Natural Resources Committee on May 16th, 2016

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you, and thank you both again for being here today.

I'm going to start with Dr. Gattinger and talk about some of these policy gaps, particularly where we find ourselves now in the process with Kinder Morgan and energy east. These are some of the things that the government is trying to tackle. I would like you to comment on how we can link the climate change gap with the gap on cumulative impacts. How would you design this interim process that the cabinet now has to consider? It's unclear to many of us how this is going to happen. How would you tackle that?

[Prof. Monica Gattinger]

I don't think you're the only group that sees this as unclear. It isn't clear how that circle will be squared or the square will be circled. That said, there are some important processes under way at the first ministers' level. That's an important development, to see that change in terms of the provinces and the federal government coming together on climate, coming together on energy, and on the development of a Canadian energy strategy.

We've done some public opinion polling work in connection with the positive energy project. One of the things that won't surprise people who know oil and gas well is that a majority of Canadians support the development of oil and gas. They also want to see environmental protection, but they're confident that governments collectively can move in the direction of energy development while at the same time protecting the environment.

What they haven't seen, though, is a plan. What is it going to look like? There's a desire on the part of Canadians to transition to a cleaner energy future. I presume that's also part of what the committee is interested in. We haven't seen a plan for what that transition will look like, what the time frame will be, or the ways in which governments and others will work together to achieve it. Many people, including me, are looking to that first ministers' process to try to get a much better understanding of, concretely, how the governments are going to work together on this.

There's a really interesting window of opportunity here in respect of decision tracks. You have the first ministers' meetings dealing with climate. You have in the Council of the Federation the development of a Canadian energy strategy. You also have the energy and mines ministers who are going to be meeting over the course of the summer. The focus of their proceedings will be on public confidence. There's an opportunity there to show a coordinated approach to some of these key issues. I hope governments will take it.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

If there isn't a clear plan by the time these decisions have to be made in December, at least with Kinder Morgan, do you think that would further erode public confidence?

[Prof. Monica Gattinger]

A clear plan on climate, you mean...?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I mean for climate change and its cumulative effects. In cumulative effects, I include things like upstream impacts on our climate targets. We don't even have clear climate targets yet, CO2 targets.

[Prof. Monica Gattinger]

In terms of precise data, one of the things that concerns me about where we're at right now in this process is that there are a lot of expectations, and at some level, even increasing expectations that these various issues will be addressed. The government rightly is in listening mode, in consultation mode. At some point, though, participatory democracy has to move to representative democracy, and that's where the rubber is going to meet the road. I don't know what the date is, whether it's December or sometime before or after that, but in the absence of meaningful movement on some of these policy gaps, I think public confidence could be further eroded. This would be unfortunate because there is an interesting window of opportunity right now to create a positive development in this area.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I wanted to know, Dr. Lafontaine, if you can comment on free, prior, and informed consent and how you think the recent decision by the government on UNDRIP will affect our processes going forward.

[Dr. Alika Lafontaine]

As mentioned previously by the other presenter, it depends on how processes are going to be operationalized. I agree with her that a balance needs to be had with national interests versus local interests, and that balance is important. The most legally grounded opposition to Kinder Morgan, energy east, and the northern gateway is likely from indigenous communities. They can keep things in the court for years or decades. The previous government saw how this was operationalized by indigenous communities.

If we don't approach UNDRIP and the other obligations that the government has taken on with regard to indigenous people and reconciliation in a way that ensures a community-based process of priorities in creating and supporting community-based decision-making structures, they'll continue to get fractured visions within communities on how research projects are supposed to go forward, they'll continue to get regional first nations not agreeing on whether or not these things should go through their different territories, and these projects won't move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We are moving on to Mr. McLeod.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, and thank you to the presenters for their presentations.

Dr. Lafontaine, you made some very interesting points about engaging indigenous people after the plan is made. We see that all the time, and a lot of times it results in aboriginal people not trusting any projects going ahead. We're seeing right across Canada and parts of the north where aboriginal governments, band councils, are left fundraising through bingos to help their communities, and it's a real challenge. As we move forward, we are hearing a lot of comments about aboriginal people being required to be part of the process: it's a barrier, it's a challenge, it's another layer of bureaucracy. But we don't know that. We haven't talked to them. The new reality is that we're going to have an approach where we include aboriginal people.

Would you agree that before we get too far that we should be jointly crafting solutions using a collaborative approach on how we're now going to involve aboriginal people in the decision-making?

[Dr. Alika Lafontaine]

I'll use an example from health. I've participated in three provincial transformation initiatives, one of which included the Saskatchewan surgical initiative that decreased wait times by 40%. We came together in a conference with 200 participants, started off with 250 items that we wanted to address, and received a report that had four pillars. All we wanted to talk about was the four pillars. We don't know what happened to the 250 items that needed to be addressed. When we're talking about issues within indigenous communities, I think there's probably a set limit of the number of issues that are out there, but what differs from community to community are the priorities of which issues cause the biggest problems. If we're going to create a consultation process, and we've applied this within the alliance framework, we need to find a way to capture all those issues in a way that they remain there. They don't get distilled into four pillars that structure the way you move forward.

You need a clear process that takes the priorities from groups within the community so they can internally find alignment before they externally find alignment with federal and provincial regulatory processes. The communities can figure out a way forward, but there are different voices, and sometimes the only voices that get heard are the loudest. That doesn't necessarily represent the large majority of the community or the opinion of the elders, those are just the people who are getting on TV yelling at the top of their lungs.

When we're talking about how to move forward with resource development, we have to rethink how we collect and ensure these issues stay at the forefront. Communities need to know that they're heard. They need to see that they're heard in the reports and other things that are published, and they need to be engaged at a level where people recognize that these issues are out there and they can see them as well.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Dr. Lafontaine, would you see that setting up an independent expert panel working toward a process would help the aboriginal people move forward on this front? The responsibility is intertwined with so many different departments now I'm not sure how that would work. Can you make any specific recommendations? Have we done enough through the five principles that were announced by Minister Carr and the UNDRIP commitment?

[Dr. Alika Lafontaine]

Thank you for the question.

I do agree that some sort of panel needs to be convened. Whether it's expert, that really depends on how representative they are by community. The community has to validate the experts who are on the committee. The experts have to make a proactive effort to speak for the community instead of down to the community. The selection would be difficult.

I would instead call it an expert panel of communicators and consultants who can go into communities and really hear what people are saying and be able to give feedback to the government and other organizations, including corporations, on what the community is actually saying. That's probably the most important thing.

These things overlap. One of the things we found in health is that the jurisdictional framework differs significantly between the province and on reserve. For example, health professionals likely don't have to be licensed while on reserve, so as a physician, if I practice 100% in Health Canada I probably am not legally obligated to receive a licence from the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The same situation exists for quality and safety, as well as the way that you operationalize resource development on reserve lands. Those things have to be considered as well.

I think if you do create a process where people feel heard, where they feel like they participate in defining the problem and the solutions and the implementation strategies from the very beginning, that can align very nicely with the other processes that are in there.

I think UNDRIP goes a long way to making that happen. The issue with UNDRIP is whether or not it becomes legal in the same way that it's written. If we do adopt UNDRIP in the way that it's written, I do think we'll progress in a way we need to. If we cherry-pick the parts of UNDRIP that we like and don't legalize all of the components, then I think we're going to have the same problems that we had before.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

You have a bit of time left. I'm not sure that he answered your second question, in any event.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Chairman, I don't have any more questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We're into the five-minute round.

Ms. Stubbs, it's over to you.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Lafontaine, I wanted to refer to a point that you had made about the partnership between the oil sands companies and first nations, and the evacuation of the residents of Fort McMurray. Of course, not only did the oil sands companies play a big role in that, but I want to acknowledge the efforts of several first nations and Métis communities across my constituency of Lakeland who in fact are also providing refuge for evacuees from Fort McMurray and have opened their homes and their communities to support the people who have come south and who require their support. It has been a huge effort between many communities, including first nations and Métis, right across my constituency to help our neighbours to the north.

Certainly, I'd echo your comment that there are indeed heterogeneous perspectives among first nations communities around energy development. I have been travelling quite a lot throughout my constituency, which is home to extensive conventional oil, heavy oil, and gas development, and also companies that operate in the oil sands, as well as a little bit in the south. I hear often of very active equal and productive partnerships between first nations, whether being employed directly by energy developers or service and supply companies. Without a doubt the message that we hear repeatedly from energy developers is exactly what you're saying, namely the importance of involving first nations communities from the very beginning in energy development.

I would also like to get a little bit at these interim measures issues. As you pointed out, it's important for us to acknowledge that we have the largest energy reserves of any industrialized democracy in the world, the vast majority of which are in Alberta's oil sands. I wanted to underline that point. I think what I'm concerned about is that there seems to be a real lack of specifics and evidence about where this public confidence is coming from. You had mentioned local and community-driven energy developments. As a person who lives side by side with energy development in a province where we have a long history of environmental and socially responsible energy development, I think some of us are a little confused about where this is coming from, because we are world leaders in energy regulation and in that energy development.

Concerning the interim measures that the government has announced, we've heard repeatedly from witnesses that either they're not clear or that they do indeed add delays, as they have, for example in extending the energy east pipeline approval process to 21 months instead of the regular 15 months, or adding the additional climate change test to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline after the NEB review process is almost complete. Obviously, certainty and predictability is very critical to energy development in Canada.

I wonder if you are able to really provide some specifics around where that's coming from and whether or not it may be driven by a lack of knowledge about the real track record of energy development in Canada and in particular in Alberta.

[Prof. Monica Gattinger]

Thank you for that. That's an excellent question.

I have a few points. I think one thing not to underestimate is the extent to which, as you well know, the market context for energy has changed so fundamentally with the shale revolution and the development of oil and gas in really unprecedented quantities in terms of production in the United States and the impact that's having on energy infrastructure and the reorientation of energy flows.

To your point, one of the things that we're seeing now is.... Again, as I said before, you'd have to go back to the 1950s to see this many pipeline proposals. The system has not had this kind of large-scale project proposals in front of it for that length of time. I think it's important to recognize, to the point about communities, that for many of these communities it's important to look at communities in context. It's not a surprise that in Alberta when your neighbour works in the sector, maybe you work in the sector and that you know it inside out. You have confidence. You're familiar. Your level of familiarity is really quite substantial.

If you look at other communities, whether it's in terms of the pipeline routing, or in terms of—think about energy development in other jurisdictions—shale in New Brunswick, shale in Quebec, these are jurisdictions and communities that don't necessarily have a previous history with hydrocarbon development. At the individual community level looking at values—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I have to cut you off there. I'm sorry.

Mr. Harvey, we're over to you.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank you both for coming. It's been great to hear your thoughts today on a lot of the issues surrounding what we're talking about in committee.

I'd really like to hit on just a few points, including this idea of the collaborative approach that we've talked about as we form government, and how we're trying to change the mindset on natural resource development. We're not necessarily trying to change the process, but I think it's important we recognize that just because Canada's been a leading governing country, western development country, in terms of policy around natural resource development and the types of strategies we've used for creating innovation and fostering growth in technology within the sector, that doesn't give us a veto to continually try to strive to do more. We need to continue to grow and evolve and focus on clean tech and the innovation that's largely come from the sector.

We had a witness earlier from SDTC. I've always been a huge fan of SDTC, of the work they've done, and of the way they help government foster growth within a sector, specifically within oil and gas. I think we really need to focus on the stakeholder engagement, whether its first nations community engagement, or the three different levels of government, and on how we can collectively work to grow the sector and to get that social licence, or community buy-in if you want to call it that, from across the country. Ultimately, I really believe that if these resource projects are going to go forward, public perception of these projects has changed, and we need to adapt as a government, along with the change in mindset, to see them go forward.

I don't think anyone in this room doesn't recognize the importance of the energy sector to the Canadian economy. I think we're all fans. We all have family who work in these projects. We all have friends who work in these projects. I'm just really excited about the opportunities that lie ahead for us.

Specifically, Ms. Gattinger, I understand you were at the tri-ministerial meetings. I wanted to see if you could touch on the effect, specifically with innovation, energy security, clean technology, and conservation, of having three governments working together at the ministerial level to try to form policy that aligns all three governments in North America to further the technological growth, focus on our greenhouse gas emissions, eventually reach our climate targets, and maintain those targets over the long term by collaborating together.

There's been a lot of talk over the last weeks and months about how the Canadian economy, if we foster this growth on our own, has to work abrasively against other governments. But can you just elaborate for me on how the three governments could work together to foster that type of growth, and on the synergies that could come out of that, as opposed to the friction of working against each other?

[Prof. Monica Gattinger]

Thank you for that question. I think that's really important. We really frequently are moving into domestic-only conversations around energy, and we're clearly in a North American context. It's been so wonderful to see the renewed interest in trilateral collaboration around energy. You'd have to go back to probably the George Bush administration in the early 2000s, with the North American energy working group, to see this level of collaboration between the governments.

I think what's essential, though, in those discussions is to try to avoid the tendency to compete, which often comes about as a result of thinking about energy in trade terms only. Energy is about more than just trade in North America. It contributes to quality of life, to standards of living, to a reliability of the electricity system. A lot of the ties between Canada and the U.S., for example, are not so much about trade as they are about electricity reliability. We're all better off when we're working together on these issues. I think there's a lot of opportunity there in all the areas you mentioned.

One of the things I noted at the meeting was a really tremendous focus on clean tech and electricity, which is important. I saw less discussion, although maybe it was happening in other forums, around hydrocarbons, and that, I think, is really important for us to also look at collectively in North America. How can we collectively be developing those resource bases, which are large, in an environmentally responsible fashion that benefits all three countries?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

That's all the time we have.

We have about three minutes left.

Mr. Shields, I believe you're going to use the time.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here and ask questions.

Dr. Lafontaine, I found it interesting, having just come out of 15 years of Alberta governance with regional health boards and health advisories, when you said that families and patients form the centre of everything we do. I've sure heard a lot of non-indigenous people who would disagree that we have it. As one of the leading bureaucrats in Alberta has said, if you want service outside Edmonton and Calgary, you move here and get the service. We understand what you're saying as well.

One dichotomy I have found is that Alberta health service delivers the service but the funding is in a different place. In my years with health advisories and health boards, that was one of the biggest challenges, working together with indigenous people. We had a dichotomy there. How would you address that dichotomy of one government delivering the service and one government funding it? How would you resolve that issue?

[Dr. Alika Lafontaine]

I think you resolve the issue by including a third level of government, and that is indigenous communities. If you are referring to the energy sector, probably one of the most successful areas where a trilateral approach was taken was in 1975 with the James Bay Cree. When they created Nunavik, in addition to working through everything they had to do to create the dam, they also addressed social institutions, governmental institutions, other types of infrastructure. Right across the pond is Attawapiskat, and they're in two different worlds when it comes to health.

We have to recognize indigenous peoples as a third level of government in this country, because functionally that's how they are recognized by the court system. If we look at UNDRIP and implementing a lot of things within that document, that's really what we are moving toward, engaging indigenous peoples as a third level.

I think if you have a funder and a service provider, if you don't involve the community, it all falls apart. That's consistent whether you're indigenous or non-indigenous. It's just good governance practice.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

The problem is between the funding and the service delivery governments, and trying to get those two together. Those two are the levels of government we've had the biggest problem with.