Natural Resources Committee on May 7th, 2019

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

How much time do I have left?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

One minute.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Okay, so I might have to skip over a few things.

Speaking of these major projects, when there is opposition, has New Zealand or Australia, whichever, had a divide among indigenous groups? If so, were there any takeaways from the results of that divide, and were accommodations made?

How did that nation-to-nation consultation work, or was it tried, with major infrastructure projects?

[Chris Karamea Insley]

Jamie, let me give a New Zealand sort of response to that.

Part of the context of the answer is that in New Zealand, in 1804, we signed a treaty that was, if you like, an agreement between the indigenous people of New Zealand and the state at that time. That treaty effectively says that in good faith, both parties will talk to each other about really anything that affects the nation of New Zealand.

Personally, I think it's okay and it's good that we have the treaty there, but that shouldn't be the primary driver. If you stepped back from whether or not you should have a discussion about these issues, we have issues going on in New Zealand that are around oil and gas, and there is a divide. It comes down to how both parties have talked to each other about the matter in the preceding period, and that could be years. If you have a good solid foundation for that discussion to take place, it's more than likely you're going to achieve an outcome that's acceptable to both parties.

As I said, we have the treaty there also, which says that in good faith you should respect each other and have a discussion. Start those discussions early—and we have many, many examples of this in New Zealand—and if you do and you build a strong relationship, you will start to achieve the kind of outcomes that I alluded to earlier on. Local communities win, Maori people win, and the nation wins.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Now, for seven minutes, we go to Richard.

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

Welcome to you all. Thanks for taking the time to come back to us. I really appreciate it. I'm very jealous, because you're in two of my favourite parts of the world: Medellín and Greater Waikato. I wish I were there—both places at once.

I'm just going to try to pick up on what I think Mr. Schmale was getting at. Mr. Insley, you mentioned in passing the Treaty of Waitangi. I'm just wondering how important those higher level government legal contact relationships are in various countries, or whether you just have to have that relationship and it's all happening down at the community level, the iwi level. You mentioned that that's where the real growth is happening. Are the Waitangi treaty negotiations and implementation an important catalyst for all of that?

[Chris Karamea Insley]

Thank you for the acknowledgement of New Zealand, Richard, and for the question. I think it's a great question. The simple answer to your question is that it's “and, and”. The treaty is a catalyst and is always leaned on now in terms discussion between Maori people and the New Zealand government. We all know that it's there and that it's intended to drive a productive discussion between the parties.

But, at the end of the day, I'm sure you and other members of your committee will understand that it can be a lengthy, drawn-out, highly costly legal process if you choose to go down that path. I would strongly encourage the building of the trust fundamentally with the communities and avoid, if at all possible, going down that much more lengthy, costly process.

Part of the experience in having gone through that process is that it can be very damaging to relationships if you lean on that as the principal mechanism to achieve consensus. It can be damaging and that damage can be long-lasting. My encouragement and urging would be.... We know it's there and that has been helpful—I won't say it hasn't been. A lot of the economic growth that the Maori have achieved has been through that process. But increasingly, what we're seeing is a preference to avoid going down that path. But it is an “and, and”.

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

Just to clarify that, then, you talked about the dramatic growth in the Maori economy, which I'm understanding from what you're saying is based on an acceptance by the broader New Zealand population that this is how things should be done. There's just that integration of the Maori culture into the New Zealand culture. When I've talked to New Zealanders, to me that acceptance seems to be at a very different stage than what we see in Canada. Is that the reason for this growth in the Maori economy?

[Chris Karamea Insley]

You're exactly right again. There is that growing acceptance. It's taken time. In my view it's taken 10, 20, 30 years to achieve that kind of acceptance. I will use one other example just to illustrate the point. One of the other things that I've been asked to become involved in, along with a number of other Maori business leaders, is to sit alongside our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to start to contribute to the development of international trade policy that reflects the particular interests of Maori people, given our size in the New Zealand economy. That acceptance goes further, with what we're now hearing from our government in New Zealand, in that the Maori economy and its culture have become New Zealand's point of difference in trading with other nations, for all of the various products that we will produce from our various parts of the economy.

Again, your point is a very good one. We have reached that point of acceptance by the wider New Zealand community. There is value for all, for the entire nation, by embracing the indigenous community.

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

Do you want to say something to that?

[Raylene Whitford]

I will just add some context for the individuals who haven't had an opportunity to visit New Zealand.

Here the Maori culture is very much integrated into the country. All of the place names are in Maori. There are Maori universities and Maori schools, and this is just a normal thing. This is an accepted thing. Maori is the country's second official language. It's very business as usual, whereas in Canada we're starting to see this resurgence in indigenous pride, renaming of streets, etc., but New Zealand is very much ahead in this respect.

I think that it's not that energy projects need to wait for this to happen; I think it's part and parcel. I think it's going to be a self-propagating entity if you're able to grow the knowledge of the country about and respect for the indigenous culture whilst giving the indigenous communities the opportunity to develop, to go internationally and to participate in these projects. It's going to enable both elements.

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

I'll stay with you, Ms. Whitford, to go to the other end of the spectrum perhaps, with Ecuador, and talk about the legal context there with the concept of Pachamama. I'm suspecting that hasn't had the same impact that the Treaty of Waitangi has had, and that we're at a very different stage of development there.

[Raylene Whitford]

In Ecuador, the indigenous communities have absolutely no rights. They have no mineral rights. They have their settlements and communities, but besides getting government benefit and social insurance, there really is no support for the communities there. It's obviously difficult for them to champion their own development if they don't have the access to these resources and if they don't have the support of the wider government as well.

If you were to place them on a spectrum, I think that Ecuador would be in the very early stages. Canada would be somewhere in the middle, but New Zealand would be 30, 40 or maybe even 50 years ahead of where we are in Canada.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Now we go to our five-minute round.

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you so much to our presenters.

Madam Chair, you're doing an extraordinary job filling in for the regular chair. Thank you so much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

I made a mistake. You get seven minutes.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

I am fascinated by this conversation that we've just seen emerge, in particular with Mr. Insley's reference to the point of difference. Your suggestion is that what sets New Zealand apart is in fact the embracing of the Maori, not only in everyday life but in the economic system as a whole.

Can you tell me how that came about in the last 30 years? Then you can tell me how this is a competitive advantage for you today.

[Chris Karamea Insley]

It's a very good question. Thank you, Kent.

How did it come about over the last 20 or 30 years?

I really have to hold very firmly to the view that it was through the drive of our leaders and our community, who not only encouraged but also literally forced every one of us to go off and get educated. We were encouraged by our leaders to go off and get educated—not just anywhere but in the best places in the world—and to bring that knowledge back home. It was through that period, that 20 years or so that it took for it to come home.

How is that now creating a competitive advantage? It is—it's creating a competitive advantage for our nation. When our prime minister or any senior delegations from New Zealand travel the world, they take a cultural performing group with them. That group will basically open every major meeting for the leaders of our country. They do that willingly. They see that it adds value, and it's recognized internationally.

Our icon in New Zealand, I guess, is our rugby team, the All Blacks. Our All Blacks stand proudly on the world stage. For those of you who follow rugby, they'll do the haka. The haka really does set us apart, not only on the rugby field but in every arena. All of our children—I have two little grandsons now who are four years old—learn rugby from the time they are born. It's become part of our DNA as a nation. It's in this way that it's promulgated, and it's become part of everything we do.

It's linked back to the point that you make about creating competitive advantage, that we can endure because no one out there has that mix of goods that we have. I think there are real lessons in what we've achieved, and so I think your question is a very good one.

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you so much.

I think we have to continue to incorporate many of our indigenous cultures here in Canada. I know we're starting to do that with our federal government, by changing our practices and our ways in going about things.

I would also like to address a question to Ms. Whitford.

I come from the province of Alberta, which is tremendously blessed with natural resources. In fact, over the course of time, we have had an excellent resource economy.

The trouble, as you point out, is how do we get the young people involved? How do we not have intergenerational theft? By that, I mean the spending of all the oil wealth in one generation. Do you know what I'm saying? In our home province, we have largely just said, “The future be damned. We're going to spend it all at once” in terms of those types of issues—low taxes, unlimited spending on health care and education—and then the good times are gone.

How do you see that conversation possibly coming back to indigenous communities and consider, for example, how you can look at aspects of sovereign wealth funds, possibly, and how you can get indigenous ownership that recognizes, in their energy literacy, that once you spend the profits from a barrel of oil, that money is gone for good?

[Raylene Whitford]

Thanks, Kent, for your question. I think it's a very valid one.

Again, I'm going to take it out of the province of Alberta and speak with an international voice.

I think we've all seen the power of sovereign wealth funds. If you look at what Norway and a number of countries have done in the energy sector, those funds are most definitely a very astute way of accumulating and growing capital for future generations.

This is something that is quite difficult, I think, for non-indigenous individuals to comprehend. Indigenous communities are inherently long-term. I'm sure the committee has heard of the seven generations a number of times throughout these sessions. Inherently, indigenous communities are looking towards the future, but it's not the near future; it's the long-term future.

I think that providing support, guidance and opportunities for these communities to set up structures whereby they can begin to secure and grow the capital and also opportunities for these future generations will be something they are very interested in.

If you're able to take best practice internationally in the development of these structures, or these funds or trusts, and not give it to them, not parachute it in, but develop it with them, I think that would be a very big win for the federal government.

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

How do you get more indigenous ownership in these capital projects? Is it building capacity? Is it some other aspect, or is it just education, and continued rigorous hard work building up the community?

[Raylene Whitford]

There are a couple of problems. Most definitely education is important—encouraging the youth to travel internationally and to return. It's also important to give them equity stakes—a valued interest. Giving them a seat at the board table, with an equal voice to those of the other members, is incredibly important. Hopefully, this will shift the conversation from, “Okay, we're going to consult, and tick that box,” to, “We have a very qualified, intelligent, experienced, well-established indigenous person at the table, giving his or her point of view. Everybody around the table is listening and acknowledging that point of view.”

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Now, for our five-minute round, we'll go to Ted.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you to our witnesses, again, for attending this committee. I appreciate the testimony I've heard.

I'd like one point of clarification. Mr. Insley, you talked about the long legal process not being the preferred route in negotiations. Is that in reference to treaties from the past? What were you referencing with that comment?