Evidence of meeting #57 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was alberta.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Mr. Stuckless, please be brief so we can go on to Mr. Blaikie. Do you have something to add?
Director, Fort McKay Métis Nation
Yes, I do. I just want to make it known to the committee that the Fort McKay Métis Nation is embarking on the federal recognition of our rights. Currently, in discussions we have with the federal government, there is no recognition of the Fort McKay Métis Nation's sovereignty. We've actually judicially reviewed the Métis Nation of Alberta and Canada agreement, signed a couple of weeks ago. We just want to be ourselves, and that needs to be clear.
We just received provincial credible assertion, which is a step towards rights recognition in Alberta. We need to be taking steps federally and also improving on that in Alberta. Many of our sister communities are along that path as well, but it's a long, long road.
Liberal
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much. I'm honoured to be here.
I want to start by saying thank you to our witnesses. I note their courage and willingness to share the vulnerability of their communities in the face of some awful things and in a place that, historically, not only has been insensitive to these concerns but has sometimes villainized indigenous people for speaking these truths and actively sought to harm them.
I want to come back to what Mr. Clark was saying about the need for a truly independent regulatory process that isn't just trusted by industry—although I think it has to be trusted by industry in some way—but is also trusted by the people for whom that regulation matters in terms of the health of their land and their people. My question is really about the extent to which you believe it's imperative that indigenous peoples whose lands are affected by developments have a seat at the table of the regulator so they can raise their concerns and experience directly as part of the regulatory process. That's instead of talking around this table about what we can do to the process, which still fundamentally has outsiders making all these decisions. It's so that you feel you'll be more heard rather than being at the table.
I'm hoping that folks can speak to that. I'm happy to hear from anyone who wants to speak to it, but I thought I might start with Ms. Martin because she's here representing Willow Lake Métis Nation. We've heard answers from some of the other nations, so maybe we'll start there and then go to the other nations.
Sustainability Manager, Willow Lake Métis Nation
Could you clarify that question for me again?
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
We're talking about building a better regulatory process. Obviously there is a major failure here. I take the point that this is a structural failure; it's not a one-off. To what extent is it important that indigenous people with lands that are affected by projects are part of the regulatory process at the table, as opposed to trying to figure out how the process happening with other people who aren't on the affected lands can be trusted by you, if that makes sense?
Sustainability Manager, Willow Lake Métis Nation
It directly impacts us, and we should definitely have a seat at the table. It would make more sense. We should be able to have a say in how and what they're doing to our environment.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
What kinds of resources do you think should be made available to your communities in order to participate meaningfully in a regulatory process?
Sustainability Manager, Willow Lake Métis Nation
You have me stumped there, and I'm super nervous.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
That's okay. I'm not trying to put you on the spot.
If anybody else wants to jump in, I welcome that too.
I guess the question is meant to recognize that it's one thing to say, “Okay, we want your opinion”, but if you don't have a history of participating in a regulatory process, then presumably there's some learning, and some supports and resources are required to do that in a good way.
Director, Sustainability, Fort McKay Métis Nation
I'll jump in.
Having done regulatory in the region for several years for several communities, I think it's essential that the communities are at the table with the regulator.
One thing that disturbed me most about this incident.... I will reiterate that Imperial approved a full technical joint review and some on-site monitoring. We were allowed on site, and I think they've been very transparent. The one thing that interests me is there was a round of what is called supplemental information requests, which the regulatory body sends out as it's attempting to get more information on an issue. That was the one thing we weren't provided. The response from Imperial was that the AER did not want to release it. I said that's ridiculous because I can pay $25 for an FOIP request and see it publicly. There isn't trust with the regulator. We've said, as multiple communities have said, that this regulator is regulatory-captured.
The other concerning comment they made when we met with them was that.... This is more to your question. Communities have been engaged in regulatory processes for years as they've stood up their own regulatory bodies and entities to address this. What is concerning us most is that those submissions aren't being heard or considered. We've been doing tailings submissions and reviews on all the tailings reports. Each of these industries has been doing this annually for several years now. When the AER spoke with us, it advised us that it had never seen those. Given how the reviews we are doing are getting conveyed and the lack of transparency, I think it's important to hear it right from the communities' mouths, because we are engaged and we are responding to that.
In terms of capacity, I think there is capacity in the community to do that, but certainly the funding and the resources to be a part of it is always welcome. We're always very limited. There are entire departments at the regulator and the Alberta consultation office—federal and provincial—and we're usually small departments trying to address multiple issues at any given time.
Director, Fort McKay Métis Nation
I wanted to add that I don't think any of us want to waste our time working in a baked system either. If we're going to put our time in, whether it's in a regulatory process or through the consultation process working with industry, we are there to find solutions to complex issues. Most of the time when our suggestions are provided, we're told they're not regulatory requirements, even though they may address a concern. They often get dismissed. They'll say they'll continue to talk later. They say, “Give us our permit, we'll go develop, and when we encounter more issues we'll talk.”
Those are the responses that seem to get passed in approvals. It's that they have to continue to talk to people. They can continue to impact people or infringe on their rights and continue to talk, but they don't resolve anything, so these unresolved issues become perpetual. They become repetitive, and at the next hearing they get stacked on, or they get smarter and change the wording and attack it from a different angle. At the end of the day, it's a baked system and nothing changes.
The biggest example that I can point the committee to is federal approvals, whether it's a pipeline or a major project. It doesn't have to be oil and gas. When you look at the list of conditions and who those conditions are addressing issues for, in the federal system, whether it's the northern gateway project or an LNG project, there are hundreds of conditions. They have to do this, they have to have this committee and they will reclaim this way. In Alberta, for provincially regulated projects with this regulator, there are conditions the proponent puts on itself and there are half a dozen. It is cookie-cutter day in and day out with no changes, no extra work, standardized terms of referenced and limited scope types of approvals. They can't actually address concerns by perpetually talking about the issues that they're not going to consider.
I'm at the point in my career where I don't even want to play. I don't want to play that game. I don't want to waste my time. If we can do an impact benefit agreement and get around it that way, then we can have some resolve with the company. That might work. My interests are protected in the IBA. Because the Crown won't engage, it's a system where the proponents talk to us, and there's no resolve on those big issues.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I am told that we have permission to continue until 1:45. So I'm going to start the second round, but I'm asking members to keep to a brief question.
Mr. McLean, do you have a question?
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I have a point of order.
We have 25 minutes here, Mr. Chair. That's enough for a full round.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Five and five plus two and a half and two and a half is 15.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The second round is 25 minutes, normally. I figure if everyone gets one question, then it's going to be at least three minutes per—
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Let me check that math with you, Mr. Chairman. It's five minutes for the Conservatives, five minutes for the Liberals, two and half for the Bloc and two and a half for the NDP. That's usually about 15 minutes, by my math.
Liberal
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
It's five, five, two and half and two and a half. That's how the second round goes.