes. 23
Thank you. 24
BY MR. VESELY:25
Page 130
130
Q. So, Mr. Hartmann, starting with 13, take a 1
look at the bottom. Do you see there is a point near the 2
bottom -- well, let me back up a stage. You see for most 3
of the route the red line, which is the proposed 100-metre 4
road corridor, follows or crosses the claims that are 5
marked there. Do you see that? 6
A. Yes. 7
Q. Do you see at the very bottom where we see 8
some green squares. There's a point at which the road 9
heads due south, and the alignment of claims heads off to 10
the southeast. Do you see that? 11
A. What's heading to the southeast? 12
Q. The row of claims. Do you see that? 13
A. Row of claims. The yellow or the green? 14
Q. Yellow -- in this case, green. To assist 15
you, the claims staked by CCC are indicated as yellow or 16
green depending on whether the red line is overtop of 17
them. 18
A. Okay. 19
Q. Okay? Now, do you see there's a claim, 20
there's a -- and each, you see each of these squares has a 21
claim number associated with it? 22
A. I see numbers, yes. 23
Q. Okay. I'm going to read one out so we can 24
literally see we're all looking at the same thing. The25
Page 131
131
last yellow square at the bottom to be crossed by the red 1
alignment is claim number 4248432. Do you see that? 2
A. You said 4248432? 3
Q. Yes. 4
A. Yes. 5
Q. And do you see after that point, in a 6
sense working from the bottom, that's where the conflict 7
begins, correct? 8
A. Well, I would have to compare that to the 9
location map in the report. It's Station 110. The exact 10
claim number I would not know -- 11
Q. All right. 12
A. -- where that would be. 13
Q. That's where I'm going to take you to, 14
sir. 15
A. Okay. 16
Q. But on this map, let's remember that 17
number for the moment, and I'd like you to turn in your 18
report -- well, let me just state -- ask you one more 19
question with respect to this. In terms of the concept 20
that you've described, let's assume, ask you to assume 21
that this map is accurate. I appreciate you didn't 22
prepare it, but just assume that it is. 23
A. Okay. 24
Q. The concept that you described as the25
Page 132
132
conflict area would begin on this map at claim 4248432, 1
correct? 2
A. Well, I would have to verify it myself. I 3
mean, I have to take your word for it. I mean, yeah, I do 4
not know, compared to this map, because I never really 5
looked at this map, so how this relates to our alignment 6
and the other Cliffs alignment where the confluence zone 7
is, I couldn't pinpoint it looking at this map. 8
Q. What I was trying to ask you, I was trying 9
to phrase the question for you in a way that you could 10
answer, which is, the idea of a conflict is the area where 11
the road and the rail are on top of each other. 12
A. Right. 13
Q. And there's a -- you understand enough to 14
know that they're largely on top of each other until a 15
certain point where they, towards the south, where they 16
break off. 17
A. Yes, they diverge. 18
Q. Okay. Let's take a look at Appendix 12 of 19
the package that's in front of you, so we're looking at 20
your report, and now we're going to look at Appendix 12 of 21
your report which should be marked with a tab of that 22
name. If you could turn to page 28 of Appendix 12. 23
A. Yes. 24
Q. Now, because of the unique shape of these25
Page 133
133
claims, you're going to be able to find -- well, first 1
thing, are you at page 28? 2
A. 28? 3
Q. Page 28 of Appendix 12. 4
A. Yes. 5
Q. Okay. Now, I'm going to ask you to have 6
in front of you and compare the depiction of claims that 7
are marked on page 28 with the portion of Exhibit 13, the 8
map that we were looking at, and so on page 28, the claims 9
are not identified by claim number, but you can see from 10
the configuration where we are. So if you look at the 11
map, you see there's a long, skinny, green claim and then 12
some squares beside it where we were looking? 13
A. Are you discussing the green claim box 14
there next to 4252064? 15
Q. Close. Well, let's start with the claim 16
we were looking at, we found, claim 4248432, right? 17
A. All right. 18
Q. If you go up one, two, three claims, 19
you'll see to the left there, there's a long, skinny claim 20
that's a rectangular shape. 21
A. A green one. 22
Q. A green one, correct. So now look back on 23
page 28. You can see -- 24
A. Yes.25
Page 134
134
Q. -- right here? 1
A. Yes. 2
Q. You see that long, skinny shape? 3
A. Yes. 4
Q. And if you look at the configurations, you 5
can see where we're looking, correct? 6
A. Yeah. 7
Q. Okay. Now, so take a look where it says, 8
"Winslow Lake" on page 28? 9
A. Yes. 10
Q. That claim will match up with the claim 11
that is 4248432 on the map, correct? 12
A. Yes. 13
Q. You can even see it's covering over a part 14
of Winslow Lake which you can see on the map as well as on 15
page 28. 16
A. Yes. 17
Q. The station number beside that is 122 18
kilometres, correct? 19
A. I don't know what these stations here 20
refer to because I don't -- I have to make sure if this 21
coincides with our stationing. The confluence zone's 22
around 110, so yeah, this could possibly be, yeah. 23
Q. Okay. The station numbers as indicated in 24
Appendix 12 would indicate that claim we were looking at,25
Page 135
135
claim 4248432, is located at Station Number 122, correct? 1
A. Right. 2
Q. And so that Station Number 122 is the 3
part, the station at which the conflict zone begins, 4
correct? 5
A. Yes. It's in this area. 6
Q. All right. 7
A. In this general area. 8
Q. And so the assumption that the conflict 9
zone begins at 110 is out by approximately 12 kilometres? 10
A. Yeah, approximately Station 110. It's 11
110, 120. 12
Q. Well -- 13
A. It's in the report here at the beginning. 14
Q. All right. 15
A. On page -- 16
Q. I think we saw that a moment ago. It's 17
page 16. 18
A. Let's see. There is a layout map in here. 19
Yeah, on Figure 1.3 about 120. It says -- 20
Q. Yes. So you see the -- and just for the 21
commissioners, we're on page 8 of the report. There is an 22
indication of where the Cliffs alignment and the proposed 23
rail route first meet is at around Station 120, correct, 24
according to page 8?25
Page 136
136
A. Yes. 1
Q. And you'd agree more accurately, looking 2
at the page we were looking at in Appendix 12, it's more 3
like 122, correct? 4
A. Yeah. 5
Q. In any event, it's not 110, is it? 6
A. No, it's not 110. 7
Q. Well, let's take a look at the northern 8
boundary. So if you turn back to Exhibit 13, which was 9
the map with the yellow and the green? 10
A. 15? 11
Q. I'm sorry, 13. And you see the overlap. 12
Other than the one claim at the very top that's crossed, 13
4256490, do you see that one, the very top? 14
A. Ending in 6490? 15
Q. Yes. 16
A. Yes. 17
Q. Other than that one, the conflict zone 18
between the claims and the alignment ends at that final 19
yellow square 4248438. Do you see that one? 20
A. Yeah, I see it. 8438, yes. 21
Q. Right. And so claim 4248438 is the end of 22
the conflict zone with the exception of that one claim up 23
top. 24
A. I can't relate the end of the conflict25
Page 137
137
zone with the claims on this map because I never used this 1
map for anything. 2
Q. All right. 3
A. Those stationing in this report are 4
references that are useful to myself and to anyone reading 5
the report. I did not correlate in any way with -- 6
Q. Okay. Let me take you back to the report 7
then. Let's turn back to Appendix 12, and this time to 8
page 62. 9
A. 12. 10
Q. So Mr. -- and let me just pause to make 11
sure everyone has in front of them page 62 of Appendix 12, 12
and comparing that with the top of Exhibit 13. Exhibit 13
13, the claims near the top there, okay? 14
So, again, I'm going to get you to look at the 15
configuration, the shape of these claims, and do you see, 16
if you look at the top of those yellow and green claims, 17
there's again a long, rectangular green claim on the side, 18
then a little bit of a notch and then another one up top. 19
Can you orient yourself with the pattern that we see on 20
page 62? See where we are? 21
A. Yes. 22
Q. Okay. So right on page 62 where it says, 23
"For other purposes, Site I.D. 400," do you see that? 24
A. Yes.25
Page 138
138
Q. That's the claim we were looking at, this 1
last yellow claim, 4248438. Do you see that? 2
A. Yes, I see it. 3
Q. And can you confirm the station number at 4
the top of that claim is Station 309? 5
A. It's difficult to read, but it's -- 6
Q. If you look at the one above it, 310? 7
A. 310, yeah, because this entire section, 8
2.1, is for Stations 300 to 310. So bottom here is 300. 9
The top is 310. 10
Q. Correct. So the claim we were looking at 11
here is at Station 309, correct? 12
A. Site I.D. 400? 13
Q. Yes. I don't think that matters for our 14
purposes, but that's the one, yes. Do you see this? Can 15
you just confirm that the station number that 16
corresponds -- 17
A. The 309 is the second to the top -- 18
Q. Yes. 19
A. -- station, yes. 20
Q. Okay. Thank you. And let's turn back to 21
your report, the body of your report, page 23. So do you 22
see -- you recall this one. This is the -- we've looked a 23
number of times at this one. This is Figure 3-4, correct? 24
A. Yes.25
Page 139
139
Q. And you look: Included in your 1
calculation of the deficit are three segments above 309, 2
correct? You have 310, 320 and 330 onwards. 3
A. Yes. 4
Q. And those are included within your 5
calculation, correct? 6
A. Yes. 7
Q. All right. And in terms of trying to 8
understand where the overlap is between the CCC claims and 9
the proposed road alignment, would you agree with me that 10
those claims or those segments ought not to be included? 11
A. Well, when I speak of overlap, I'm only 12
speaking of the overlap of alignments, and not in relation 13
to any claims. 14
Q. Okay. Thank you. Now I'd like you to 15
compare the said two maps, please, these two large, loose 16
maps, Mr. Hartmann. So one that we've been looking at, 17
Exhibit 13. 18
A. Right. 19
Q. And the other is Exhibit 15(a). 20
A. Yes. 21
Q. Now, the most -- actually, no, we might 22
not even need 15(a). So let me try it with just this one 23
we've been looking at, Exhibit 13. You understand that 24
the rail alignment followed the Golder boreholes. I think25
Page 140
140
you said that earlier. 1
A. Yeah. Yeah, it follows the -- the rail 2
follows the boreholes. 3
Q. All right. So if you -- and again, I 4
don't know if you know this. Do you understand that the 5
boreholes are on the CCC claims? 6
A. Yeah. They're on -- apparently, yeah, 7
because, I mean, the alignment is running through the 8
claims, so the boreholes would have to also. 9
Q. So if you take a look at -- I want to ask 10
you about this gap in the middle here. Do you see that 11
the alignment of claims departs and goes to the east and 12
we see some grey-shaded claims and some green-shaded 13
claims. 14
A. Yes. I see some grey and green claims. 15
Yes. 16
Q. The road alignment is to the west of the 17
line of claims that would run up approximately, looking at 18
the scale, about 5 kilometres to the east. Do you see 19
that? 20
A. Yes. 21
Q. Now, in that -- in your report -- well, 22
let me ask you this, put it this way, using your term: 23
There would be no overlap between the two routes for this 24
would you say approximately 30-kilometre gap? They're not25
Page 141
141
overlapping there, are they? 1
A. No, but everything beyond Station 120 is 2
an overlap, overlap as far as the infrastructure goes on 3
the alignment. Whether it falls inside a claim or not, I 4
have no interest. 5
Q. I understand that, sir, but the alignment 6
follows the Golder, the Golder boreholes. 7
A. Yes. The alignment was given -- was 8
created by KOA, and it was given to me, and it was given 9
to me as a rail alignment, and I was asked as part of the 10
scope of work to analyze that alignment, whether I was to 11
build a rail or a road, and that's what I did. 12
Q. All right. And so my question is not 13
whether there's claims staked in there or not, but simply 14
that the proposed route for the road, which is marked in 15
red -- 16
A. Mm-hmm. 17
Q. -- is different than the proposed route 18
that is staked by the claims. They're physically not on 19
top of one another there, are they? 20
A. In this little section here, yeah, the 21
green is a little bit further off to the east, if you're 22
referring to the green claims. 23
Q. Right, and I'm not going to -- for our 24
purposes, I don't think it matters exactly which station25
Page 142
142
numbers we're talking about, but you can confirm that the 1
gap there is about, would you say, 25 to 30 kilometres, 2
using the scale? 3
A. Let me see. If this bar scale is correct, 4
it looks like it could be 20 kilometres. 5
Q. Yes. I'm sorry, yes. 6
A. If the scale is correct. 7
Q. You haven't taken account in your analysis 8
any gap such as this where the two routes are not on top 9
of each other? 10
A. It was out of the scope of my analysis. 11
Q. Okay. Thank you. One final point on this 12
topic, Mr. Hartmann. Could you please turn back to 13
Appendix 12, page 57, please? 14
A. 57? 15
Q. 57. 16
A. Okay. 17
Q. And this is another one of these 18
comparisons. You'll need page 57 of Appendix 12 and 19
Exhibit 13, the yellow and green marked map. Okay? Do 20
you have both of those, sir? 21
A. Yes. 22
MR. VESELY: Madam Commissioners, do you have 23
Exhibit 13 and page 57 of Appendix 12? 24
CHAIR: Yes, we do.25
Page 143
143
BY MR. VESELY: 1
Q. So again, sir, if you look at -- so if you 2
look at this configuration, do you see where there's a 3
block of shaded claims on Exhibit 13 labelled "Former INV 4
claims"? 5
A. Yes. 6
Q. Okay. Do you see there's a little gap 7
there where it's white between, like above those ones? 8
There's two claims why -- there's a white gap? 9
A. I'm sorry. Oh, yes. Are you speaking of 10
the ones below 4254220? 11
Q. Exactly. So, in fact, if you look -- you 12
singled out just the right one, sir. The one you singled 13
out is that tiny little square. 14
A. Yes. 15
Q. So if you look to page 57, you can see a 16
tiny little square right up here, right? 17
A. I'm sorry. Let me see if I can correlate. 18
Q. You see a tiny little square and then you 19
see a -- 20
A. The tiny little square you're referring 21
to, is that 5380? 22
Q. No, it's the one you singled out. You see 23
there's a tiny little square and then a shape of a lake. 24
It looks like this and you can orient yourself on the25
Page 144
144
larger map. 1
A. Well, I noticed that there's kind of a 2
long, narrow lake on page 57 going north/south. 3
Q. That won't show up on this map because the 4
lakes don't show up when there's a claim. The yellow and 5
the green takes out the lake, but if it helps you, you can 6
see there's a little lake. 7
A. I notice that there's a little square 8
around Station 287 to the northeast or northwest, I'm 9
sorry, of 287. 10
Q. I'm having the same trouble you are 11
reading these. Oh, yes. Yes. Here. If you don't mind, 12
sir, I'm just going to walk over to you because as I 13
refer to the lake, it's hard to know what we're talking 14
about. You see this lake here, sir, these two? 15
CHAIR: Just give Mr. Smitheman a moment, 16
please. 17
THE WITNESS: There are so many lakes here. 18
BY MR. VESELY: 19
Q. You see this lake here? And for the 20
benefit of the commissioners, these two shaded lakes? 21
A. This one here? 22
Q. Yes. You can find that exactly -- 23
A. And that one right there? 24
Q. Right there.25
Page 145
145
A. Okay. 1
Q. And right above it, you see a small -- 2
A. A little square right here, yeah. 3
Q. There's a little yellow square. 4
A. Yes, I see that. 5
Q. Are we all together? 6
A. And then there's a horizontal square, I 7
mean a rectangle right there. 8
Q. So what I'm going to ask you to do is 9
counting from that little tiny square, if you count down 10
one, two, three squares, one, two, three, you're at this 11
square right here. 12
A. 283? 13
Q. Exactly. At, yes, at marker 283. Okay. 14
A. Yes, I see that. 15
Q. Now, the significance of this one is 16
you'll notice that the rail, or sorry, the proposed rail 17
alignment is off of that claim, isn't it? It's over to 18
the west. 19
A. What's the claim? 20
Q. I'm just asking you. You just need to 21
look at this document. Do you see the square? 22
A. Well, there's a square to the east of it, 23
yes, to the east of the alignment. 24
Q. Right. The red line is not on the square25
Page 146
146
in the middle that has part of the long lake on it. 1
A. Yeah, part of the north/south lake. 2
Q. Right. So here, let's try it this way: 3
See the little square that you found earlier? 4
A. Yes. 5
Q. If you go straight down from that, one, 6
two, three steps? 7
A. Yes. 8
Q. The rail alignment is not on that claim. 9
A. No. 10
Q. Okay. So now take a look at Exhibit 13, 11
if you would, find that same little square, right, which 12
is claim 4254220. Do you see that? 13
A. Yes. 14
Q. And if you count down one, two, three, 15
straight down? 16
A. Well, there aren't any squares below 4220. 17
There's a gap. 18
Q. Right, but my point is the road goes 19
straight down there, doesn't it? It doesn't jog off to 20
the west as the alignment does. 21
A. It kind of goes in a south, southwesterly 22
direction on Exhibit 13. 23
Q. Right, but if you count down three squares 24
from there to the gap plus one, two more?25
Page 147
147
A. One, two, three. 1
Q. Right. If you do the same thing on 2
Exhibit 13, counting down one, two, three, the rail 3
alignment is off this, the claim. The road alignment is 4
on the claim, correct? 5
A. No, the road and the rail alignment are 6
the same. They run -- they were derived from the same 7
alignment. So, you know, the road gave -- is basically -- 8
it gave birth to the road alignment. They're the 9
identical alignments. 10
Q. And so to the extent that the current 11
proposed road alignment has departed from that and is no 12
longer the same as the rail, that's simply something you 13
would not know or would be within the scope of your 14
report. 15
A. It wouldn't be in the scope of my report 16
because these pictures here, or whatever, are very low 17
resolution and a more accurate representation of whatever 18
created this would be from, you know, some type of CAD 19
file or -- 20
Q. Exactly the kind of documents that were 21
attached to Mr. Kruse's affidavit. 22
A. I don't know what's attached to Mr. 23
Kruse's affidavit. 24
Q. That's because you didn't look at it.25
Page 148
148
A. Yeah. I briefly saw it. 1
Q. Mr. Hartmann, just to clarify one point 2
where you said, or a comment you made a moment ago when 3
you said that the road alignment and the rail alignment 4
were the same, you did not mean that you've done an 5
analysis of what Cliffs' actual road alignment is and 6
confirmed they're the same. You made the assumption that 7
the two are the same. 8
A. I assumed, as part of the report, my 9
assumption was that a rail, or I'm sorry, a road alignment 10
would follow on top of the rail, and the reason is it was 11
an assumption to bring a bit of fairness to the analysis 12
because unless you had another set of boreholes from 13
another alignment, you wouldn't be able to create any kind 14
of a fair analysis because you've got borehole information 15
on one side, and you have no borehole information on 16
another alignment. 17
Q. Exactly. 18
A. So you have to make an assumption that, 19
you know, look at the impact at this location, at this 20
alignment, whatever it may be, happened to be a rail 21
alignment, and do the analysis for a rail situation and 22
then do an analysis for a road situation, and that was the 23
extent and the scope of the report and the analysis. 24
MR. VESELY: Thank you, Mr. Hartmann. And25
Page 149
149
those are also all of my questions for you. Thank you for 1
your time. 2
CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Vesely. Mr. -- 3
MR. BUTLER: Just a very brief. 4
CHAIR: I beg your pardon? 5
MR. BUTLER: Very brief re-exam? Very brief. 6
CHAIR: Certainly. I just didn't hear your 7
last word. 8
MR. BUTLER: Oh, sorry. 9
CHAIR: I thought you were asking for a very 10
brief recess. 11
MR. BUTLER: Oh, no, no. A brief re-exam. 12
Sorry, I apologize. 13
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. BUTLER: 14
Q. And I'd just like to follow on my friend's 15
comments with respect to Mr. Kruse's map, which is this 16
one here that you spent some time going over, and at the 17
end -- it's Exhibit 13 for the commissioners. 18
At the end, you mentioned that it was probably 19
designed from a CAD file or some other file and, in fact, 20
we've heard evidence that it was a shapefile from MapInfo. 21
Would it have been of some assistance to you to have been 22
provided with that? 23
A. Oh, yes. I mean, if I would have had 24
those provided with a CAD alignment, I could have easily25
Page 150
150
have done -- however, it would have also needed boreholes 1
to go along with it. 2
Q. Well, that's my second point. My friend 3
has talked to you about whether or not the alignments are 4
the same, and you'd advised that it would have been 5
helpful to know where Cliffs' boreholes were being 6
provided, and so I think at this point, it's fair to take 7
you to the map that's provided here that shows the 8
locations of Cliffs' boreholes. So if I could -- 9
MR. VESELY: Just in terms of characterizing 10
the questions, I don't believe I asked him about Cliffs' 11
boreholes. I think I asked him about the boreholes along 12
the rail alignment, so one and the same, and Cliffs' 13
proposed new road alignment, and those are -- the latter 14
has nothing to do, or is not the same as where Cliffs 15
proposes to drill boreholes. 16
MR. BUTLER: I think in fairness to Mr. 17
Hartmann, I took it to be my friend's suggestion that Mr. 18
Hartmann had no idea where the Cliffs alignment was going 19
to go, in part because he wasn't provided with the data by 20
Mr. Kruse, but also because he has no idea where Cliffs 21
intends to be or intends to drill, and he's stated that 22
that would help him immeasurably in terms of understanding 23
the proposed alignment. We have MNR's version of it. I 24
wonder if we could just simply put it to him as a25
Page 151
151
hypothetical. 1
MR. VESELY: Again, that's not an accurate 2
statement of what he said. He did not say it would be 3
helpful to know where they would drill. He said it would 4
be helpful to have the drill results. 5
MR. BUTLER: That is -- my friend is more 6
precise, but I'm not sure I see the difference. 7
MR. VESELY: It's fundamental. My point is 8
simply I did not ask at all about where Cliffs proposes to 9
drill boreholes, which is a separate topic from either of 10
the alignments, and it is simply a question that did not 11
arise at all on my cross-examination. The question of 12
Cliffs' proposals to drill boreholes, which have not yet 13
been drilled, never arose in cross-examination. 14
Therefore, it's not a subject for re-examination in my 15
submission. 16
MR. BUTLER: I was simply making the point 17
that I thought out of fairness to Mr. Hartmann, since he 18
was put -- the alignments were put to him, the only 19
alignment information he had for us was the Golder data. 20
He's now been put in front of him the map 21
information provided by Mr. Kruse, but not the underlying 22
data. I think we did hear in evidence that the borehole 23
data was incorporated into that alignment. I think we've 24
heard that from two sources.25
Page 152
152
MR. VESELY: No, we have not. 1
MR. BUTLER: I believe we have. I believe Mr. 2
Kruse provided that information and I'm quite sure Mr. 3
Tattersall provided that information because KBM, the 4
consultant, is doing that work, for data and the 5
realignment for Hatch. So we may have a disagreement on 6
the facts. The transcript will bear that out. 7
My point was simply that I thought at this 8
point, it would be fair to put those, that borehole 9
information to Mr. Hartmann, and again, to repeat, because 10
that information was not provided to him previously, and 11
it was used. 12
CHAIR: We're going to allow the question, the 13
hypothetical. 14
BY MR. BUTLER: 15
Q. So, Mr. Hartmann, again, just to go back, 16
my friend had taken you to the Cliffs map that you have in 17
front of you right there, Exhibit 13, and we know that 18
that is their proposed route. It's a shapefile, and you'd 19
mentioned that to understand that route or to be able to 20
compare it to the Golder data, you'd need to know where 21
their boreholes were. 22
If you take a look at the map that we have 23
over here, I'm just trying to recall the exact exhibit for 24
the commissioners. It's Map 2b, but I think we entered it25
Page 153
153
during the examination of Mr. Lavigne. It's Exhibit 17. 1
Is that correct? 2
MR. KRUGER: I thought it was 15(b). Is that 3
possible? 4
MS. ORR: Yes, it is 15(b). 5
BY MR. BUTLER: 6
Q. Mr. Hartmann, are you able to see the 7
proposed Cliffs boreholes? There's a small legend on the 8
left-hand side. 9
A. Yes. According to the legend, Cliffs' 10
proposed boreholes are circled with an "X". 11
Q. That's right. What, if any, information 12
can you glean from this map regarding the placement of the 13
Golder boreholes and the placement of the Cliffs 14
boreholes? 15
A. Well, they follow the pattern of the 16
Golder boreholes. 17
Q. To be precise, is it -- are there some 18
areas of deviation? Are there some areas of overlap? 19
A. There are some minor deviations, but for 20
the most part, it looks -- I see that they overlap. For 21
instance, if you have two of the dark circles, which 22
happen to be Golder boreholes, you'll see a proposed 23
borehole in between the two as if they're trying -- 24
someone's trying to get additional information to enhance25
Page 154
154
the existing Golder borehole data. 1
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much. 2
CHAIR: Any questions? 3
MS. ORR: Mr. Hartmann, I have a couple of 4
questions and they relate back to when you were describing 5
having to -- or describing the life span of a roadway. 6
THE WITNESS: Yes. 7
MS. ORR: And I just wanted to clarify. I 8
think you said that it was about a 20-year life span for a 9
road? 10
THE WITNESS: Yes. Roadways are designed for 11
about a 20-year life span. 12
MS. ORR: And how many times did you say that 13
it would have to be... 14
THE WITNESS: Rehabilitated? 15
MS. ORR: Rehabilitated. 16
THE WITNESS: It would be -- roadways have to 17
go through a maintenance program, and if you have a hard 18
surface, the maintenance program could require it to 19
receive a new surface every 8 to 12 years on average. 20
A total reconstruction or a rehabilitation, 21
they have what's called a -- a "3R" is a terminology that 22
we use, and reconstruction and rehabilitation are two of 23
the Rs, and one of the Rs would be a resurfacing, and a 24
reconstruction, rehabilitation will take place at the --25
Page 155
155
usually at the end of the life span of the road design 1
life, which would be about 20 years. 2
MS. ORR: And would -- 3
THE WITNESS: So, basically, what they do is 4
they go in and they have machines that come in and they 5
just literally rip up the rock base surface that's 6
underneath the hard pavement that you see, and they 7
rehabilitate it. They might completely replace it or they 8
may mix some better material in with it. They'll 9
reprocess it and put it back down, but it requires more 10
material every time you do that. 11
MS. ORR: So just let me understand that 12
process. I think I know what you're talking about, having 13
travelled on the 400-series highways and been stuck in 14
traffic a few times. What you're describing is machinery 15
coming on to the road, grinding up the surface, and having 16
trucks come and take that surface material somewhere? 17
THE WITNESS: Yes. 18
MS. ORR: And other trucks coming in and -- 19
THE WITNESS: Bringing in new material. 20
MS. ORR: -- laying down new material? 21
THE WITNESS: Or rehabilitated material. 22
Sometimes the material cannot be salvaged. That's what 23
it's called. If you can salvage it, that means you can 24
take it out, have it processed and sometimes they'll even25
Page 156
156
use big giant machines that literally do it all at once. 1
They'll grind it up, and then they'll have something else 2
come in and they'll mix some material, and then they'll 3
lay it back down, but it's always going to require 4
additional material. So that's, you know, that's if it 5
can be salvaged. A lot of times, it cannot be salvaged 6
which means they have to remove it, take it away, and 7
bring in fresh material and lay it down. 8
MS. ORR: Thank you. That was what I wanted 9
to ask you. Are there any questions arising out of that? 10
MR. BUTLER: Just when you say "material", we 11
had discussed in some detail the surface materials and 12
then the lower materials. I don't know if you could just 13
clarify that a little bit. 14
THE WITNESS: Yeah, to clarify that: When I'm 15
talking about salvaging, rehabilitating material, that is 16
the structural part. That is the crushed rock aggregate, 17
what they use in roadway terms, that material. 18
The subgrade is actually very rarely 19
rehabilitated. Usually, it's done once at the very 20
beginning. They'll treat it with some kind of lime slurry 21
or lime, and then they'll layer the rock on top of that, 22
and then they'll top it off with a few inches of a hot mix 23
material, which is the hard pavement that you actually 24
see. The rest of it is not visible to the naked eye. If25
Page 157
157
you're looking out here, most people think the road is 1
just that, that top layer, but it's only just a few inches 2
compared to the many inches of the rock material below. 3
MS. ORR: All right. Thank you. 4
MR. BUTLER: Thank you. 5
CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Hartmann. 6
MR. SMITHEMAN: Thank you. 7
CHAIR: You're excused. 8
MR. SMITHEMAN: That's our case. 9
CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Smitheman. 10
MS. ORR: That's the case for Canada Chrome 11
we're told. Can you describe what you're -- what's next, 12
if anything? 13
MR. SANDERSON: There is nothing else from 14
Cliffs with respect to evidence. There's no rebuttal 15
evidence, and so as far as I'm aware, that's it for the 16
evidentiary portion of this proceeding. 17
Assuming that assumption is correct, I've 18
talked to Mr. Smitheman about the question that 19
Commissioner Kamerman put to us at lunch, and I think both 20
of us think that it would make sense to start Wednesday 21
morning. We both think the two days will be adequate for 22
us to complete, so there's not an issue there. It just 23
allows us to get our notes together for Wednesday morning. 24
MR. SMITHEMAN: We agree.25
Page 158
158
CHAIR: Perfectly reasonable. Okay. We'll 1
adjourn to 10 o'clock Wednesday morning. Enjoy your day. 2
--- Whereupon the proceedings were adjourned at 4:39 p.m. 3
4
5
6
I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING 7
to be a true and accurate 8
transcription of my shorthand notes 9
to the best of my skill and ability. 10
11
____________________________________ 12
Beverley Killen, CSR 13
Computer-Aided Transcription 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
