Natural Resources Committee on April 4th, 2019

[Prof. Brenda Gunn]

Maybe I'll just try to speak really quickly, because I believe our time is almost up.

It should be as early as possible. I know that's not the specific answer you're looking for, but we want to make sure that the engagement is early enough so that indigenous peoples can truly participate in the decision-making and have an impact on the outcome. There's a concern that if we're engaging indigenous peoples too late, it's a fait accompli. You want to make sure that the engagement is early enough.

You are right that I have heard criticisms, mostly coming out of Mexico, in fact, that if the engagement is too early, there's no information that can be provided. My only response at that point is that as early as possible, when the first idea comes up, start building that relationship so there is a relationship of mutual trust and respect that can be built upon for consultations about a specific project.

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

Thank you.

Australia.

[Prof. Ciaran O'Faircheallaigh]

The question is when consultation starts. In relation to lands that are under claim or for determined native title, consultation starts when somebody applies for an exploration licence. However, there is a thing called the “expedited procedure”, which means that unless the impact of exploration is expected to be very substantial, that's perfunctory.

If someone applies for a development licence, there is then much more extensive consultation.

In terms of best practice, there is an example of strategic assessment that was conducted in western Australia, which went much earlier. That involved looking at a long stretch of coastline, hundreds of kilometres of coastline, and engaging with people all along that coastline about where a liquefied natural gas hub would be placed. That is much preferable. You then had a two-stage process, once the 11 groups had reached consensus.

I think that also goes back to issues about your pipeline.

Once the 11 groups had reached consensus about the best possible place, there was second level of engagement, much more detailed, with the aboriginal people who had rights in that specific area.

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

Norway, I know you have only one particular group there, so it might not be as complicated as it is for Canada and Australia, but I would love your perspective.

[Gunn-Britt Retter]

It's not that complicated. However, in line with the last answer as well, your question lays different levels. When government is planning the area where oil and gas exploration is to take place, it would be natural to engage with the Sami Parliament, the representative body of the Sami people in Norway.

There's no offshore oil and gas in Finland and Sweden.

On the seismic testing and other levels, when you get into the local level, actually starting the project, the people representing those who are in or near that area would be the ones to consult at that level. Throughout the process, there are different processes and different levels of Sami participation.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Ms. Jolibois, you have three minutes and then we'll wrap it up.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you for this very important discussion from all three organizations. Because of the short time frame, I would like to go back to our witness in Manitoba.

Ms. Gunn, I'm still hung up on this consultation with indigenous populations—first nations, Métis and Inuit—where some provinces look after the Métis, while federally it is the first nations and the Inuit.

How can indigenous communities push for the benefits if they want to get into an agreement with the industry? How can provinces and the federal government help with the process?

[Prof. Brenda Gunn]

That's a challenging question, and I think this is where energy projects or any natural resource project exists in a context in Canada where there have been a historic pitting of first nations against Métis. I think some of the colonial burden and legacy is what we need to be mindful of when we start engaging in these consultations. We need to be aware of that broader context.

Part of where we're at now, at least with the Supreme Court decision in Daniels, is a recognition that the federal government does have responsibility over Métis people. While the provinces have been engaging with Alberta, for example with the Métis settlements, we do now have clarification, at least from the Supreme Court, that the federal government does have a responsibility to engage with Métis, first nations and Inuit.

I also think the question points to the issue that we're engaging in resource development in Canada in a context where there are several outstanding claims and failure to recognize and uphold treaties. I think that leads to a lot of our tensions and problems, the fact that we're moving forward when we still have other issues that need to be resolved. Related to your question is that the faster Canada moves to resolve outstanding land claims, the easier these consultations may be because we've addressed the fundamental issue. That's where I started my presentation, trying to connect the right to free, prior and informed consent to the broader right to self-determination and the rights over lands, territories and resources.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Unfortunately, we're out of time, but thank you very much, all three of you, for taking time from your afternoons, or mornings as the case may be, to join us. It was very helpful and we're very grateful. See everybody on Tuesday.

The meeting is adjourned.