Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 31st, 2019

[Garnett Genuis]

I think the committee would be interested in those numbers as well as in any projected goals you have, because reviewing the framework is important, but also looking at specific numbers is ultimately a way to test the effectiveness of that framework.

In a different vein, there was some discussion about the mechanisms of consultation and the value of having large teams of public servants.

Let me preface this by saying that before being elected, I worked in the public opinion research business. We did some consultation work in association with real estate development projects. It always surprised me that the emphasis was on qualitative instead of quantitative assessment.

It seems to me that, if you're trying to see what indigenous people in a particular community think, there would be various tools you could use to poll the community and to, in an ongoing way, test their sentiments. Of course, relationships are important but primarily consultation is an exercise in finding out what people think and incorporating their opinions into the decisions you make.

It seems to me there would be methods of doing that, especially with evolving technology around polling, that might be more effective and more cost effective than relying solely on the meetings approach.

I would be curious about anybody's thoughts on that.

[Jeff Labonté]

It's a good question. Maybe the difference to work through is whether it's opinion or whether it's something that provides us a qualitative/quantitative sense of whether it's actually a potential rights impact, whether we're talking about a project. There are active parts of the consultation phase that can involve community workshops, town halls, things that engage with broader members of the community, but for the most part those things are designed with the indigenous groups that are engaged with and consulted. We do use similar things in terms of trying to reach, but it's community dependent.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Mr. Tan.

[Geng Tan, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to give my first minute to my colleague Mr. Whalen to finish his question.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Tan.

With respect, I'm somewhat concerned, on the question of oral traditional evidence, that it's something that's being done but it's not really being internalized and used. I'm wondering if someone could provide me some example of how the oral traditional evidence is curated; how conflicts and contradictions are resolved between conflicting pieces of oral traditional evidence; how, over time and across different groups, if different groups come with conflicting advice on their position for this traditional knowledge, those conflicts and those different positions are resolved

I know it's a large question, so maybe you can direct us to some policy documents that guide officials within your organizations on how to engage in those three activities: curation, conflict resolution and testing against other evidence.

I guess I will start with you, Mr. Labonté.

[Jeff Labonté]

I think, on this particular front, my colleagues at the NEB who do the regulatory and hear the evidence are best-served to answer your question. Terry might be able to join in from the environmental assessment point of view.

[Dr. Robert Steedman]

Thank you. It's an excellent question.

I'll note initially that this sort of evidence will generally be heard by an independent panel of the board, in the context of a specific project. That's a very key element of how the National Energy Board would handle that.

I'll note also that in our context we're talking about linear infrastructure that may cover thousands of kilometres and hundreds of territories, traditional territories and first nations. I think you're quite right that the story a panel may hear from elders and knowledge keepers will reflect that diversity and complexity.

The other thing that I think may be helpful here is that the National Energy Board, as the life-cycle regulator, has the power to compel or ensure that a project is designed in a way that protects the interests that the panel is hearing about and understanding. In one sense that's often first nations and indigenous interest in the land and water, things like traditional medicines and plants. A lot of those are handled through fairly well-understood routing and mitigation kinds of concerns. Proponents, particularly because the proponents are out there early doing this kind of thing—they're on the ground, often walking the route with elders and getting that knowledge first-hand—some of that doesn't even come to the regulator because it's proprietary at the level of a nation. A lot of those things, where it can be done, are sorted out through routing and avoidance. It's inevitable that—

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I'm sorry. I feel bad for my friend Mr. Tan. If you have documents you can table before the committee so we can see how those decisions are made, it would be great.

Mr. Hubbard, do you have similar documents you can table?

[Terence Hubbard]

We have experience in collecting. We're in the process of developing additional policy guidance, in collaboration with indigenous communities, on collection of indigenous traditional knowledge and protection of that information. I'm not sure if we have anything specific in terms of a document we can table at this point.

[Geng Tan, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you.

This question is for Ms. Sletto with the NEB.

I believe it is important to make a distinction between community engagement and indigenous community engagement. The indigenous community engagement needs a higher degree of empathy or special consideration because of how the indigenous communities were treated in the past, or because some of those communities are self-governed. Are there any lessons learned or suggestions that you can offer to us in that regard?

[Tracy Sletto]

I want to make sure I understand. You're asking in terms of our approach, in terms of the difference in our approach when working with indigenous communities versus that with other stakeholders.

[Geng Tan, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Yes, the differences between dealing with indigenous communities and other communities.

[Tracy Sletto]

Thank you for that question.

There are two elements I might highlight. One is with respect to any specific adjudication process, which is just a portion of our work. As a regulator, we undertake a number of regulatory activities throughout the life cycle of a project but specifically in an adjudication context, in a hearing, working with participants, we want to ensure that the issues that all participants have are raised and addressed and adjudicated in the context of a formal review—specifically indigenous communities and the constitutional rights associated with working with indigenous communities, including consultation. Our considerations around consultation are critical and do drive an approach that ensures we are quite deliberate in the context of working with communities and respecting rights, ensuring that we have that reconciliation lens in mind and that we are guided by the policy framework of the Government of Canada in that regard.

I'll also mention that our approach to engaging with both indigenous communities and non-indigenous communities throughout our entire life cycle oversight is guided by those same principles, so very much driven in the case of indigenous communities with a reconciliation lens in mind, very much driven by a commitment to engaging in meaningful relationships. That would be true with other stakeholders, but it has a context specifically in terms of indigenous engagement, and I say that for us it's very much guiding our approach on our entire core responsibility. You'll see that in our performance reporting and certainly our strategic planning.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to stop you there.

Mr. Cannings, you're last up.

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

Thanks again.

One of the central themes of this study is international best practices for indigenous engagement. We've heard from Ms. Wagantall about how highly regarded Canada is in that around the world. I think Mr. Duschenes or Mr. Hubbard—I forget—mentioned about government procurement practices in Australia. I'm just wondering if any of you could mention things that you have learned from other countries, whether it's Australia, New Zealand, Scandinavian countries or Greenland, that you've brought back and said we should be doing this in Canada.

[Jeff Labonté]

I can speak to one part.

Natural Resources Canada has a bilateral relationship with Mexico, and on an annual basis we exchange with each other. The regulators similarly exchange with their Mexican counterparts, and then we do so with the indigenous affairs group. We've brought Canadian indigenous peoples to Mexico and have had shared experiences with their indigenous colleagues in Mexico. We've brought best practice Canadian companies. In fact, I think we brought a mining company from Saskatchewan and one of the Canadian pipeline companies to talk about their practices in Canada. Similarly, the Mexican teams were up in Canada doing the same thing.

Most of the exchanges have been just sharing each other's experiences. That helps, in some cases, affirm that we have similar issues and common objectives. In other cases it highlights that things are quite different in Mexico from how they are in Canada. For example, one of the things that struck me when we met with Mexico, which would have been about a year ago, was that in many instances the proponents working in Mexico with indigenous groups have safety issues related to communities, and the fact that many of the projects happen in remote areas where the degree to which the rule of law and things that we would take for granted in Canada are an issue which the proponents and indigenous communities actually work together on trying to resolve.

It's not dissimilar to, I think, the way we find that projects are often in remote parts of the country, and we have to take into account that perhaps all the normal things we see in urban life or in other parts of the country may not be present. We learned a little bit from each other in that particular experience.

Perhaps I'll pause there.

[Christopher Duschenes]

I'll be quick.

It's hard for Canadians to boast that we are better at some things than others. There are two things.

In spending 10 days in Australia very recently specifically on indigenous issues and working very closely with the Australian government, it was very clear that besides procurement, in issues related to consultation engagement, land rights, comprehensive claims specifically and self-government agreements—pretty much the gamut besides procurement—Canada was far ahead. We spent more time sharing our information with them than vice versa.

As well, it may be of interest to this committee that we're working on a project with the OECD and five other countries. So far, the focus has been on Canada, Australia and Sweden looking at indigenous communities' ability to benefit from regional economic development opportunities. It's a comparative analysis. It's the first intercountry study that the OECD has done specifically on indigenous issues; they have done bilateral work on indigenous issues. The report should come out probably not in time for you, but within the next 12 to 14 months.

It has been fascinating working with the other countries and looking at the drafts, which show, again, that on many of the issues related to economic development and the bigger land rights issues, we are significantly ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks, Mr. Cannings.

Thank you to all our witnesses. That was proof that this is going to be a very interesting study that we've embarked on. You got us off on the right foot and sent us down some paths that we maybe hadn't thought of. Thank you for that too.

On that note, we'll see everybody on Tuesday.

The meeting is adjourned.