Evidence of meeting #103 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:15 p.m.
Regional Chief, British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, BC First Nations Energy & Mining Council
In our experience with projects such as the Pacific Trails pipeline, which required the agreement of approximately 15 first nations, it takes quite a while with regard to communications and resourcing the first nations to look at them. In the end, that project was supported. There were 15 first nations communities that came together, and they realized that the benefit package was quite substantial. Also, the resourcing to review the project was quite important. Although the project is still in the queue and hasn't gone forward, it was approved by 15 first nations.
However, that doesn't mean these linear projects, which require up to 50, 60-plus first nations communities.... The difficulty is that it's quite...too many first nations communities. Those first nations should be allowed to create groups, as the league of representatives stated, but there may also be some independents that require more resourcing. Smaller groups or independent first nations require the resourcing to look at the projects to really assert their right to make decisions.
Overall, and I see a common theme here, we're trying to implement the free, prior, and informed consent as well as the ability to make decisions for our indigenous peoples. I think that's what all the presenters stated today.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you to all of our guests here today. We very much appreciated your testimony in front of the committee. Particularly refreshing were Chief Crey's comments. I have followed some of your engagement in the media, highlighting the prosperity objectives that you promote in your first nation.
There's an underlying assumption amongst many Canadians that first nations are opposed to development. That's not true, correct?
1:15 p.m.
Indigenous Co-Chair, Indigenous Advisory and Monitoring Committee for the Trans Mountain Pipelines and Marine Shipping
Yes.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I've been very encouraged by the fact that you've made first nations' prosperity an integral part of the broader process of reviewing projects that have serious environmental impacts.
In an April 13 article, you indicated that the cancellation of the Trans Mountain pipeline would cost B.C. first nations hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits, job training, and employment and business opportunities. Can you briefly explain to this committee the benefits that energy projects can have for communities like yours?
1:15 p.m.
Indigenous Co-Chair, Indigenous Advisory and Monitoring Committee for the Trans Mountain Pipelines and Marine Shipping
Madam Chair, I'll take off my hat as co-chair for the indigenous advisory committee, because I think you're asking me to put on my chief's hat.
1:15 p.m.
Indigenous Co-Chair, Indigenous Advisory and Monitoring Committee for the Trans Mountain Pipelines and Marine Shipping
Yes. In my opinion, if Kinder Morgan TMX doesn't proceed, hundreds of millions of dollars will be forgone for first nations all the way along the pipeline route.
Why I say this is that, taking my own community as an example, we negotiated really hard. It was really my young council—they're a little over half my age—that negotiated this agreement. It didn't consist of Ian Anderson driving through our reserve, rolling down his window, saying, “Hey, Chief, here's the cheque, and you approve of our pipeline, right?”, and then driving off.
Nothing could be further from the truth. My young council negotiated for a year and a half or more, night and day in some instances, with a pretty tough team on the other side, Kinder Morgan's team, and yet we reached a mutual benefits agreement. I want to stress mutual benefits: benefits to the proponent and benefits to our community.
We got busy after we signed that agreement. We're striking bargains and arrangements with nearby companies owned by Canadians and British Columbians. We've partnered up with them to compete for contracts—to compete—with the prime contractors that Kinder Morgan has and we're having success.
I want to tell this committee that the jobs that result are not one-shot jobs that are there for a year or two and then are gone when the pipeline is concluded. That is a terrible misrepresentation of things. What we've negotiated will be lasting training and lasting jobs and, I might add, over the entire life of what I hope will be the new pipe that will come from Alberta to tidewater in British Columbia.
Already our community is alive with excitement. Every day our young people come to me and say they want to get trained, they want a job, and they want to say goodbye to welfare. They say, “Keep at it, Chief, because this means a lot to us.”
To us, it means millions of dollars to my band alone, a community of approximately 540 people. I know that it also means a lot to many other first nations who haven't stepped up and spoken out, but who also have agreements that are perhaps comparable to ours.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
You've called out environmentalists as being red baiters. Do you want to explain that comment?
1:20 p.m.
Indigenous Co-Chair, Indigenous Advisory and Monitoring Committee for the Trans Mountain Pipelines and Marine Shipping
Yes, that's close. It's halfway there. I accused them of red-washing their particular agendas and goals. All I meant by it is that in a sense they slip their own agendas, as it were, through customs, take their agendas to first nations, and try to fly their particular agendas under an indigenous flag in many instances, but not in all cases.
I've cautioned first nation leaders and communities in British Columbia about this. I point out and give examples of where that has happened. In Canada's north, commercial trapping was basically trashed by these people, not by all of them, but by some of them. On the east coast of Canada, commercial sealing was scrapped, trashed by these people, which deeply affected indigenous and non-indigenous communities alike. I could give other examples.
My point is that while we sometimes see eye to eye with these groups, often our agendas differ. That's what I'm trying to say.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I have one last thought. You've talked about how Bill C-69 should be amended to reflect that the delegation of power should be broader than just the indigenous governing bodies, so that the views of individual first nations, reserves, and chiefs are reflected when these projects are consulted on. Again, it's refreshing to see that there is thought being given to how we incent prosperity within the approval process so our first nations can participate in our national prosperity.
1:20 p.m.
Indigenous Co-Chair, Indigenous Advisory and Monitoring Committee for the Trans Mountain Pipelines and Marine Shipping
That goes to the points that our legal counsel, Tim, mentioned earlier, that we want to see this succeed. We want to see there be a lot of sensitivity on the part of this committee to some of what Mr. Dickson had to say, that we don't construct legislation that precludes the first nations themselves. I also echo what Chief Terry Teegee mentioned earlier. It has to be constructed in such a way that we can form these larger groupings of first nations and that they operate, as it were, under one tent.
It isn't always possible. It won't be possible if the legislation as it's currently contemplated goes ahead as is. We want to leave the doors ajar there so that we can form entities that broadly represent a large number of first nations where these linear projects are concerned such as TMX.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Again, there's so little time.
Thank you to all of you for your important testimony and also for your briefs, because they will give us more ideas on how this act can be amended to strengthen it.
There are two issues I hope I can get to, because I would like to hear from all of you.
Chief Adamek, do I presume that you're from Kluane First Nation because you are Kluane?
1:25 p.m.
Interim Regional Chief, Yukon Region, Assembly of First Nations
Yes, I am.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I had the honour of working with Kluane when you were negotiating your first nation final agreement when I lived in Yukon.
Thank you, Chief Adamek, for raising your concerns about the adequacy of adherence to section 35 and the UNDRIP responsibilities, where the government and the agencies are only required to take into account the section 35 rights. These issues have also been raised by Fort McKay, and Fort McKay recommended that any of the consultations and accommodations on those rights and interests be at the planning stage and resolved before you go into the hearing.
I would like to hear from Chief Boucher, Chief Teegee, and Chief Adamek, if we have time, on whether you support some other intervenors who have recommended, as did the expert panel, that the UNDRIP also be referenced specifically in the purpose and substantive provisions of the act.
1:25 p.m.
Interim Regional Chief, Yukon Region, Assembly of First Nations
I'd like to turn it over to leadership first to respond, and then if there is time, I'll respond at the end. Thank you.
1:25 p.m.
Chief, Fort McKay First Nation
Yes, I think the resolution we are seeking is that there should be free, prior, and informed consent with respect to a project, and that first nations need to be involved right at the start, which includes capacity development in the communities. We need to have a really strong focus on the environmental impact assessments of that. For example, Canada wants to abrogate its jurisdiction with respect to in situ projects and delegate that to a lower form of government assessment at the provincial assessment process.
We think there needs to be clarity with respect to what should be assessed. We should be pretty clear in terms of what projects get on the impact list. There should also be a formal impact assessment which involves first nations people, and we should have the capacity to address the issues and concerns that arise with respect to an impact assessment process.
With a better understanding of what the project entails, there should be a comfort margin with respect to what that free, prior, and informed consent would be.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Do you think the reference to section 35 is sufficient, or do you think the act should also specifically reference the rights accorded under UNDRIP?
April 17th, 2018 / 1:25 p.m.
Chief, Fort McKay First Nation
I think the act should be very specific and reference those points I made.
1:25 p.m.
Regional Chief, British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, BC First Nations Energy & Mining Council
Yes, this is Terry.
Throughout the act, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples needs to be addressed from the preamble right through the whole document. Right now we've had several meetings with Minister Bennett , as well as Minister Philpott, as well as former regional chief of British Columbia, Jody Wilson-Raybould, in regard to a recognition of our rights. Throughout the documents that we're proposing to the federal government is that within that recognition, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and free, prior, and informed consent be within the recognition of our rights and title.
Section 35 needs to be there as well. It was already reaffirmed in many of our court cases, whether it be Tsilhqot'in or Delgamuukw . More often than not, the court cases that were won by many first nations, well over 170, just reaffirm our rights, and that should be recognized, and it has been recognized by the highest court.
Thank you.
