Yes.
Evidence of meeting #133 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 community.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #133 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 community.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
It's a little off topic, but as we get into the storage of the energy, how is that affecting you in the business right now?
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Gwich’in Council International
Storage will be a game-changer for us. In Inuvik right now, if you set your clock on a Sunday and go back to look at that clock on the following Sunday—a week's time—that clock will have a eight-minute difference; the hertz is actually what that is. As for the way it's done, they're called brown spots, and they cause interruptions in the computer services, in the electronics.
One of the reasons that the satellite stations are really interested in working with us is what we can provide, and we can level out those bumps. Every time there is a bump in the satellite reception when they're receiving information, while they just have a bump, an interruption, that whole reception is now at the back of the queue. Basically, everybody is fighting for time on the satellite, and it's minute to minute. If they get bumped, they lose their chunk of time. What we're offering with battery storage and solar is that consistent power curve so that those bumps don't happen.
The batteries are the big game-changer. I think the batteries should be deployed throughout all the communities, in conjunction with the utility as well, because they do provide so much consistency and levelling out of the power curve.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
I think I'm going to finish up with you, Mr. Andreassen. You talked about participation fatigue in terms of communities engaging with project proposals, I assume, where people were given no compensation for taking part, they felt that they weren't listened to and the decision didn't reflect in any way the local view.
Our study is about best practices for indigenous engagement here in Canada, but we're looking to other countries, like the United States. What are the laws in the United States?
Here, if a community felt that it wasn't listened to, that the decision didn't reflect the local view and that all the consultation was just listening and writing things down.... We had a Federal Court of Appeal case on the TransMountain pipeline, which was quashed in part because the court found that the government people consulting were just “note-takers”. They weren't really listening to the people. They wrote things down, but they made no attempt to reflect those views in the decision.
What might be the differences in the United States and how would the courts there see that consultation?
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
My understanding is that the Canadian version is more formal, has stricter guidelines and, in a lot of ways, reflects best practice. At the same time, in the U.S. consultation, I think the agencies are given a lot more leeway to act in the interest of the project and the people, in a way that doesn't feel formal but is innovative and responsive.
There is some version of those two systems that might feel better to communities, such that it doesn't feel like you're checking a box and you do feel meaningfully engaged. That's less often about reimbursement, but it might be more about the capacity to be engaged.
Fatigue is having to come back every month or every day to respond to multiple industry partners and multiple agencies. I think there are 14 to 20 different U.S. federal agencies working on Arctic issues. In terms of the number of requests in that regard, to the extent that those can be streamlined, that would reflect a best practice. Ultimately, it's a question of whether that community sees benefits from the process.
I spoke earlier about the conflict within, and a moratorium or not. Groups that are often intent on restricting development are the most likely not to see benefits from the project, and groups that support development see that benefit accrue to their community.
Consultation needs to be structured in such a way that communities do see benefits, do feel respected, and that there are efficiencies and effectiveness within that consultation that reflect their time and their interests.
5 p.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
If a community went through a consultation process and then at the end of it felt that it wasn't adequate, is there any legal recourse for that community?
5 p.m.
Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
My understanding is that it's not as well developed as in Canada. Certainly, a community could litigate but on more uncertain terms, I think.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Gentlemen, thank you all for making yourselves available and attending today. Your evidence will be very helpful to the study that we're soon to be wrapping up, so I offer appreciation on behalf of all the committee members.
We'll suspend for two minutes, and then we'll come back. We're going to be in camera. Everybody's allowed to have one staff member with them during that period.
[Proceedings continue in camera]