Evidence of meeting #127 for Natural Resources in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was norway.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
When you talk about transfers from Norway to the Parliament, is the formula based on economic development, or is it just a set transfer regardless of how well a particular region is doing with energy infrastructure or whatever?
Prof. Hans-Kristian Hernes
It's mainly decided on as a transfer to the Sami Parliament, and it's related to the different tasks they have. They may get new tasks and then they get more money. For example, if they are working on language issues, they probably get more money to deal with those, and to deal with the Sami or to take care of the Sami language. It's the same with museums and so on. All of this is decided on through a long process by the Norwegian Parliament and then based on the advice of the cabinet or government.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Okay.
Just out of curiosity, on the energy projects—you mentioned a couple in your testimony—do you know off the top of your head, by any chance, the period of time it took from the application being submitted by the proponent of that project to a decision being made to begin construction?
Prof. Hans-Kristian Hernes
I would say it took at least five years for some of these wind projects, based on the information that we have, but the government has also tried to set more limits on these processes, because some of these permits have been given, and then construction hasn't started, and then the permit has been withdrawn. They need to do it within a set number of years.
Prof. Hans-Kristian Hernes
My guess would be five years, and some of them have been going on for much longer, because it's a challenge to get funding for them. It might start out as a local project. We have a big wind park outside Tromsø that is now under construction. It's about three billion Norwegian kroner, which is about $500 million Canadian. That was started as a local project, but it's now owned by a German pension fund for doctors. They have come in and taken over, and that gave speed to the process, because the locals couldn't raise all that money.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Would you say the vast majority of these infrastructure projects were privately started or publicly started?
Prof. Hans-Kristian Hernes
There have been some that have been started by some of these power companies owned by municipalities. The state is also involved in some large projects via their own Statkraft. This one outside Tromsø is an example of private ownership. There's a mixture, when it comes to wind parks, more than there is for hydro power in Norway, which is publicly owned.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
We have wind farms in my area, so I'm just curious as to whether you know this. You said some of the projects were approved, and there was a delay in starting construction for whatever reasons. Do you know, by any chance, what those reasons were? Were they economic? Were there other factors, like protests from the public or that type of thing?
Prof. Hans-Kristian Hernes
The reason has been, to some extent, public protests, but it's mostly financial, I think, and also that they've found that the area isn't that good for production. There are also delays related to the new technology we can produce. We can have bigger windmills and we may then change the project, and then we have to go to a new round with the government on it. That might also cause a delay.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Thanks to both of you for appearing before us. It is very interesting to get this international perspective, and I'm sure we're all learning a great deal about the Sami people and how they are dealing with these interactions with the state.
This study is about how to engage with indigenous people to the best effect for all concerned. I'll start by asking Professor Turi this question. The Sami are found not only in Norway, but in Sweden, Finland and Russia. Are there situations in those countries that are better in terms of the engagement of Sami peoples and their knowledge before resource projects are started?
Associate Professor, Sámi University of Applied Sciences, As an Individual
I'm not sure that I'm able to put any of the countries above one another.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
I wasn't saying to put them above one another, but are there differences in how they're dealt with?
Associate Professor, Sámi University of Applied Sciences, As an Individual
I guess many Sami people consider Norway to be perhaps the country that has come the furthest in developing approaches to engage indigenous peoples, but there are still plenty of hurdles to go.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Right.
Professor Hernes, do you have any comments on that?
Prof. Hans-Kristian Hernes
I think I would agree. The Sami Parliament in Norway is stronger. It has more resources than they do in Sweden and Finland. Norway is also the only one of those that has signed ILO C169 and developed tools such as consultation. There are some processes and landmarks in Norway that are important. Maybe that's related to the conflict that was there when the Sami Parliament was established and they got their amendment to the constitution and also Sami law.
My experience, or what people tell me, is that it's easier to go from the Norwegian Sami Parliament to decision-makers in Oslo, the Norwegian capital, than it is for the Swedish Sami Parliament and their politicians to go to the politicians in Stockholm, the capital of Sweden. I think Norway is a little bit ahead of the others.
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
I also wanted to follow up on ILO C169, which you mentioned. It's not an agreement that we hear much about here because Canada and much of the world didn't ratify it. Most of Latin America ratified it, as did Norway, Iceland, Spain, I think, and Bhutan. Is it considered to be a forerunner of UNDRIP? What are the differences? Maybe you could also expand on your comments about how Norway perhaps hasn't done a good job of living up to its commitments under ILO C169.
Prof. Hans-Kristian Hernes
Norway was the first country to ratify ILO C169. It really became important for decisions or the process related to ownership or use of land and water in the northern parts of Norway. It became very important for development of the Finnmark Act, which was decided by the Parliament in 2005. In that sense, it has been important.
It has also been important in developing these consultations. Norway has a consultation agreement from 2005, and that's based on article 6 in ILO C169, so in that sense it's been important for Norway. The ILO has done quite a lot in developing or setting standards for consultations and also for the processes related to ownership, to land and water. I think that's the main impact as far as I know. My experience is perhaps that Norway doesn't speak as much about UNDRIP as you do in Canada, for example.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Thank you.
I'll go back to you, Professor Turi, and follow up on something that Mr. Whalen was talking about. It was with regard to indigenous knowledge. I used to work as an ecologist. I headed up a team on ecosystem recovery with a mandate to involve indigenous knowledge in British Columbia. This was 20 years ago, and it was very difficult; fraught with difficulty.
You mentioned the issues around ownership of the knowledge. In my area, each type of knowledge is kind of proprietary to certain families. Then you have the inevitable conflict sometimes when indigenous knowledge says one thing and western scientific knowledge says the other. Could you perhaps expand on how the Sami process has gotten around some of these things? It might be a little more straightforward there when it's just covering reindeer herding. As well, what kind of knowledge are we talking about here? Is it just reindeer herding or is it also climate changes and things like that?
Associate Professor, Sámi University of Applied Sciences, As an Individual
To start, it's my impression that you have gotten quite a bit further in Canada than we have in Norway when it comes to dealing with indigenous knowledge. In Norway, even among academics, it's a relatively recent concept that hasn't had as much focus as you've had in Canada. Hence, as researchers, we are very inspired by Canadian researchers.
When it comes to including indigenous knowledge in policy-making, we haven't gotten that far there either. Perhaps the most successful best practice examples I have that include reindeer herding and indigenous knowledge—in something that is at least formative for policy—are the descriptions of Norway in Arctic Council documents. Perhaps it's because the Arctic Council is more used to working with indigenous knowledge than the Norwegian governments are. There are some processes, though, particularly initiated by the Sami Parliament, to make ground documents where you lay the foundation for what indigenous knowledge is, how you can work with it, and what type of benefits there can be. That involves knowledge concerning processes that might be beneficial to society at large—with regard to climate change, for example—and knowledge that's very specific to a single reindeer-herding area.
More generally, though, from my experience working with indigenous reindeer-herding knowledge, yes, you are right that sometimes there might be conflicts between what a scientist says and what an indigenous reindeer herder says, but if you spend enough time elaborating on what you're talking about, there's a tendency to get closer.
Liberal
TJ Harvey Liberal Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you, Chair.
I'll start with you, Professor Hernes. Mr. Cannings made reference earlier to the ILO agreement. He compared it briefly with UNDRIP and maybe its possible deficiencies as compared with UNDRIP. I don't want to ask you about the comparative nature of the two but about your opinion on this. Number one, do you feel it has been successful in its mandate? And number two, even if you do feel it hasn't been successful in its mandate to achieve everything it set out to do, do you feel that the benefits of the agreement have still been for the greater good?
