Transport Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2017

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I, too, want to express my condolences at the loss of your elder.

The questions I'm going to ask can go to all three of you.

With respect to the engagement the ministry has embarked on throughout the past few years, starting in January of 2016, with the first nations community in general or the Métis community, I have a list of meetings and consultations that happened between January 1, 2016 and March 2017. Were you folks not part of that?

I have a list of all the different areas that were consulted with here, all the different nations, all the different areas, from Vancouver to Prince Rupert, right on down the coast. Were you folks not part of that consultation process?

[John Helin]

It depends on how you define “consultation”, I guess. A quick meeting is not consultation. Right after I was elected, the minister came to Prince Rupert and met with a representative from my council. I wasn't able to make that meeting. Again, there were meetings on LNG and on OPP, so they weren't all on the tanker moratorium. I think I've had maybe two meetings with the minister specifically on the tanker ban, so as far as I'm concerned....

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I'm seeing about 25 meetings that were held here in that time frame. Now also there were 29 meetings held with the private sector with the oil and gas industry that I'm sure were opened up, too, between the January 2015 and April of 2017. I guess it goes back to section 35, when it states “meaningful consultation”. I'm sure that's a bit subjective. I'm just concerned over the fact that we've had over 50 meetings with both sectors, and you're stating that you haven't had enough consultation.

[John Helin]

It depends on what that meeting was for. Again, on the tanker ban, all I recall are two meetings.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Okay.

[John Helin]

There were meetings on different issues.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Okay.

My next question is with respect to the comment made about land use planning. I'm sure, as a mayor—which is a life I lived for about 14 years of my life as well—land use planning is probably of the utmost importance in trying to look at the present, and of course, the sustainability and future of the community.

With that said, and taking this issue into consideration, in terms of your official land use plan, which includes everything from your infrastructure, your emergency services, and your emergency preparedness plans with your different providers of those services—police, ambulance, fire—as well as those that operate your infrastructure, such as water, waste water, in particular, in terms of ensuring the quality of it, am I to assume that's all in place currently and takes into consideration projects like this?

[John Helin]

I can speak for my community that the last time I was the chief, in 2007-08, I signed a land use plan with the province, but nothing like this was on the table at that time. The Great Bear Rainforest is something that came after I was elected the last time, and they were working on it before I was elected this time.

I don't know what took place with our community members, but in all the questions I've asked of our hereditary leaders and our elected leaders, there was no consultation and nothing around tanker moratoriums, for sure.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Going back to my question about your land use planning, is there, in fact, built into your land use planning...? I'll give you some examples, and I'll use layers to simplify it. With respect to your water, waste water, roads, emergency preparedness, emergency infrastructure, a cost-benefit analysis vis-à-vis what it's going to cost to prepare for an investment like this, and then what the benefit of the revenue that is going to come in is and the net result, was all that ever done, and therefore, driving your ultimate opinion of whether this project should move forward or not?

[John Helin]

No. It never got that detailed.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Chong.

I'm sorry. You still have time. Go ahead, Mr. Ghostkeeper.

[Elmer Ghostkeeper]

Okay, thanks.

The way I understand consultation policy, the provincial Government of Alberta has one. When you enter into consultation, and it's mostly done with industry, you negotiate a memorandum of understanding of how that is going to unfold.

Can I ask you, does this federal government have an indigenous consultation policy stemming from section 35?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Essentially, the short answer would be yes, but as I said earlier, the bottom line is that it can be subjective based on what people understand as being meaningful consultation.

[Elmer Ghostkeeper]

Can I...?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

What I'm seeing here is that consultation has happened, but where I'm at a loss—and I'll be quite frank—is that there are opinions being given here on behalf of communities without any land use planning on which to actually give that opinion.

When we look at the infrastructure, the planning of a community, and the cost-benefit analysis—at least in my past experience—before I would give an opinion on something, I would actually do work to come to that opinion as it related to the planning ahead to be sustainable, but as well to have the proper infrastructure in place to actually be able to handle a development like that.

Mr. Helin, I'm sure you can understand what I'm saying as a mayor. You want to get to that point first before actually making an opinion.

Going to your point, Mr.—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Your time is up.

[Elmer Ghostkeeper]

If I can follow up, if you do have a policy, can I have it, please?

Thanks.

[John Helin]

I'd just like to respond to the last comment made by the member.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Can you try to engage that into your other conversation so that we can just keep on track?

[John Helin]

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Chong, go ahead.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing in front of us today to talk to us about your concerns around the duty to consult and accommodate. I think it's important to have your views on the record.

The government has a clear, constitutionally defined responsibility as outlined in section 35 and also outlined in court decisions from the Supreme Court in recent years about a very specific duty to not only consult but to accommodate. It seems to me that didn't happen, Madam Chair, in this instance on Bill C-48.

The duty to consult and accommodate doesn't simply mean having a meeting with aboriginal peoples whose treaty rights are affected by this project. It goes far deeper and is far more specific than that. For example, the government cannot act unilaterally in any regard. It needs to consult on what studies need to be done to assess the negative impacts on aboriginal peoples along the route, and it needs to consult with aboriginal peoples before information is taken. There are many other very specific requirements that the court has outlined in various decisions.

Other than the meetings that you've mentioned, it doesn't seem to me that a lot of those proper consultations and accommodations were made ahead of the introduction of Bill C-48. For example, did the government ask you what studies it needed to undertake to assess the negative impacts on your communities if Bill C-48 were to proceed?

[Elmer Ghostkeeper]

I'd like to start off by saying that, first of all, in the meetings we had with the minister and any federal officials, we stated up front that the meeting was not a consultation and that it was just a meeting to get an understanding from both sides. Consultation is a much deeper process. There should be a policy that we both have negotiated with one another, as we did with the province of Alberta. We always stated that the meetings we had were not consultation.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Chair, this is a pretty significant issue that has been brought to our committee's attention. This northern gateway project was a $7.9-billion project. As I understand it, the Aboriginal Equity Partners were at minimum offered a 10% equity stake. They were offered the commitment to recruit aboriginal Canadians into senior management positions on this project. They were offered economic opportunities and jobs in the construction itself. That was at minimum. My understanding is that this equity stake may very well have instead found its culmination in a partnership that would have seen aboriginal peoples, Enbridge, and oil suppliers each owning one-third of this project, and seeing for the first time in the north a significant aboriginal ownership and investment of this pipeline.

Could you speak to the lost opportunities that your communities are facing as a result of decisions taken by the government not only in respect of the northern gateway project but also in respect of Bill C-48?