Evidence of meeting #25 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was peoples.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I'm sorry to interrupt, but could you quantify how much your nations, your organizations, have lost because of the differential we receive, artificially, because of our constraint on infrastructure?
11:50 a.m.
President, Indian Resource Council
We work with a special operating agency called Indian Oil and Gas Canada, and they collect the resources. Up to four years ago they were collecting over $500 million in royalties, and just this last quarter they've collected only $35 million out of all the producing nations in Canada.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you very much.
Is it safe to say that with the Impact Assessment Act that the likelihood of breaking the backlog and getting those resources to market more efficiently is constrained for the near future?
11:50 a.m.
President, Indian Resource Council
Absolutely, it's definitely making it more difficult, for sure.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you.
Mr. Podlasly, thank you very much.
I think the issue around economic sovereignty is fundamental to what we're talking about here with the UNDRIP legislation, because you're right: Without the ability to finance your developments, you don't have autonomy.
You spoke about the issues and how the world is watching this. You talked about how capital will flow to certainty in the ESG world. Last week Ehren Cory—he's the appointee who heads up the Canada Infrastructure Bank—talked about risk and uncertainty holding back projects in Canada.
Do you not foresee that potentially this unlevel ground created by a determination of UNDRIP that will evolve over time, as you say, won't create risk and uncertainty?
11:50 a.m.
Director, Economic Policy, First Nations Major Projects Coalition
I want to point this out. In terms of ESG standards—environmental, social and governance investment standards—capital markets are looking for certainty. They're looking for returns and knowing that they will get their returns. Right now the uncertainty of the land question in Canada causes trouble to those investors.
At the coalition we had a conference just a week ago on this question. We spoke to all of the major investment houses in Canada, the investment pension funds, and they are of the opinion that if there is clear indigenous involvement in these projects, like through equity holdings, equity investments, it sends a signal to the market that this is a safe investment. It will not be disrupted by protests or issues that are happening now. It will provide greater certainty not just for indigenous people but for investors and the Canadian economy.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Agreed, but how do you move these levers without affecting a different lever? You talked about getting certainty, but at the same time, you have an evolving definition of what the actual legal framework looks like at the end of the day. I'm concerned that what you see as certainty, other people see as great uncertainty going forward, as we evolve these definitions.
There's a problem that we're going to have here. We talked about the Impact Assessment Act and no real development going forward, but you can take a look at how much has been forgone by first nations as a result of developments that haven't happened over the last 10 years because of the uncertainty in the Canadian outlook here. Getting to that point of certainty is going to be essential for the economic benefit of all parties in Canada, particularly first nations.
How do you arrive at a base level that actually provides that certainty? Right now, I'm hearing two different equations on that.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Bratina
Mr. Podlasly will have to submit that answer unless it comes up in the next question. We're well over time and rushing along in our committee day.
Mr. Powlowski, you have five minutes.
11:50 a.m.
Director, Economic Policy, First Nations Major Projects Coalition
Thank you.
I am very encouraged by this entire conversation. This is what it means to implement UNDRIP—
11:50 a.m.
Director, Economic Policy, First Nations Major Projects Coalition
Did you ask me a question?
11:50 a.m.
Director, Economic Policy, First Nations Major Projects Coalition
I'm sorry. I thought you were referring a question to me.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Director, Economic Policy, First Nations Major Projects Coalition
I'm sorry. There are two of us with very similar names.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
I think the computer is booting me off. It decided to reboot.
You have a great name, actually.
11:50 a.m.
Director, Economic Policy, First Nations Major Projects Coalition
Thank you. I like your name too. One day we'll have a coffee.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Yes.
Let me start my question. I'm not sure if it's going to reboot before I get there.
My question is a follow-up to the previous question. Is this increasing or decreasing uncertainty? It's all about aboriginal title, I guess....
I'm not sure how much Bill C-15 really changes the present legal definition of aboriginal title as established by the courts, from Sparrow to Tsilhqot'in. Those decisions in Tsilhqot'in established that it was sui generis. There was a beneficial interest in the land and the province has a right to regulate land use in the public interest.
Now, I don't know all the fineries of aboriginal land law, and I know that was a case in B.C. where there was no previous treaty, but I don't see UNDRIP as really changing too much of what has already been legally established as to what aboriginal title is. Furthermore, I know that the courts, in informing their decisions on legislation, look to international legal instruments like UNDRIP.
Maybe I can first direct my question to Mr. Podlasly.
How much is this really changing things? We certainly hear the allegations that this is creating uncertainty, but it seems to me that's a little hard to buy into.
11:55 a.m.
Director, Economic Policy, First Nations Major Projects Coalition
Thank you. I see that we even have the same initials; they're close like our names.
I agree with you. What's being proposed right now in UNDRIP is in some ways catching up to what industry is already doing with first nations in many places across this country.
There are impact benefit agreements in place on electrical infrastructure and electrical generation, and mining projects that already incorporate a lot of the elements you find in UNDRIP, because companies have realized that it provides them the certainty they're looking for, not only to continue those operations or to start them but to attract capital, which they need to do. They then flag those through their environmental, social and governance standards, which the investment community recognizes, and all the parties benefit.
The major projects coalition has put out reports on examples of these agreements in Canada and worldwide in many sectors, so you are right. UNDRIP itself is catching up to what many companies and first nations are already doing in this country.
What it does is solidify it into Canadian law, and the benefits and approaches will be spread to other nations and other communities. It sets a standard.
You are right. Canadians are already doing the clauses of UNDRIP.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Maybe I can ask the same question of Mr. Buffalo and Ms. Shea.
11:55 a.m.
President, Indian Resource Council
Thank you for the question.
I agree with Mark. Things are slowly moving to that. We're finding that the industry in the oil and gas sector definitely has the door wide open to that relationship building. We formalize it when we call it “consent”, but ultimately it's something that needs to have been practised years ago. I think that when we saw the fall in our oil prices in the world markets, the industry hit the ground just as hard. They realized that, hey, there's a partner down here, and if we work together, things will get better.
From the perspective of certainty, I think we're moving towards that and finding ultimately that we just can't have uncertainty where, again, a small group can blockade a national infrastructure project when a democratically elected leadership—10 of them—has made a decision to move forward in investment ownership and in equity, and jobs are at stake and stuff like that. We have to continue to build a relationship to understand all of the issues at hand.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Okay.
Let me ask you this, Mark Podlasly. UNDRIP has already been implemented in British Columbia. Have you found that it's increased uncertainty in development in British Columbia?
11:55 a.m.
Director, Economic Policy, First Nations Major Projects Coalition
UNDRIP is new in British Columbia and the discussions are still going on. What has happened is that industry has come to the table and has started to have those discussions in round tables with first nations and government. It takes time, but it's well under way.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Bratina
Thank you very much.
Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Ms. Shea and Ms. Flynn.
When Mr. Podlasly was asked a question about the uncertainty associated with certain projects, he gave a very interesting answer. He said that first nations involvement in these projects would decrease the amount of uncertainty associated with them.
In your view, could the uncertainty not instead be caused by the possibility of oil and gas companies challenging the definition of free, prior and informed consent in court?