Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 21st, 2019

[Raylene Whitford]

Yes, absolutely. I think building capacity should account for a significant amount, but you can also not ignore the economic impact and the environmental impact. It's a delicate balance, absolutely, but I often feel.... At least in my experience in Ecuador, building capacity was the gap that Canative was looking to fill. Often, these communities would be given assets such as hotels or barges and would be taught how to use them, but they couldn't monetize them simply because they didn't have that knowledge.

It's not as simple as how to use an accounting system. It's understanding cash flows and understanding taxes. We had a community on the border with Colombia. The women of the community decided to grow and sell chickens to the local catering company. Instead of the chickens coming from Quito and travelling 12 hours by boat up the river, they were grown in the community and sold right then and there. However, the women didn't realize that they were going to have to pay tax, and at the end of the year they were slapped with a $20,000 tax bill they couldn't afford to pay.

It's developing this knowledge of practical business elements that is really important. It shouldn't be just for a small group of people who are running the business that is engaging with the energy industry. It should be for the community as a whole.

[Kent Hehr]

To my friends at the Indian Resource Council from Treaty No. 6 and Onion Lake and Lloydminster, I actually had the privilege of playing hockey up in Lloydminster in 1987-88, and I worked at the Lloydminster upgrader. I know a bit about the area, and it's an honour to have you gentlemen here.

My question for you is around early engagement, on having that process whereby you're really fully integrated into the community. Do you think this would lead to more success? Should it be incorporated into our best practices to ensure that we have that communication dialogue that leads to a win-win situation?

[Chief Delbert Wapass, Board Member, Indian Resource Council]

For all who are here, good afternoon. It's Delbert Wapass here.

That is a very important question. It is very important because when you're working with first nations it's not about money, right? It's about relationships. It's about trust. It's about understanding: understanding the environment and understanding that the economy and environment don't need to be at opposite ends. When you understand each other.... We went through this when the Husky Energy oil spill happened in July of 2016. We could have taken the position of fighting Husky on it and milking it for everything we could, but our elders and our community took the position of working together and understanding and building from that to something that is better.

If we hadn't had that prior relationship where we understood each other, where we got along with each other, where they understood our community.... They understand that in our community as first nations people we have been trained to become gold medalists in administering poverty. We need—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'm going to have to interrupt—

[Chief Delbert Wapass]

—to now train ourselves to get out of that and become gold medalists in administering wealth, and you aren't going to get there without an established relationship. That understanding and early engagement will provide that.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks.

Mr. Genuis, you're up.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you so much to all of you. This is such powerful and important testimony, and I hope many Canadians will have the opportunity to hear what you've said today and to hear all of you in the future. One of my frustrations is with the politicians who talk about listening to indigenous people but then only want to reflect those indigenous people whose voices agree exactly with them on everything. It's very important that you, as indigenous leaders, have this opportunity to speak for yourself and your experience, and that we listen.

I just want to bring greetings and share the regrets of our shadow minister for natural resources, Shannon Stubbs, who I know is a great fan of all of you. She wishes she could be here today. I have the honour of subbing for her.

I wanted to ask about the requirement to consult when governments bring in anti-energy, anti-development policies. We recently had public servants before the committee who told us clearly that their understanding is that there is a legal duty to consult on any decision that impacts indigenous communities. In this context, that includes not only decisions to develop a resource but also decisions to impose restrictions on the development of the resource. In other words, when you have the imposition of a policy for a tanker exclusion zone that prohibits the export of natural resources off the northern coast of B.C., there is a duty to consult with indigenous peoples before imposing that policy. Prior to the imposition of the off-shore drilling ban in the Arctic, there was a legal duty to consult.

What we also heard at that time from those public servants was that they had no information about any consultation having taken place with any indigenous communities before the imposition of those policies.

Let's start, in particular, with the representatives of the Indian Resource Council. Do you agree there is a duty to consult when anti-energy, anti-development policies are imposed? Was there any meaningful consultation undertaken by the government in these areas? What kind of recourse do you have if it is the case that the government is running roughshod over your rights and your opportunities?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'm sorry.

Mr. Hehr.

[Kent Hehr]

This study is supposed to be about international best practices and how we can learn from those experiences and incorporate them going forward. I don't believe my friend is following along with questioning that adds to the study or moves it forward.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, on that point of order, it's clear that my colleague who's supposed to be representing Calgary in this place is uncomfortable with the line of questioning, but I think it very clearly springs from the testimony that was given. The witnesses spoke directly about their concerns about anti-energy policies imposed by this government and the negative impact it has on them. I'd be very interested in hearing their response.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Our colleague from Calgary, and I include you in that—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm not from Calgary. I'm from Sherwood Park.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I was referring to Mr. Hehr, who you said was your colleague. In any event, thank you for that.

His point is well taken in my opinion. This study is about international best practices. His point was that your question does not address anything related to international best practices. I think it was an appropriate point of order to make, so I would ask that you keep that in mind going forward and tailor your questions accordingly.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Does the imposition of anti-energy, anti-development policies by this government without consultation with indigenous communities reflect international best practices?

[Wallace Fox]

Does it affect...? I was curious. I went like this. Government has selective hearing. Nobody has consulted us about any legislation that is being drafted and going through the process in government—nobody.

They have a process already established. I say “they”, meaning the government and AFN, who does not speak on behalf of the individual sovereign nations. This is where the problem is.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you very much. That's an important point.

Have you as rights holders, as leaders of indigenous communities, as leaders of nations that are supposed to have that nation-to-nation relationship with the federal government—your information is so important—had an opportunity to meet with the Prime Minister, to meet with the Minister of Natural Resources?

[Wallace Fox]

I haven't personally, but perhaps they have.

[Chief Delbert Wapass]

When it comes to consultation, I think there's been a lot of interference. I think the process set out by this government means well, but when you're having interference from the AFN and others who are saying that this is how it's supposed to be, affecting the relationship between government and the first nations, it can be problematic. When it comes to engagement and consultation, how people who are advising government decide what is meaningful consultation versus how the first nations themselves want to be consulted may be at conflicting ends—but they may be on the same side as well. It all depends on how you're reaching out to that first nation.

I can go back to this government. I can go back to the previous government. I can go back to...and we get it back home as well, as first nations chiefs: “You have not consulted us. You're asking government to consult with you, yet you're not even doing an effective job of consulting us, and we're your members.” You'll always be guilty of that. The challenge is to ensure that there is that openness and that willingness to tweak whatever you have to, when it comes to consultation, to meet whatever standard is required within that community. Just going once is not the answer. Even for us, in our own first nations community, we have to go back more than once to get a yes or to continue getting a no. At least we've consulted. It's important that the communication, that the engagement, is proper.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Very clearly, then, your expectation would be to be consulted not just before a project moves forward but also before policies are put in place that will block projects. If I'm understanding correctly what you're saying, your view is that there is an absolute requirement to do that consultation not only before you say yes but also before you put in place those barriers like we're seeing in Bill C-48 and Bill C-69.

[Chief Delbert Wapass]

I think it's important that we understand what is being proposed. We do get that information, but having the means to go through that information and having the resources to go through that information is another question. How are you defining “meaningful”? Through which lens are you defining it?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Chief, I have to stop you there. We're beyond our time. Thank you.

Mr. Cannings.

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

Thank you to all of you for being here; somebody is still on their way, I guess. I really appreciate your testimony. It's been very interesting.

I will start with you, Ms. Whitford, because I want to hear more about your experiences in Ecuador. I have been to Ecuador a few times, although only a few days or weeks at a time. I spent some time in Oriente. When I first went there in the late eighties it seemed to me like northern Canada, despite the fact it was a steaming jungle. It was this vast wilderness area where people felt that a lot of the resources and wealth were being produced for Ecuador, and yet a lot of the benefits were not seen there. There were, at that time, some negative interactions between indigenous populations and resource companies, even some Canadian companies. I think there is even ongoing litigation along those lines.

Can you tell us just in general terms to start off, because obviously a lot of this happened before you went there, from your experience, what has changed in Ecuador that perhaps we could learn from here on this committee and in this government to better involve indigenous peoples in resource decisions and resource extraction?

[Raylene Whitford]

Let me be completely transparent. Equador is not a model of best practices for indigenous people and the energy industry. There are still a lot of problems. I cannot think of any country in the world where things are working perfectly and everybody is happy. I think you may have some future witnesses from New Zealand, which I see as a front-runner, but there are still many issues in that country as well.

I try not to get bogged down by the negativity of this interaction in the industry. I try to look for the non-critical elements and draw on that. Yes, there is a huge class action lawsuit that has been ongoing for 16 years and has not been settled. That is still an issue. Yes, there are still environmental concerns. There are many communities that are not happy with their relationship with the government and the national oil company and mining companies. It is not the perfect place, but what we are seeing, and what I'm seeing, are small elements of change.

In my interactions with the communities I met, it wasn't that the people did not want to engage with the industry, but that they didn't know how. Or, they were given tools, but they didn't know how to use them, they didn't know how to monetize them, and they got frustrated.

As an example, I had the fortunate opportunity to meet a young lawyer who went to Quito, got educated and returned home to his community. He was very open-minded and very embracing of the different potential opportunities the industry could bring, but he very quickly turned because he got frustrated. I think there are many different elements that contributed, but you are starting to see people pushing forward and things beginning to change. It's just a question of keeping that momentum up.

I've dedicated my career to this. My mission is to begin to contribute to the positive dialogue and positive outcomes for indigenous communities and the industry.

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

You talked about the importance of building capacity or capabilities within the communities. We've heard a lot about that, not just in this study at this committee but in other studies around the mining industry as well. How is that happening in Equador? What are some good examples you've seen, perhaps in Equador or in Canada, that you would point to as being important things that we can look at, whether it's just getting young people to educational facilities that train them in various things or whether it's to actually have on-the-job training and those sorts of things?

[Raylene Whitford]

I'm a testament to having education and scholarships, people in the community pushing you to pursue further education. I am very grateful for that. If I did not have the late Herb Belcourt, who supported me through my journey, I would not be here speaking to you right now. But I think it goes to very many different levels. You have the professional education. We want more indigenous doctors, lawyers and politicians, but we also want more indigenous tradespeople, we also want elders, we want school children to begin to think as entrepreneurs.

I think that indigenous people are inherently entrepreneurs. They're naturally hard workers from what I've seen around the world. It's not about forcing this, but providing the opportunity for different levels to learn different ways of doing things. From what I've seen, for example, with school children—and this is in El Oriente, where there are shared bathrooms, the homes don't even have their own toilets—you have these school children who are interested in learning about what is a business case, or how could I do this or what are other people doing? I think it's taking that interest and engaging with them and beginning to socialize these western concepts.