Evidence of meeting #128 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 communities.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
I'm not aware of any time they have asked for that. They have not.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Mr. Graham, you have about two minutes, including an answer to your question.
4:25 p.m.
David de Burgh Graham Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.
I will take them and make them count. Thank you.
Ms. Velshi, you talked about the 70-year history of CNSC. I'm wondering if you can give us a sense of that history. At what point did these consultations start? What prompted them and how did that process happen? I'm assuming these consultations did not happen 70 years ago.
4:25 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
I have been a commission member for six years and a president for six months, so I can tell you what's happened in that period of time. Even within the six years, I have seen that it's a moving thing: expectations keep on changing and our processes become a lot more inclusive.
Yes, it is a constantly evolving process. Even as we speak today, we have identified ways that we can do a better job and are continually improving on that.
4:25 p.m.
Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.
Okay. I think that's all the time I have. Thank you.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, all, very much, for joining us today, and for your evidence. It's greatly appreciated.
We've run short of time every session, but that is the format.
We're very grateful to you for taking the time to be here. We will suspend for two minutes and then reconvene.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Welcome back, everybody.
We have two groups of witnesses for this hour. From the Canadian Electricity Association, we have Ian Jacobsen and Channa Perera. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. By video conference, we have Professor Dwight Newman. Can you see us and hear us?
You are nodding. That's a good sign.
4:30 p.m.
Professor Dwight Newman Professor of Law and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual
Yes.
4:30 p.m.
Prof. Dwight Newman
That's correct.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Great.
The process is that each group will be given up to 10 minutes for their presentation and then we'll open the floor to questions.
Gentlemen, you are here. Why don't we start with you?
4:30 p.m.
Channa Perera Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Electricity Association
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation.
My name is Channa Perera. I'm the vice-president of policy development at the Canadian Electricity Association. I am joined by my colleague, Mr. Ian Jacobsen, the director of indigenous relations at Ontario Power Generation. We are very pleased to be here today to share our perspective on indigenous engagement.
CEA is the national voice of the Canadian electricity industry. Our members represent generation, transmission and distribution companies, as well as technology and service providers from across the country.
Electricity is indispensable to the quality of life of Canadians and to the competitiveness of our economy. The sector employs approximately 81,000 Canadians and contributes $30 billion to Canada's GDP.
As a major economic sector, we are uniquely positioned to help advance Canada's clean energy future and indigenous reconciliation. As we work toward reconciliation with indigenous people, CEA recognizes the importance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. However, it is imperative for the government to ensure that there is no ambiguity in the implementation of these policy instruments, so that we can work toward genuine reconciliation.
The electricity industry is already at the forefront of indigenous engagement. In 2016, CEA and our member companies developed a set of core national principles for indigenous engagement, further codifying our long-standing commitment to work with local indigenous communities across the country.
Our work with indigenous communities has led to major partnerships and joint ventures, impact benefit agreements, supply chain business opportunities and direct investments in indigenous education, training and employment.
Let me highlight a few examples of these initiatives by CEA members. One example of a joint venture is the 200-megawatt Wuskwatim Power Partnership signed by Manitoba Hydro in 2006. This marked the first time that Manitoba Hydro and a first nation had entered into a formal equity partnership, ensuring the community of important business income, training, employment and other opportunities.
The industry also works with many local indigenous communities in the development of impact benefit agreements. IBAs have become an important instrument, allowing these communities to fully participate in projects carried out within the traditional territory. An example of this is the Lower Churchill project, an IBA between Nalcor Energy and the Innu Nation. These types of IBAs allow companies to work with indigenous communities on many project elements, from mitigating environmental impacts to facilitating education, training, employment and procurement opportunities.
Our efforts do not end there. We are also investing in a new generation of indigenous leaders, through specific education and training initiatives. That's why companies such as ATCO based in Alberta are taking leadership roles. In 2018, ATCO launched an indigenous youth leadership and career development pilot program for grade 9 students across Alberta. This allows indigenous students to explore local work sites and connect with skilled professionals to learn about employment options and how to build a career of their own. In addition, ATCO and other CEA member companies also support indigenous students across Canada, through financial assistance to pursue higher education.
Now, let me turn to my colleague, Ian, who will provide a practitioner's perspective on indigenous engagement at Ontario Power Generation.
4:35 p.m.
Ian Jacobsen Director, Indigenous Relations, Ontario Power Generation, Canadian Electricity Association
Great. Thank you, Channa.
OPG is the largest electricity generator in Ontario, providing about a half of the province's power. Our diverse generating fleet includes two nuclear stations, 66 hydroelectric stations, two biomass stations, one thermal station and later this year, one solar facility.
With operations that span the province, OPG's commitment to building long-term, respectful and mutually beneficial relationships with indigenous communities is based on the acknowledgement that our assets are all situated on the traditional territories of indigenous peoples in Ontario.
OPG and its successor companies have generated electricity in Ontario for over a century. However, we also recognize that hydro development over the better part of the 20th century had significant impacts upon many indigenous communities in Ontario. With this understanding, OPG developed a formal voluntary framework to assess and resolve historic grievances largely related to the illegal flooding of reserve lands. Over the past 27 years, OPG has reached grievance settlements with 21 first nation communities through a respectful, non-adversarial and community-driven process. This process has led to some successful equity partnerships. In fact, this spring OPG and Lac Seul First Nation will celebrate the 10-year anniversary of our partnership on the Lac Seul generating station.
The station was completed in 2009, with OPG and Lac Seul forming a historic equity partnership, the first for OPG, in which the first nation is an equity owner in the Lac Seul generating station, a 12-megawatt unit capable of generating enough electricity to meet the yearly demand of 5,000 homes.
Building on that model, in 2016, OPG completed the $2.6-billion Lower Mattagami River project, an equity partnership with the Moose Cree First Nation. This project was completed ahead of time and on budget. Approximately 250 local indigenous people worked on the project. Moreover, Moose Cree benefited from over $300 million in contracting opportunities. Throughout the project, OPG worked closely with Moose Cree and other surrounding communities on a number of employment, environmental and cultural initiatives. These included the development of the Sibi employment and training initiative, which provided a number of client support services to maximize community employment on the project, as well as undertaking traditional ecological knowledge studies. They also included the creation of the Mattagami extensions coordinating committee in collaboration with Moose Cree, Taykwa Tagamou Nation, and MoCreebec to monitor the completion of the terms and conditions of the environmental assessment approvals. As well, they included supporting the development of the dictionary of the Moose Cree.
More recently, in the spring of 2017, OPG completed the Peter Sutherland Sr. generating station, another equity partnership with Taykwa Tagamou Nation. Named after a respected TTN elder, this new $300-million generating station was placed in service on budget and ahead of schedule. Fifty TTN members worked on the project, which employed about 220 individuals at the peak of construction. In addition, approximately $53.5 million in subcontracts were awarded through competitive processes to TTN joint venture businesses during the construction phase of the station.
In May 2016, OPG announced an equity partnership with the Six Nations development corporation to build a solar generation facility at the Nanticoke generating station on Lake Erie. This was formerly a coal-fuelled power station that was retired in 2013.
The Nanticoke solar park will be capable of generating 44 megawatts of clean, renewable power for Ontario when it is placed in service later this year. In 2018, OPG launched the indigenous opportunities in nuclear program, also known as ION, to support the Darlington refurbishment project and to fill the widening skilled trades availability gap. Working in collaboration with Kagita Mikam Aboriginal Employment and Training and the Electrical Power Systems Construction Association, the ION program seeks to recruit qualified indigenous workers and set them on exciting projects such as the Darlington refurbishment project.
Since the program's launch, ION achieved its 2018 targets for successful placements and we are on track for continued success in 2019. From a project development context, we believe these types of partnerships and collaborative relationships with indigenous communities and the mutual benefits they bring can be excellent models for reconciliation and for OPG to demonstrate what providing power with purpose is all about.
Channa.
4:40 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Electricity Association
Thank you, Ian.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate our commitment to advancing indigenous reconciliation in Canada. Let's work together and create a brighter future for our indigenous people.
Thank you.
4:40 p.m.
Prof. Dwight Newman
Good afternoon.
My name is Dwight Newman. I work as a professor of law and Canada research chair in indigenous rights in constitutional and international law at the University of Saskatchewan. In this role, I carry on a broad-based program of research on indigenous rights law, with one significant focus within that being on global intersections of indigenous rights and resource development. I also serve in related policy discussion roles, including as a member of the International Law Association committee on the implementation of the rights of indigenous peoples, and I've engaged in some related practice roles. However, I appear today as an individual simply to assist the committee in whatever ways I can.
I'll begin by commending the committee for its attention to this issue framed in broad ways. There's both room and need for broad, strategic thinking in the context of reconciliation in general, and economic reconciliation specifically, and trying to find good ways to move forward together.
I'm going to do two things in my opening remarks. First, while appreciating the committee's efforts to think creatively, I will probably sound somewhat of a cautionary note on the idea of going out and finding international best practices elsewhere, and will urge ongoing attention to the need to keep doing sophisticated policy work and developing the best ways forward that work for Canada and the indigenous peoples of Canada.
Second, I will try to refer to some promising practices present in emerging ways in Canada and in other jurisdictions. I'll suggest learning on a smaller scale, more so than hoping to find one perfect international best practice that we can import.
On my first point, then, we need to be cautious about seeking the perfect international best practice. Let me offer a few examples of some risks that can arise in trying to transplant best practices between very different contexts.
Consider something such as the Sami Parliament in Norway, often cited as a powerful example of an institution for consultation with indigenous peoples. There's a mechanism within the procedures by which Norwegian legislative and policy development processes work so that issues that could affect the Sami people of Norway trigger an alert to the Sami Parliament and consultation may proceed from there at a full countrywide level. However, the Sami Parliament operates in a very different context in which, first, the Sami people are more linguistically and culturally unified than the diverse indigenous peoples of Canada.
A key issue for Canada, were it to think about moving toward some larger scale consultation mechanism as part of Canadian policy, going beyond the duty to consult, in thinking about anything similar to the Sami Parliament, would be the need to see the indigenous peoples of Canada decide in what ways, through what more complex combination of institutions, they could present their interests analogous to the way the Sami present through the Sami Parliament.
Second, we also shouldn't glamorize Norway for its indigenous engagement on energy issues. Most Norwegian energy development and the source of Norway's immense wealth has been North Sea oil, which the Norwegian government took the view had nothing to do with the Sami people whatsoever.
If we're thinking just within Scandinavia, in neighbouring Sweden where resource development questions centre on potential mining development that almost inevitably interferes with the Sami people's reindeer herding—which I think this committee heard a bit about in prior testimony—there's a much more tense situation on indigenous rights generally. Sweden hasn't found the same solutions as Norway, but it operates in a very different context.
In Alaska, which I think has been referred to before in this committee, many indigenous communities have prospered from north slope oil and the foundations it provided for a set of regional economic development corporations. Today, there's meaningful support for the Alaskan system within the state. However, the origins of the system came effectively from a top-down decision that aboriginal title claims in the state were to be resolved on a statewide basis all at once. While there were some negotiations with the Alaska Federation of Natives, which also contributed ideas such as that of a corporate structure in which native Alaskans would be stockholders, the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act adopted by the U.S. Congress to implement a resolution to all aboriginal title claims in Alaska at the same time has met with mixed reactions over the years due to its top-down character. Therefore, even while some tout what the Alaskan system achieved, its origins came from a process that would not fit with many Canadian expectations of engagement with indigenous peoples in policy development and claims resolution.
I could go on with more examples along similar lines showing why it's very important to be cautious in transplanting ideas, but I want to turn to smaller-scale best practices that are already emerging in Canada and elsewhere, and that have a lot of potential.
Successful engagement is probably best said to exist when all involved can say they've had a successful process and a successful result. Two jurisdictions in the world stand out, from large numbers, of win-win agreements in the form of indigenous industry agreements to facilitate particular developments. Those are Australia and Canada itself.
Indigenous industry agreements have received much less scholarly study than one might hope, although there is an Australian scholar who has done some important comparative work on agreements in both Canada and Australia. He identifies a lot of contextual factors for what makes for successful agreements and what doesn't.
A colleague and I ran a workshop recently and are working on an edited collection on indigenous industry agreements. I think we would agree with much of that. Facilitating indigenous industry agreements is probably one of the best ways of finding engagement that works.
Here, I deliberately use the term “indigenous industry agreements” as a broader term than just “impact benefit agreements” or IBAs, a concept that has drawn much attention over the years. Some IBAs have brought significant resources into indigenous communities, and some have enabled building for the future, particularly when they have included strong provisions supporting business development that outlasts a particular non-renewable resource or that builds from the base of an existing renewable resource.
There are other, further models to consider, however, including joint venture agreements, equity partnerships—as referenced already in this session—and even indigenous-led development that may be significant parts of the future of indigenous industry agreements more generally. When some indigenous communities themselves seek to undertake particular energy developments, their doing so provides a strong sign of successful engagement or even something going beyond mere engagement.
Here, though, we need to think of many different policy issues, including sound financing mechanisms. We also need to be very attentive to the fact that indigenous communities in Canada are highly diverse. Some wish to ensure strong protections for traditional lifestyles. Others are very enthusiastic to participate in energy development and even to be leaders in energy development.
One of the risks of too much legislation in Canada is framed around our adopting some assumptions rather than others. Too much is framed around old assumptions that development is going to occur or not occur after a bit of consultation with indigenous communities who are assumed to be “in the road”. Then, even in current legislation we continue to see legislation putting obstacles in the road of those indigenous communities that want to carry out indigenous-led development.
There is, then, a lot of complexity at stake.
I'll refer just briefly in closing to the 2013 report of the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, which concerned extractive industries. Even while cautioning against some types of development, the special rapporteur commended the idea of indigenous-led development. I would suggest it is the practice that we should seek to foster in any context in which it works, because it's certainly one that brings everyone together. Wherever it can work, just as constructive indigenous industry agreements work but going even beyond them, indigenous-led development represents a real win-win in resource development, bringing a lot of alignment between otherwise competing interests.
Making it work requires a lot of ongoing and important policy work, on finance issues, opening opportunities for indigenous business and economic success more generally, and all kinds of other policy issues that are different from the traditional concerns we've tended to focus on. I think they speak to the future.
I'll end on what I hope is an optimistic note. It may be possible to learn some things from various practices that have been developed, and I again commend the committee for doing so. In my own view, the best practices are probably still ahead of us and are ones to keep seeking.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you very much, Professor.
Mr. Hehr, you're going to start us off.
4:50 p.m.
Kent Hehr Calgary Centre, Lib.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the guests for coming and taking part in this very important study on how we engage with our indigenous peoples both in the duty to consult and in the way we move projects forward. I appreciated the commentary on how we move from a discussion on the duty to consult, and how people are adversely impacted, to how we make them proponents of projects and part of the apparatus that sees projects through and communities thrive.
On that note, can you discuss the topic of early engagement? It seems to me that this has to be one of the ways that successful projects happen. With early engagement, people can get everything out on the table concerning how we move forward.
Mr. Jacobsen, do you mind starting us off on that?
4:55 p.m.
Director, Indigenous Relations, Ontario Power Generation, Canadian Electricity Association
Absolutely.
As a practice, OPG undertakes early engagement and consultation on all of our projects, primarily with a goal of achieving a common understanding of the project, of potential impacts and of mitigation strategies, as well as finding mutual interest in common objectives.
As demonstrated in our equity partnerships, I think we've been successful in doing that. It's a standard process for us at OPG. We're unique in that some of our assets are over one hundred years old, so we have long-term relationships with many of the communities that are in our operation. We do have the benefit of having those ongoing relationships.
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Electricity Association
Yes. The association of members is currently working with other organizations as well to promote indigenous capacity-building. That way, they can actually be some of the project proponents. We're working with 20/20 catalysts, a program based in Ottawa. Their main mandate is to promote clean energy projects across the country.
CEA is very much involved with them. We've been working with members to send potential indigenous candidates to participate in their programs so they get the skills and information they need to go back into their communities and initiate run-of-river projects and similar, smaller-scale projects, and to work with the community leaders to make some of these ideas prosper and happen over time.
4:55 p.m.
Calgary Centre, Lib.
Perfect.
Manitoba Hydro has international operations in Scandinavia and South America. How have those projects incorporated indigenous voices, and what can we learn from those endeavours?
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Electricity Association
Are you referencing Manitoba Hydro?
