Evidence of meeting #107 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 c-69.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Okay.
Under FPIC, there have been three different types of descriptions of what FPIC actually means. It could mean good faith without really obtaining it, a type of consensus-oriented process, which is called collaborative consent, or a veto. I'd like to get your sense on what your view is of consent and the meaning of it within an FPIC framework.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
That's a very big question. It's a good question if we can have a very quick answer to it.
Wolf Lake First Nation
I think it all depends on the project or on what's being proposed. I know Quebec has the same issue. They think that it means veto automatically. I don't think that's the intent of it. We should have a say, depending on what the project is and what the impacts are. I wouldn't say it's an automatic veto on anything, but we should have a say, and a meaningful say, and it should be, I think, taken in that light. It should not be an automatic veto, because everyone is afraid that they're not going to agree to anything. The fact is that when you're talking about project development and economic development, our people need to work too, you know?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I hate to do this, but I have to end it there.
Mr. Fast, you have two minutes.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you.
I'd ask the same question of Mr. Willson.
You've been quite outspoken about the concerns you have for your treaty rights. If the Liberal government adopts FPIC, as it appears it will do, what do you understand FPIC to mean? Is it a veto? Is it some kind of collaboration in a nation-to-nation discussion? What does it look like?
West Moberly First Nations
I can express what we've gone through. Site C is a prime example. We were never opposed to the development of the energy. What we were opposed to was the means of creating the energy: Site C, the flooding of the last chunk of the Peace River Valley we had. We were never given the opportunity to have that discussion. Free, prior, and informed consent, for us, is to be sitting at the table before the decision is made. They made their decision to build Site C, and then came and talked to us. That becomes a mitigative process. They've already decided they're going to do the project. We had no other choice at that point in time. Now we find ourselves in court trying to stop this thing. There are proven alternatives to this project that we never had a chance to have a talk about, that are now identified as being better solutions than Site C was.
I agree that FPIC depends on the project. It's not a veto. But Site C was not a good project, is not a good project, not by any means. It's been proven that it's probably the worst thing that we could be doing, but we never got a chance to sit down and talk about that. We were told, “We're building Site C. What are your concerns? We'll take them into consideration.”
NDP
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Thank you.
Do you share the concerns expressed by other first nations that a federal assessment should be required not just for certain projects on a list, and that impact assessments must also be triggered when a proposed activity may cause adverse impacts to migratory birds, the rivers and the lakes, indigenous groups or their rights as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and UNDRIP?
Both of you can answer, if you can.
West Moberly First Nations
Speaking from experience, you're about to infringe on the treaty if it's unjustified. That's law. That's why I asked the question whether your intent was to unjustifiably infringe the treaty. There is a test that's supposed to be performed called the Sparrow analysis test, on whether or not the impact is justifiable. That has never happened.
We were told that it didn't need to happen on Site C, which is the largest infrastructure project that B.C. has ever seen. It's $12 billion. If that project does not justify a Sparrow analysis test, what project does?
It's death by a thousand cuts. You can minimalize everything if you have the pen to do it with. They structured the whole thing away from a justification process. We were saying let's look at alternatives, and they said no. They know now that there is no need for the power, for Site C. There is no reason to destroy the last remaining piece of that river, but here we are.
We're in court now because of this. Two little first nations in northeastern B.C. have to fight Canada, B.C., and BC Hydro, a crown corporation with billions of dollars in their pockets, to try to justify a development that's not needed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
You've come a long way, and I really appreciate the wisdom you have brought to the table for the discussion. I am sorry that we couldn't spend more time with questioning. It's because of what's been going on in the House today and that there are votes. It turns out there will be three votes, which is unfortunate, because that's going to be quite a bit of time. It prevents us from being able to come back.
We want to thank you again. I will have to end the meeting.
The meeting is adjourned.