Environment Committee on April 17th, 2018

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

[Chief Kluane Adamek]

In addition, it also needs to go beyond section 35. Of course, section 35 needs to be included. We look to international law. We look to UNDRIP. We cannot merely consider just the adverse impacts on section 35 rights. It's incredibly important that this piece of legislation also consider that we're looking at a rights recognition framework. Certainly to continue to advance the recognition of rights in this country, it must be included and provisions found.

I made mention of subclauses 9(2) and 16(1), paragraph 84(a), and CERA. Those are some considerations outlined in our submission that we recommend you take a really strong look at to ensure that everything is aligned. As mentioned earlier, considering these adverse effects, the impact on section 35 rights has to be at the forefront of this legislation.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much. There's not a lot of time left.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have less than a minute.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Chief Boucher, thank you for your brief and your presentation.

Clearly you are within a region where you're majorly impacted by regional assessments. We've heard other witnesses call for some kind of an obligation to enter into regional assessments before specific projects are reviewed. Would you recommend some kind of a provision in the bill that would have specific triggers for when there needs to be regional assessment to set the context for the specific projects?

[Chief Jim Boucher]

I think regional assessments are very important and they should be included within the bill. I think it's incumbent upon Canada to ensure that the jurisdiction is not only related to reserve lands, but that you're also looking in terms of what's contained within Treaty No. 8, for example. Our right to hunt, trap, and fish, for example, is guaranteed and enshrined in our Constitution and any effects on those rights and our ability to practise those rights should be assessed.

Right now in the Athabaska River, for example, the river contains fish that we are not allowed to eat. That's the result of industrial activity. I think the environmental assessment act should contain some language that would address those types of issues of how it affects our treaty rights even though it's not directly on federal lands. These impacts occur outside of federal jurisdiction. They occur within provincial jurisdiction, and therefore, they should be assessed in relation to the environmental assessment act.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

That's it. That was an additional couple of minutes.

Next up we have Mr. Maloney.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Chair, I think I'm splitting my time with Mr. Bossio, so I'll get right to the point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Yes, you are. I'll give you a three-minute warning.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

My questions are for Chief Crey and maybe Mr. Dickson.

First of all, thank you for your support of the Trans Mountain project. The government is fully supportive of it as well and we're grateful for your comments in that regard.

I come to this committee as a visitor. I'm actually from the natural resources committee so I appreciate your comments in that context. At our committee, we've heard conflicting opinions about how projects are received and how they've impacted different communities. This gets compounded when organizations co-opt other people's voices, if you will. I think the two of you alluded to that. Recognizing some of the comments you made about amendments that you feel are necessary, can you tell us generally how you think the proposed legislation impacts the indigenous participation in the process?

[Tim Dickson]

There are clearly some steps in the right direction with Bill C-69, and lots of room for improvement, hearing some of those voices here.

It's important that the legislation look specifically not just at section 35 rights, but UNDRIP, and create all sorts of avenues for participation by indigenous peoples. Regional Chief Teegee stressed in his comments there has to be sufficient funding to make that happen. That has to be a major pillar allowing for indigenous involvement in these processes.

We're focused on advisory committees and the like, and the formation of groups that can effectively engage with resources in the regulation of these projects, whether it's through advisory committees advising on the approval process. Our committee is more the post-approval process where the effort is to make sure that the regulation is as rigorous as possible so the project is as safe as possible. We're talking about having flexibility to form these committees and let the indigenous side speak for itself through the formation of large groupings where there is the desire to do that on the part of the individual nation.

This legislation has to provide that kind of flexibility, and it has to provide funding.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Bossio.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all of you for being here this afternoon.

I want to look at free, prior, and informed consent, the impact of FPIC in practice, and how it should be reflected in the IAA.

I'm looking at one side that says free, prior, and informed consent is a veto, and the other side says that one set of rights of individuals doesn't abrogate the rights of others. I would like to get your thoughts on that.

We can go round the table. We'll start with the video monitor first. If Kluane could please give us her thoughts, and then we'll go to Terry and then the others.

[Chief Kluane Adamek]

Thank you so much.

I want to introduce Sara Mainville and Graeme Reed with the Assembly of First Nations. I apologize. I should have introduced them earlier. I'd like to ask them to provide a response from the Assembly of First Nations.

[Sara Mainville, Legal Counsel, Assembly of First Nations]

Meegwetch.

We've been working on processes with the federal government to try to better inform the federal government on having a process that fits in a bunch of diverse processes, because indigenous nations, of course, have their own laws and legal traditions. For the most part, we've almost been establishing placemats or schematic designs where we would diagram the decision made in the impact assessment act, and if there is room for a joint decision, if possible, with a committee or a joint decision-making group with the indigenous groups involved.

We also don't want to miss the fact that because of the strong commitments with the UN declaration, we really would like to see strong recognition of inherent governing authority. I think there's a big capacity piece that we need to talk about with the federal government that not only involves the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources , but also Minister Bennett. We have some discussions in our submissions, especially at the joint review panel stage, which includes a very friendly suggestion about the minister engaging with Minister Bennett on a specific building piece within the legislation so that happens.

We also want to see, as far as free, prior, and informed consent is concerned, capacity for the first nations, because that's where the consent happens within the indigenous process. The indigenous government makes a decision. That's very clearly some of the engagements we are doing, but we are also depending on the first nations leaders themselves to very much articulate that work.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

If I could just add a--

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

No, that's it. Sorry, Mike.

We will get to one more question and then we'll.... I know, there's so much to ask.

Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I'm going to get right to the point.

I'm not normally on this committee either; I'm with international trade. Interestingly enough, this morning we had a topic on foreign direct investment in Canada, and the numbers are shocking. For 2017, the last year for which we have numbers, it was $33.8 billion. To put that into perspective, it's half of what it was in 2015, and just a free fall from what it was in 2007, which was $126.1 billion. Much of this investment really does affect development in your neighbourhood.

We had an interesting witness. His name is Ian McKay. He was the former CEO of the Liberal Party, but now he's working on a new body to help increase foreign direct investment. However, he said “perception is reality”, and I told him I was going to use that quote.

Chief Crey, I appreciate your comments earlier, because I think our indigenous people are not getting a fair rap as far as development is concerned. I remember the cringe when the Prime Minister said in Peterborough, just up from where I am in Oshawa, “We can't shut down the oil sands tomorrow. We need to phase them out.”

The reality out there and the perception has been expressed quite clearly by Douglas Porter, the chief economist at BMO Financial. He said, “People are giving up on Canada as a safe place to invest in natural resources. It's seen as a very hostile environment now.” He also said, “I think we're going to get crushed in the next recession.”

I'd like to ask a practical question, and maybe we could start with you, Chief Crey, and then Chief Boucher. I also noticed Mr. Pinto nodding his head a little earlier.

Is there anything in Bill C-69 that's going to help your communities work to attract more foreign investment or more investment in your communities and get rid of some of the uncertainty and increase the competitiveness of your communities for this type of investment?

If I have some time left over, Mr. Sopuck wanted one minute.

[Chief Ernie Crey]

Here's my observation. At this time in Canada and in British Columbia, often aboriginal people are cast in the role of folks adamantly opposed all the time to development. As we know, what precedes development is investment. We know that Canada is a resource rich nation and that it needs, if it's going to maintain its current healthy lifestyle, its status in the world as a leading nation at a high level of development, with a citizenry that enjoys jobs, educates its children well, is well-housed, and yet at the same time has certain values that it wants to protect and uphold around the environment.

We are separate communities, the indigenous people and larger citizenry in this country, but we know full well that our economic well-being is linked to that of other Canadians. We know the importance of foreign investment in this country and all the benefits that flow from it. Sure, we may have differences from time to time about what kinds of development, but I am deeply troubled by what you just said, if foreign investment is on the decline because foreign investors feel that there's too much uncertainty in the current climate, or a climate to come in the very near future. That concerns me a great deal.

How it would affect Canadians generally is also reflected in the microcosm of my very small community. If there isn't any investment in Canada in major projects like TMX and others, and there are many, many others, then that plays out in our community in high levels of unemployment, poor housing, and water that needs to be cleaned. It plays out in a lack of infrastructure improvement and maintenance in our communities. It means a lot to our children who go to your schools with other Canadians. When we send them to school, we want to make sure that they enjoy the same living standards that we can get there along with other Canadians.

[Chief Jim Boucher]

That is a very relevant question.

First, we need to establish what we need, what we consider to be what's important for Canada with respect to encouraging investment from the outside. We need to set the stage to allow that investment to occur in which stability is, at the end of the day, ideal.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is one of the most important pieces with respect to having that stability. If you have people who are confident, they will not be powerless with respect to their concerns regarding a project. The ability to resolve those concerns within a regulatory process is very key and crucial.

There are other issues that have surrounded us for many years now in terms of our rights, our constitutional rights and our treaty rights. Those issues need to be resolved and dealt with by the Government of Canada. It's incumbent upon the Government of Canada to resolve those concerns. The government is the direct signatory to treaties, and it is directly responsible for constitutional issues. Provincial governments have a say. They have a part. They have a duty to consult with first nations whenever they initiate projects so, at the end of the day, Indian people are not the ones left holding the bag and bringing out all these concerns with regard to these projects and project proponents.

We need to develop capacities within the communities so that people are educated and can participate in the economy. The communities need to be independent. We've done that in Fort McKay. We've increased our standard of living so that our standard household income in Fort McKay is $73,000. The provincial average is $50,000, and the Canadian average is $33,000. We can do that.

The message to Canada is that it needs to deal with all the thorny issues that are out there. We need to find a way to accommodate the people. It's important to make sure these projects happen.

We have to make sure the projects are going to benefit the communities. It's simple.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

I have to bring the committee meeting to an end. We have to be in the House at two o'clock for question period.

Meegwetch.

I want to thank each of you for your wisdom, for your recommendations, and the time that you spent with us today. There's never enough time to get to all the questions. You've given us a lot in writing as well to think about. If there's anything else you'd like to share with us, we're willing and interested in anything that might have been spurred by the questions you heard today. You've given us a tremendous amount of information and recommendations. They will be considered.

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.