Evidence of meeting #104 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 projects.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Joshua Ginsberg  Barrister and Solicitor, Ecojustice Canada
Bill Namagoose  Executive Director, Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)
Jamie Kneen  Communications and Outreach Coordinator, Mining Watch Canada
Anna Johnston  Staff Lawyer, West Coast Environmental Law Association
Stephen Hazell  Director of Conservation, Nature Canada
Rodney Northey  Partner, Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, As an Individual
Jay Morrison  Chair, Environment Committee, Paddle Canada
Stephanie Kusie  Calgary Midnapore, CPC

4:35 p.m.

Staff Lawyer, West Coast Environmental Law Association

Anna Johnston

We've recommended adding any criteria that are set out in regulations to help guide the decision, allowing the minister to enact regulations that would help provide that kind of guidance in a more detailed way that we can't get in the legislation, and then any criteria that are developed in the assessment plan that I mentioned in proposed subsection 16(2) that could be tailored to the specific needs of the project.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

Jamie, if you're interested, please respond quickly.

4:35 p.m.

Communications and Outreach Coordinator, Mining Watch Canada

Jamie Kneen

I have just one quick additional point.

This is a good place to link to regional and strategic assessments, to say that this is where you take into consideration the results or the output of those kinds of assessments and where they become part of the decision.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

In Bill C-68, the Fisheries Act, there's a description of the relationship with indigenous communities under that act. Are you familiar with that part of Bill C-68?

4:35 p.m.

A voice

No.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

Okay. It may be then, that the question isn't going to be as....

Bill Namagoose, are you familiar with that part of the Fisheries Act in Bill C-68?

4:35 p.m.

Executive Director, Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)

Bill Namagoose

I would ask Jean-Sébastien to—

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

I would just say that to me it seems to be a very good description of the way the relationship should happen with indigenous peoples under Bill C-69. I would like to see it taken from Bill C-68 and brought over into Bill C-69. I don't know why it wasn't done in the first place. Anyway, I'll leave this question there.

I know we've already spoken a bit about meaningful public participation, but I'd like to get your feedback on the early planning phase of public participation, looking at meaningful public participation but also alternatives and need. Can you talk about how you would define it and how you would ensure that the right criteria are in place to make it happen?

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte

Please give a short answer.

4:35 p.m.

Barrister and Solicitor, Ecojustice Canada

Joshua Ginsberg

Really briefly, I would say that public participation is meaningful when it has a real opportunity to impact both the conduct of the assessment and the final decision.

One thing I will draw the committee's attention to is that the scoping decision in proposed section 22 is right now left to the discretion of the minister. Effective public participation would influence that decision.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

Anna.

4:35 p.m.

Staff Lawyer, West Coast Environmental Law Association

Anna Johnston

I think that to be meaningful, processes also have to be deliberative, engaging the public, in the planning phase, on the way in which they want to be engaged. What are the seasons in which they may not be around because they're out on the land? Do they want formal hearings in which they're lawyered up, or do they want to sit at round tables. It's a matter of engaging them early on in that process.

Also, as you mentioned concerning alternatives to the project, do you want a road to get to that mine, or do you want fly-in? What works best for the communities?

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte

Mr. Sopuck.

This will be our last question for this panel.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

I want to continue with the human aspect of resource development and communities.

Chief Crey was an incredible witness. What a forward-thinking leader for his community. He spoke at great length about how the young people in his community were so looking forward to the Trans Mountain pipeline, eagerly awaiting the training that would occur because of that pipeline's going forward, and so on. He also expressed some great concern over the lack of foreign investment in Canada. He had a deep understanding of the Canadian economy and the interactions of his community with the larger economy and of the need for foreign direct investment.

Ms. Johnston, do you think Chief Crey's concern for his community and for the absolute requirement for the Trans Mountain pipeline to go through is misplaced, from his perspective? He was looking at some 300 million dollars' worth of mutual benefit agreements, and that's all at risk now. Is it a good thing that this is at risk?

4:40 p.m.

Staff Lawyer, West Coast Environmental Law Association

Anna Johnston

I think the real misfortune with Trans Mountain is that it was assessed under a process that was intended to shut people out. As I mentioned earlier, the reason we're in this situation now is that indigenous peoples and concerned members of the public, communities over whose lands and waters the project would be built, were deliberately excluded from the assessment, or when they were able to participate, weren't able to have a meaningful say. This project was attempted to be rammed down the public's throat. If all of the parties had been brought around a table in a deliberative manner at the very beginning, either maybe everybody would have figured out that the thing couldn't proceed before Kinder Morgan invested a billion dollars in it, or maybe they could have found alternative routes or solutions. An example would be sending it, I don't know, down to Washington for refining.

In any event, I think that the issue here isn't about the impact assessment act being the cause of investor uncertainty today.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

It's the existing toxic regulatory environment that this government has put in place.

To counter you, I disagree completely with everything you just said. In the article about Chief Crey, it says, “The Cheam are one of the 43 First Nations that have mutual-benefit agreements with Trans Mountain—reportedly worth more than $300 million — that offer skills training for employment, business and procurement opportunities, and improvements to local infrastructure.” You, obviously, think that that's a bad thing.

Now, Chief Crey also likened the activists'—and I'm not going to call those people environmentalists because they're not—attack on economic development to the attack against the fur trade, the attack against the seal wars.

I want to read a bit of testimony here. I would like to read to you what happens when communities' economies are cut out from under them. This is from the September 2016 indigenous affairs committee when they were looking at indigenous suicides. One Peter Williamson, an Inuk from the Northwest Territories, wrote:

There was what we call the seal wars at the time, when Greenpeace and other environmental activist organizations who wanted to raise money started to attack the sealing industry, which Inuit were a part of. They really relied on seal hunting to make a living. I remember as a young person that there were a lot of people in my community....

Then he goes on to say, about traditional lifestyles, that the way you were brought up makes a difference.

We started losing that in the 1970s, and the 1980s too, but it started in the 1970s. Once that happened, more people did commit suicide.

It was mentioned in the House today that, in Alberta, suicide rates are increasing because of the strong decline in the oil and gas industry. Families are being threatened with economic disaster.

Does any of this resonate with you, Ms. Johnston, or does your organization—and I read on your website that you're very proudly supported...you're funded by Americans, funded by foreigners—

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Madam Chair, I have a point of order. I would like you to make a ruling on relevance. We're here reviewing Bill C-69. If my colleague here has an explanation about the relevance of what he's raising to what they're requesting be in this bill, then I would be happy.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

I am happy to answer that.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte

I appreciate that.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

It is directly related to the testimony that Chief Crey gave on his comments regarding Bill C-69, so my colleague is out of line.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte

Let's bring it around to what we're studying here. This is great. Carry on, please.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

Bringing it back, this toxic regulatory process that this bill is pancaked on threatens communities' and people's livelihoods.

I read somewhere an interesting saying about how if you give a person a livelihood, you give them a life. Why is it, Ms. Johnston, that you and your groups never talk about the importance of livelihoods?

4:40 p.m.

Staff Lawyer, West Coast Environmental Law Association

Anna Johnston

Actually, we do. In most of the literature that I produce, I mention livelihoods.

I also mention community needs, which, of course, are at the heart of what we're attempting to achieve, in terms of both environmental sustainability and also the economic well-being of Canadians, the intra- and intergenerational equity that we're hoping the sustainability purpose of the act will achieve. Also, the meaningful public participation provisions that we recommended are really designed to help get communities around the table to be a little more involved in decisions that directly impact them and their livelihoods.

I'll just note that it's not just about the number of jobs that projects effect. It's also about the plurality of jobs that projects often effect. You have to look at not just the amount of long-term, permanent employment and how many workers are coming in from out of town, but also at whether or not a project—for example, the Site C dam—is going to undermine the traditional farming practices of local community members and other livelihood opportunities. So, yes, that's very important to us.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte

Thank you very much to all the panel members. You've given us a lot to consider as we work through this bill. I'm going to suspend the meeting and bring up the next panel.

Again, thank you for your time today.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte

While we're having everyone take their seats, I'll mention that I neglected to recognize two members on the committee who aren't normally with us. They are MP Dave MacKenzie and MP Stephanie Kusie. I know Stephanie's been with us before, but I think this is Dave's first time.

Welcome. It's nice to see new faces at the table.

We now have our second panel. As I mentioned before, we do have votes. The bells are going to ring at about 5:30. We are in the same location, just down the hall, so I'm hoping we'll have the will of the committee to continue until about 10 minutes before votes. That way we can get in as much time as we can before we have to break.

Today we have Stephen Hazell, director of conservation with Nature Canada. We also have Jay Morrison, chair, environment committee, Paddle Canada, and we have Rodney Northey, who is a partner with Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP. He was on the expert panel that studied the impact assessment process.

Thank you for joining us today. I would like to turn the time over to the panel. You have 10 minutes each. I don't like to cut in, but I have a yellow card for when you have a minute left in your time. I have a red card for when you've run out of time. I don't mean for you to just drop whatever you're saying, but to just wrap it up quickly. As I said before, I use the same rules for the committee members. I try to be fair.

Who would like to start?

Go ahead, Mr. Hazell.