Environment Committee on April 24th, 2018

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Obviously, good environmental assessments are important. Industry has never said that they want an easy way out, but again, what happens far too often is that you get endless process and market opportunities are missed.

One of my first careers was working on a pipeline assessment in the Mackenzie Valley and I came across an article, from December of last year, that the Mackenzie Valley pipeline is now off the books completely. One of the aboriginal people, who is the mayor-elect of Tuktoyaktuk, said, “We had a lot of high hopes. We even built a new hotel...in Inuvik in the hopes the pipeline was going to take off.”

What they're really saying is that these are communities that have lost a major economic opportunity. The other thing is that we had a very interesting testimony from Chief Ernie Crey from the Cheam First Nation. He's one of 43 first nations who have mutual benefits agreements with Trans Mountain, reportedly worth more than $300 million and he talked about how excited his constituents were to receive the training that they were going to receive from Trans Mountain.

I'm going to ask you, Chief Thomas, since you're from British Columbia as well, should Chief Ernie Cray be excited about the development of the Trans Mountain pipeline, given the benefits that he sees for his people?

[Chief Maureen Thomas]

You can look at it from that perspective.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Sorry. These are his words. They're not mine.

[Chief Maureen Thomas]

No, but I mean you can look at it from his perspective of how important this economy is to each first nation that has signed on. I will never take away anything, in that context, from the way they feel and how they want to conduct their way of life.

I think, however, that if you truly look at that statement, you should look deeper. Look at these communities, the first nations across the country, and see how isolated they all are and how everything for them becomes 10 times harder because of the situations the Europeans have placed them in and placed on these reserves, and how confined they are, and how restricted they are in trying to generate a way of life for their being. They can no longer live the life they at one time did, and not every community have the opportunity to generate an economy because of their location and what surrounds them.

I can truly see the importance to them, but what are we trying to achieve here? It's about the protection of the environment and how we're going to do it. I appreciate the challenge you're faced with, because you have to look at all those components and analyze the whole to come up with the right decisions. I don't envy you one bit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm sorry; I let that go over because I wanted to hear from the chief, but we have gone past time.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I want to thank all of you for your very important testimony.

I raised this concern to the previous panel. As we have not received most of your briefs yet, I think we're going to need more time as a committee, if we're going to come up with recommendations for amendments that reflect your testimony, which is the whole purpose of this study.

My first question would be for Ms. Lepine. Thank you for your brief.

I know you have recently had experience with a strategic assessment, because you intervened with UNESCO. They have now directed that Canada and Alberta have to come up with a strategic assessment.

Can you share with us your experience with that process as to how well you feel your nation or any of the other nations and Métis in the area are being engaged, whether you think the bill as written is going to enhance or improve the conditions for when you can call for a regional or strategic assessment to deal with the cumulative impacts, and whether or not the bill adequately gives you the right to participate in those strategic or regional assessments?

[Melody Lepine]

I will ask Mark to add in any details I might miss.

Yes, the strategic environmental assessment was triggered out of our UNESCO petition. We had to go to the international community to call for an assessment on a world heritage site downstream from the oil sands. It's quite unfortunate that we had to go that route because of the failures of environmental assessments in our region.

The way the bill is drafted right now clearly doesn't give us the certainty that these will continue. Many projects, including the Site C B.C. Hydro project on the Peace River fail to assess, in this case, the dam's impacts on the Peace-Athabasca delta. We still to this day do not understand how a major hydroelectric project was approved without properly assessing what it means for impacts upon a world heritage site.

Having triggered an SEA through that process, we're quite fortunate that the SEA has been undertaken by Canada, but we have had to force it to happen. If the bill could allow for the certainty of these strategic and regional assessments' happening, that would provide greater confidence in local communities.

Mark, would you like to add anything?

[Mark Gustafson, Associate, JFK Law Corporation, Mikisew Cree First Nation]

The only thing I would add is the question, “So what?” If you do a strategic regional assessment, the act isn't clear on what happens next. Those assessments have to mean something. There are things communities have been calling for, in Mikisew's case for 30-odd years. They had to go to the international community, and now we're getting an assessment. It's still not clear, in that process or under this bill, where it's going to lead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm sorry, we lost the translation. Let's have you go back and redo that last bit.

[Mark Gustafson]

The fundamental point is that regional and strategic assessments have to mean something. They have to lead to some type of change in decision-making and process if that's what the outcome of the assessment suggests. One of the ways we've suggested dealing with that, in the Mikisew Cree brief, is by creating a power so that if a regional or strategic assessment finds that there is a high level of cumulative effects in a region, there would be a process to create new triggers for new assessments that are reflective of that situation.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Chief Thomas, thank you very much for your remarks. A number of other indigenous leaders have come forward and called for not only section 35 to be mentioned in the bill, but also the United Nations declaration.

There is a lot of debate about, “Well, if 40 of 100 chiefs have signed on and they support a project, isn't that enough?” I wonder if you could speak to this. It's my understanding that under the UNDRIP there isn't a quota system. I think you said very clearly that, for the definition of jurisdiction, you want the ability to self-identify and self-determine.

Am I correct in understanding that you're saying the bill should reflect the fact that each individual indigenous community should have the right to self-determine?

[Chief Maureen Thomas]

We know we have the jurisdiction. We believe that in our heart, in our being. The question is, how is the government going to recognize that? That's the challenge, because if it's going to be going through so many hoops within the act, you defeat the purpose. That's where I want to talk again about the relationship and being able to have a relationship with different communities.

Every community is at a different level, and every community might want to participate at a different level at a different time. That's what should be flexible within the act, that it's not so prescriptive that you're going to leave somebody out when they're ready. Not everybody is at a point of moving forward in doing these assessments and having that understanding, or these things might never travel through their territory, where they're going to need to do this.

I really appreciate the challenge you're faced with, but it should be up to the government to have the ability to recognize the jurisdiction, because we believe we have it. We have that stewardship, that jurisdiction. We're not here, again, as I keep saying, to cause problems. We want to work with you, and we have done so many successful projects working with different governments, whether it's in the ocean or on land, or whatever.

That respect of each other is what's going to bring us to that parallel where we can work together and not have these problems, if you want to call it that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Churence.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to the panellists. Certainly we've heard from a lot of different groups with very strong feelings and perspectives on this legislation.

I have a couple of questions for Mr. Lindgren. As we struggle with, of course, the issue of judicial panels and all the other things in terms of the role of government, in your view, is there a real way to depoliticize the process without taking away a democratically elected government's ability to make decisions for which they will be held accountable by Canadians?

[Richard Lindgren]

Yes, and the expert panel gave you that very recommendation when they said to create an independent authority with a limited right to appeal to cabinet. Therefore, the answer is staring us all in the face. That's the provision you can use to get away from over-politicized decision-making and have it decided on the merits.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

As a follow-up question, Mr. Lindgren, your submission details the problems with timelines, as do others. We've heard from some other groups. How do we balance the importance of timely and efficient assessments with public and indigenous participation?

[Richard Lindgren]

The problem that I see in the current act is that it dictates a one-size-fits-all time frame for agency-led assessments and regional review panels, etc. I think it's far better for the parties themselves, in conjunction with the relevant authorities and jurisdictions, to work out their own case-specific or project-specific timelines. That has been done and done successfully. I just think that sticking to generic one-size-fits-all timelines is not the way to go about it. We need to have some more flexibility in the timelines.

I should also add that there is a myth out there that the environmental groups that I represent, for example, are really interested in bogging down the process—running out the clock and just bogging things down. I can tell you, that's not our interest. We don't have the time or resources or energy to do that. We want to see fast, timely, efficient processes as well. We want to get to the decision as quickly as we can.

I hope that nobody around this table thinks that we're in it just to slow things down. We want efficiency as well, but not at the expense of robust decision-making.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you.

I have a question for Ms. Lepine.

Your submission talks about lack of consultation when the 2012 changes were introduced. Could you comment on the consultations for Bill C-69? Do you think they were adequate?

[Melody Lepine]

From what I recall, I was invited to participate in the review panel's work, and I provided a presentation. Now I'm here today. I don't know whether this is considered consultation on your part, but I don't believe it was adequate and the timelines are quite aggressive in terms of our....

To be honest, I don't even think most people in my community are fully aware of Bill C-69, and probably not in many other indigenous communities.

[Mark Gustafson]

I have a very quick response.

The Mikisew has sent in written submissions at every stage of the EA process, just as for the review of the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act. No response has been received to any of those submissions.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Just stop the clock for a second.

When you send in briefs, are you expecting that the committees get back to you concerning your briefs?

That doesn't—

[Mark Gustafson]

Just to be clear, that was in the EA review process—the expert panel.