Evidence of meeting #79 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was consultation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
November 2nd, 2017 / 5:15 p.m.
President, Nisga'a Lisims Government
I was just going to ask my colleague before....
5:15 p.m.
General Counsel, Nisga'a Lisims Government
I know we're restricted by time. I have only one more point to add to the comments that were made by our president. Because the Nisga'a Nation has a modern treaty, there's an additional obligation on government that's contained in the cabinet directive, and it has to do with the assessment of modern treaty implications.
It's our position that the Nisga'a Nation and the government did not have the opportunity to pursue the processes in the assessment of modern treaty implications before this bill was introduced. That is lacking, and that's why we're coming here today, to say that additional consultation is needed. We want to be constructive. This is an opportunity for a modern treaty nation to work with the Government of Canada to bring forward legislation that can benefit all Canadians, and that can respect the only modern treaty on the north coast of British Columbia.
We believe that further consultation is required before this bill goes any further. We're seeking the support of this committee to take this back to the House of Commons, do the consultation that's required with the Nisga'a Nation under its modern treaty, look at the treaty to see what opportunities exist in this treaty, and get the balance right between protecting the environment and creating economic opportunities in the north, not just for the south coast of British Columbia.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Thank you.
Ms. Clayton, in your remarks you mentioned that you have agreements.... I'm not sure what you said. I missed it. It was with energy providers or other petroleum providers.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
General Counsel, Nisga'a Lisims Government
I can speak to that.
The president was referring to the number of agreements that the Nisga'a Nation has been successful in negotiating on an environmentally sound basis with proponents in various different resource sectors in the north. With regard to the energy industry, we were the first nation to negotiate an agreement with TransCanada to facilitate the natural gas pipeline that was proposed for Prince Rupert under the Pacific NorthWest LNG project. That's the only energy project negotiation we've undertaken, and it's the only agreement we have in the energy sector.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
You have a whole host of things here in being self-determined, which is great. I was just wondering if you have an environmental protocol, protections, or an arrangement with an association or council.
5:15 p.m.
General Counsel, Nisga'a Lisims Government
President Clayton has asked that I respond.
Yes. Because we have a modern treaty, part of the treaty has a chapter called the environmental assessment and protection chapter. It outlines the rigorous requirements that would be undertaken in any project that's considered for the broader Nass area—that's the 26,000 square kilometres that President Clayton was referring to.
It requires a full assessment on the environmental impacts of any project in the Nass area, that there be a full assessment on the economic, social, and cultural well-being of Nisga'a people, and of course there has to be an assessment of the economic opportunities for Nisga'a people and the Nisga'a Nation to thrive in their territory. The treaty provides for that.
As we've said in our remarks, this is a modern treaty. It was negotiated after 113 years of struggle by the Nisga'a Nation, and it's protected under the Canadian Constitution. We're here to urge that before this bill goes further, the House of Commons considers ensuring that if a moratorium is to be placed on the north coast, which we say is unfairly discriminatory toward people in the north but if there is, there should be a carve-out for the area that's covered by the Nisga'a treaty. We want to work with Canada as our treaty partner to see if we can get the balance right by using the treaty—
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Ms. Rosling, I apologize, I have to cut you off there.
Isaac, you said you dealt with a cleanup.
5:20 p.m.
Isaac Laboucan-Avirom
It was with Plains Midstream, with what I call the “money oil”. It's basically where every producer puts the money into the main line and it goes up to a refinery, but it's not yet refined. I've also dealt with produced water, condensate itself, and some others within our territory.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Thank you.
I'm going to give the rest of my time to Mr. Hardie.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Gagan.
Like you, I tend to be a little sensitive about organizations from away with very deep pockets who come in and try to influence policy in Canada, but they've been successful and I want your comments and reflections as to why. It seems that there are divisions within your community that pit one group against another.
Clearly, as a government, if you all spoke as one voice, it would make our job tremendously easier. I understand that. However, what is going on? What kind of message are they selling that has created those divisions that are very evident when we look at the landscape across the north, between the various first nations?
5:20 p.m.
General Counsel, Nisga'a Lisims Government
With the greatest respect, it's not because other people are talking. It's because people aren't listening. One of the points that President Clayton made in her remarks is that the only conversation we had about this proposed moratorium was very early on, and it was very much a general overview of a potential moratorium. That was really what the conversation was about in the summer of 2016.
Before we knew it, in November 2016, an announcement was made. We didn't know what the geographic extent of the moratorium would be—
5:20 p.m.
General Counsel, Nisga'a Lisims Government
We need to be talking to the modern treaty holder, the Nisga'a Nation, and the other nations on the north coast that are affected by this legislation.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I'm sorry, I wasn't precise in my question. It wasn't so much about the moratorium. It was about the pipeline, the Enbridge pipeline.
5:20 p.m.
General Counsel, Nisga'a Lisims Government
There is no pipeline. We're talking about legislation that would prevent any conversation in the north about potential economic development opportunity. There is no project.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I'm still asking for your help on something. There was opposition to the pipeline. That opposition was founded on some people with very deep pockets and with some kind of interest coming in and influencing the attitude and position of various communities along that corridor.
Why was that so influential? What stopped the creation of a single agreement that would have covered the whole north?
Without a pipeline, of course, any kind of shipment is going to be much more difficult, so we would start with a pipeline.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Mr. Hardie. You got your question out there.
We'll have to see if we can find an opportunity for you to respond to somebody and get that answer out.
Mr. Badawey.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm somewhat going to go along the same lines. I'm going from the foundation or the basis that there was in fact a moratorium in place since 1985, albeit a voluntary moratorium.
As I said to the delegations that showed up earlier, from my past experience in the municipal sector, one of the things we did very diligently was ensure that we had proper strategies, land use planning, proper asset management strategies, and cost-benefit revenue analyses done. I fully appreciate the comments by Ms. Clayton earlier with respect to going down that road and really giving an opinion based on those analyses and strategies and that planning. I appreciate those comments.
That said, in June 2014 it was reported that the federal government had agreed to the northern gateway pipeline and that in fact it would be built. Following that, I believe it was a year later, the approval was then overturned based on lack of consultation by the previous government.
The theme today is somewhat around consultation. Going back to that date, were you actually consulted with during that process, recognizing your land use plans, your asset management strategies, as well as any cost-benefit analysis you might have had in place at that very time?
That question could go to any one of you.
5:25 p.m.
Chairman and President, Chiefs Council, Eagle Spirit Energy
I can only answer from the second-hand information I have. The reason there was so much opposition to the Enbridge pipeline had to do with concerns with the environment and lack of consultation. Their consultation in our community consisted of sending a $5,000 cheque over to the community, and they never even visited.
There was also a lot of concern—and it's the reason Eagle Spirit Energy exists—that as individuals from the north in the community, we understood that oil is an important commodity to Canada. We understood that it is costing producers about $50 million a day to send our oil and it was going to come some way, and that if the first nations people weren't fairly engaged and did not give social licence, it would be very difficult to deal with that commodity. We got involved in this project on that basis.
