THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, April 29, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, met this day at 6:30 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Rosa Galvez (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Rosa Galvez, a senator from Quebec and chair of this committee. I will ask senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator Cordy: I’m Jane Cordy, a senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum. I’m from Treaty 10 in Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: I am André Pratte from Quebec.
Senator Massicotte: I am Paul Massicotte from the beautiful province of Quebec.
[English]
Senator Richards: Dave Richards, New Brunswick.
Senator McCoy: Elaine McCoy, Alberta.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Ontario.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta — God’s country, as my dad would say.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.
Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler, New Brunswick.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
The Chair: I will also introduce the analysts from the Library of Parliament: Sam Banks and Jesse Good. To my left is the clerk of the committee, Maxime Fortin.
Before we begin, I need to leave during the meeting. Senator Cordy will chair the rest of the meeting in my absence.
Colleagues, tonight we are continuing our study of Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. We welcome, by video conference from Edmonton, representing ARC Financial Corp., Mr. Mac Van Wielingen, Founder and Partner; and as an individual, Professor Deborah de Lange, Associate Professor of Global Management Studies, Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson University.
Thank you very much for being with us tonight. I invite each one of you. First will be Mr. Van Wielingen to proceed with your opening statement, to be followed by Professor de Lange and then a period of questions and answers. Thank you.
Mac Van Wielingen, Founder and Partner, ARC Financial Corp.: I first want to thank all of you for your hard work on this committee and for inviting me to testify. I would characterize my purpose today is to offer perspective, groundedness and context within which to consider Bill C-69. My views are as a business leader, an expert in the energy sector, an investor and a deeply committed Canadian.
My first point is one of context, and that is the importance of the Canadian oil, gas and pipeline sector to our economy. The oil and gas extraction and pipeline business in Canada is about the same size, or slightly larger, than the combined banking, investment management and insurance sector in Canada. It is also about 8.2 times larger than Canada’s auto parts manufacturing sector; four times larger than our telecommunications sector; 2.6 times the size of the residential construction industry in Canada; 1.7 times larger than the entire transportation sector in Canada, including air, rail, water, trucking and related warehousing.
This very important industry is now in a meltdown. At the same time, the U.S. oil and gas industry is in the midst of an extraordinary expansion. Numerous major international companies are exiting Canada: Equinor, Total, ConocoPhillips, Marathon, Royal Dutch Shell and most recently Devon Energy. Some of our homegrown leading businesses, such as Encana, TransCanada and Enbridge, are shifting their focus to the United States. Investment capital is exiting. I have direct knowledge that some of our best equipment and most talented workers are exiting. We estimate that 67,000 jobs have been lost in Canada’s energy sector since 2014. These are direct jobs. If you include indirect, the number would be much larger.
Our energy sector in Canada is distressed. At the same time, the U.S. energy sector is booming. The growth in U.S. oil production over the last five years, approximately, is equivalent to adding another Canada in world markets.
One of my most important perspectives that I am offering you today is that it is too late to worry about damaging investor confidence in Canada; the damage has happened. There is virtually no investor interest in the Canadian energy sector at this time. New equity raised last year was approximately $650 million, which was the lowest level in 27 years, since this information has been maintained. That’s down 95 per cent from five years prior.
We are beyond trying to mitigate the risk of damage to investor confidence. It has happened. That’s an important perspective in terms of understanding context within which to consider Bills C-48 and C-69, which I’ll explain. We need major positive strategic turnaround initiatives. Bills C-48 and C-69, in my opinion, as written in current form, are both going in the wrong direction. Broadly, I believe our loss of competitiveness is the product of “made in Canada” failed political, legal and regulatory process. At the top of the list is a series of failed high-profile infrastructure projects. We all know the names: Northern Gateway, Petronas, Energy East, and Trans Mountain. I would emphasize with respect to Northern Gateway that what happened with Northern Gateway was evidence to many investors who follow Canada closely that we represent sovereign risk to investors. It was a situation that was incredibly damaging to our credibility.
One profoundly adverse implication of the failure to build needed infrastructure has been the failure to access the full world price for our commodities. As one of our investors succinctly put this, “Why should we invest in your commodity-based businesses and accept the full risk of these businesses if you cannot get the full value for your commodities?” Most are saying some version of “Canada can’t get their act together and we give up; we’re pulling out.”
Within Canada, our in-fighting has been wrapped up in concern about the industry’s environmental, social and governance — ESG — standards and performance. The perspective that has been lost, ironically, is that our ESG standards and performance are as good as it gets in the world. We know this at ARC Financial. We advocate for Canada’s ESG record to investors globally. It was no surprise to us that global engineering firm WorleyParsons concluded that Canada’s environmental assessment processes are among the best in the world. Many of our corporations are being viewed as best in the world for their ESG performance.
One example, based on my direct knowledge and closeness to the company, is ARC Resources, which has been recognized for its governance leadership by institutional investors, not just in Canada but globally. In 2017, it was ranked in the top 1 per cent of 1,400 companies surveyed globally by Brendan Wood International. We have some fantastic leading businesses in Canada that are showing the way for the rest of the world.
I will be the first to say, though, that our oil sands business has attracted controversy because of relatively high greenhouse gas emissions compared with other crude oils. However, this has been totally blown out of proportion. Our oil sands contribute to only 0.15 per cent of global emissions — one seventh of 1 per cent of global emissions. Further, if we phase out our oil sands, our lost barrels would be replaced by other suppliers of heavy oil, notably ones from Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and historically from Venezuela and Mexico.
These other suppliers will generate GHGs and greenhouse gas emissions. We’ve calculated that the net reduction in global greenhouse gases from the phase-out of our oil sands would be 0.03 of 1 per cent, that is three one hundredths of 1 per cent. The impact would be negligible.
These other suppliers also have significantly inferior ESG standards. For further context, the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from China and India in 2018 relative to 2017 was equivalent to adding 10 Canadian oil sands sectors per year. Canada’s oil sands greenhouse gas emissions are immaterial to the issue of global emissions and climate change. That is a reality that some people have trouble accepting. It is a fact.
We are nevertheless advancing and adapting oil sands emissions. Intensities have been steadily improving, but perceptions are not keeping up with reality. There are two critical points —
Senator Jane Cordy (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Acting Chair: Mr. Van Wielingen, it’s supposed to be a five-minute presentation. We’re over eight. I wonder if you could finish up in the next minute, please.
Mr. Van Wielingen: I want to focus specifically my final comment here on Bill C-69. Bill C-69 is, in my opinion, fundamentally weak and deficient. It could move us from bad to worse at a time when we cannot stand more downside risk. The issues you would have heard from many other witnesses, but there are two issues I would focus on. The first is that independent government processes implicit within administrative law are being seriously compromised. The other issue is the severity of discouragement from project proponents, which I believe is a serious red flag. We need to make amendments that our leading project proponents are requesting and we need to encourage them not to do so as horribly impractical.
Thank you very much.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Deborah de Lange. She is an associate professor of global management studies at the Ted Rogers School of Management at Ryerson University. Welcome to our committee this evening.
Deborah de Lange, Associate Professor, Global Management Studies, Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson University, as an individual: It’s a pleasure and an honour to be able to comment on Bill C-69. I’m going to start by talking about aspects of Bill C-69.
I studied the bill in detail. My comments relate to detailed comments with respect to the bill. I think the bill has many strengths, primarily on qualitative but not quantitative grounds. In five minutes, I’ve been asked to comment on investment and financial considerations or impacts on investment. I will focus my comments accordingly. I have provided slides. There’s a huge appendix and a lot of aspects that I can’t talk about. I went into quite a bit detail with respect to examining the bill.
Overall, I would like to see some changes to the bill and because I have limited time, I’m going to just focus on those changes. Up front, I would like to acknowledge that business investment needs reliable, long-term policies. In the IAA it states: “A transparent, efficient and timely decision-making process contributes to a positive investment climate in Canada.” Absolutely agreed.
Understanding all of that, I have some comments to make. Part 1 is the impact assessment act. I would like to consider renaming this to the impact and response assessment act, as will come out and be explained in my next comments.
The precautionary principle denotes a duty to prevent harm when it is within our power to do so, even when all the evidence is not in. This principle has been codified in several international treaties to which Canada is a signatory. Domestic law makes reference to this principle but implementation remains limited, and that is according to the Canadian Environmental Law Association website.
Understanding the precautionary principle and the orientation of this bill towards sustainability, estimating the severity of impacts requires estimating responses. That’s why I’m suggesting it be called the impact and response assessment act. Understanding impacts include the costs of dealing with them, means the costs of the responses. This bill does not suggest this. We cannot decide whether to prevent a harm unless we have first estimated the costs, both qualitatively and quantitatively, to the best of our abilities given available time and expertise. Therefore, an impact assessment that follows the precautionary principle must include quantitative financial analysis so that we can know the cost of resolving potential damages versus the benefits of the project for Canadians.
Also, in advance, we need reassurance that the damages will be paid for. If the harms are not planned for in advance to ensure that they can be resolved in a timely manner, then we have not prevented harm and the precautionary principle is not being followed.
How do we estimate harms or damages? We can use a sustainability framework to evaluate the positive and negative aspects of the project in the environmental, social and economic categories, in consideration of all stakeholders, including future generations. This bill has hardly any reference to meeting any economic criteria. No quantitative analysis is required. No basis for decision-making is outlined for officials to decide whether significant environmental adverse effects are justified. This leaves decisions at the discretion of powerful officials.
What can we do? We can do cost-benefit analysis. They can be used including net present value analysis as part of decisions that consider qualitative and quantitative information. Economic estimates with probabilities can be made, as insurance companies do routinely. We can use historical information for the type of industry, consider previous examples of damage and cleanup costs. For example, in the oil and gas industry, we could look at the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon disasters. The bottom line with respect to the IAA is we have to evaluate the cost of responses and establish more clear cut criteria for decisions about whether or not to accept the impacts of a project.
Then in Part 2, the Canadian energy regulator act, I have some comments as well. The comments primarily relate to the concept of abandonment. The act should not make abandonment the end of life of a project. Abandonment should be discouraged, as this is not aligned with the precautionary principle, sustainability or the concept of a circular economy, which is also in the appendix. Costs of overseeing abandoned and orphaned facilities become long-term and never ending subsidies to the original owner. Firms do not last as long as the abandoned facility. The government has committed to eliminating subsidies to the hydrocarbon industry.
Abandoned facilities decay over time and can become unsafe or cause environmental damage. They interfere with local ecosystems and beauty of the land, and could interfere with any future uses of that land. The government should not expect to take long-term responsibility for monitoring an ever-growing number of abandoned facilities. Instead, an owner of a facility must take full financial responsibility to wind down facilities, that means to dismantle them and remediate the area so it is fully restored to a healthy natural state. A fund should be set up, in trust, in advance of the project start so that the government can access it to deal with operating problems and the end of life in the case that the owner does not take full responsibility for wind down or remediation or cannot do so because of economic hardship, bankruptcy, et cetera.
The existing clauses in the bill about pooled funds and maintaining sufficient financial resources on hand for releases need to be strengthened and included for end of life as suggested.
Facility owners must pay for insurance to protect against any environmental or safety issues that could arise with the facility over its life. Insurance requirements need greater emphasis in the bill. Insurance companies have expertise in estimating losses. Also, corporate taxes could be applied at a higher rate to a class of businesses to compensate.
Liability limits need to be increased in line with actual historical costs — more like $5 billion not $1 billion — and the BP Deepwater Horizon costs were approximately $62 billion. The bottom line is that we have to require the project owner to take full, upfront responsibility for winding down. That means dismantling and remediation of the project prior to the project starting.
Thank you. If you have any questions, I’m open to them.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Eaton: If I could have an answer from both of you, please, Mr. Van Wielingen and Ms. de Lange. Moving from environmental to impact assessment, as this bill does, provides assurance that approved projects, plans and policies contribute a net benefit to an environmental, social, economic, health and cultural well-being. It seems to me we don’t ask this of any other industry. We don’t ask it from the auto industry or the steel-making industry. Is this true that the only industry we ask for an impact assessment is from the energy industry? We forgive the debts of the auto industry, we give them subsidies, we go down and open their factories, but the energy industry seems to be an industry completely on its own. Would you agree or disagree with that?
Ms. de Lange: First of all, the impact assessment that is presented in this bill doesn’t calculate net benefits. That’s one of my issues with this. It needs to do a cost-benefit analysis. There needs to be more quantitative work laid out as a requirement in the bill precisely to answer your question. We have to recognize that these resource projects go over Crown land. They have consequences for owners of that land, where there is land taken from people, as well as Indigenous peoples. When you’re talking about an auto industry, the plant is set up on private property and they are still responsible for not emitting emissions, et cetera.
Senator Eaton: They’re creating things that emit emissions.
Ms. de Lange: Exactly. Therein lies another problem where we’re not holding them responsible. I think this bill is important for addressing — it’s not just the oil and gas industry because this bill covers —
Senator Eaton: The mining industry, but it does not cover any other downtown industry that creates jobs.
Mr. Van Wielingen: Yes, it’s an interesting question. As somebody just pointed out, it includes mining and major resource projects that have environmental impacts. It appears that the focus is primarily on energy. Other industries or sectors that may be large emitters would not have to go through this type of process.
Senator Eaton: The impact process. Thank you.
Senator McCoy: Thank you to both of you for being here. In the interest of time, Mr. Van Wielingen, let me put this question to you first and then I have a question for Ms. de Lange.
The global market fundamentals for energy have shifted, as far as I can understand it, irretrievably. Previously, when Alberta suffered recessions because of global prices — we’ve always been a price tag. We could always look forward to the rebound in prices. It seems to me that with the changes now that we have run out of customers. We’ve simply run out of customers. The U.S. is now the biggest exporter of oil in the world.
If you could take my statement, which is not nearly as informed as yours will be, and give it some meaning from your vast experience, I think we would all benefit.
Mr. Van Wielingen: Yes. I think in a sense we’ve run out of customers. We’ve lost our largest customers. Our largest customer, the United States, has become a competitor. I think this shift that you’re mentioning is a product of extraordinary technological advancement which has impacted the supply side of the industry. What I’m talking about is horizontal drilling and advanced completion technologies that have shifted the whole supply cost curve for oil and natural gas. This has certainly been a large part of the boom in the United States. The same technologies are being applied in Canada, which has the potential to benefit significantly from the application of these technologies.
The response to your question is that there has been a shift. There is more supply available and, as you point out, our largest purchaser of both oil and natural gas — or single purchaser in terms of who we export to — has become our largest competitor.
Senator McCoy: Thank you. With respect to your comments around not ending at abandonment, Dr. de Lange, it strikes me that if I could put it in a different way, what you’re talking about is life cycle regulation. There is some cradle-to-grave that we do. We have that system in place with the current National Energy Board and the current Nuclear Safety Commission, but it’s not in Bill C-69. That’s another way of saying what you’re saying, I would suspect. You’re making a point that we need life cycle regulators.
Ms. de Lange: Yes, I agree.
Senator McCoy: Thank you.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you both for being here. I want to go a bit more general. Maybe, Ms. de Lange, you can help me. I think the big issue we’re all concerned with is the economy, principally in Alberta. It’s suffering badly. It’s affecting the economy in Canada. It’s predominantly affecting that province which is of concern to all of us. If we accepted all the amendments that you propose on Bill C-69, are you aware or does your background allow you to express an opinion on how that would affect the economy, the Alberta economy? Is it a big factor?
Ms. de Lange: I can answer that to some degree. I teach this. There are numbers on the government website of Natural Resources Canada that say that crude oil is 2.6 per cent of our GDP. You can find that — I can bring it up for you if you like. Energy as a whole, including direct and indirect aspects, and that would include electricity, not just oil and gas, is 10.6 per cent of our GDP. A lot of the discussion that you hear, and I’m taking this right off of the Government of Canada website, is about the extent of the oil and gas industry for Canada is way overblown. That’s including direct and indirect. I think we need to keep that in context.
Also, everyone in the world — most of us — understand that Canada is a mixed economy and primarily a service economy. If you look at the numbers in terms of the components of GDP, you’ll see that we are primarily a service economy, then we are a manufacturing economy and resources are last. I can bring those numbers up for you on the Statistics Canada website. Those are the real numbers that our government uses.
The oil and gas industry that we talk about as being so important to our economy is important, really, to Alberta. Even the Albertans are talking about how this was overblown in the recent election in terms of the percentage of that economy, because it’s primarily an agricultural economy, in fact. Yes, it is. Those are the numbers and it is about 22 per cent of the GDP or somewhere in that range, 20 to 30 per cent is oil and gas, even for Alberta.
The emphasis on oil and gas being such a big part of our economy is misplaced because we know that we are a mixed economy. Services come first, then manufacturing — I could show all those numbers to you on official sites — and then it is resources. Resources include mining in these numbers, they include not just oil and gas, but mining and all other aspects of resources. There are a lot of politics going on, it’s not real facts.
Senator Massicotte: I would like to quickly ask the same question to Mr. Van Wielingen, keeping in mind that the Executive Director of ARC Financial Corporation, Peter Tertzakian, wrote a piece in the Financial Post on March 6, 2019. He was basically saying these amendments are important but it’s not going to materially improve the Alberta economy. Could you comment on that? Do you share his views?
Mr. Van Wielingen: I share the view that the amendments are very important. In a sense, for me, if all these amendments are embraced, it removes the possibility of a significant negative, and that is that Bill C-69 would just be implemented as is. Then I think it’s very likely you would not have any significant projects coming forward. So you remove that negative and you increase the possibility, then, that new projects will come forward.
I would say what’s more important in the near term is going to be the Trans Mountain expansion and the Line 3 expansion. Those will have significant positive economic impacts in the more foreseeable future.
The only other point I’m going to make about the oil and gas sector is that the reason why I compared it to other sub-sectors of the economy is that it if you look at it in that context, for example, compared to the entire banking industry in Canada, its contribution to GDP is very significant. You could look at any subsector and say it’s not very significant because the whole sector is diversified. There’s a tremendous amount of integration in our economy and if you knock out one primary industry in Canada, it’s going to have significant deleterious impacts across Canada.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you very much, both of you. I think you’ve answered my question. I want to emphasize your point, Mr. Van Wielingen. I’ll read it from your written presentation. One of your recommendations is to adopt major amendments proposed by active project proponents and, in particular, those amendments that will reduce risk of political versus regulatory and expertise-based decision-making. You’re clearly not saying to kill this bill. You’re saying let’s at least leave the door open until you see the amendments. This committee is working hard on amendments, and so I understand you’re happy to wait until you see what you’ve got.
Mr. Van Wielingen: Yes, absolutely. I appreciate you clarifying that.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you very much.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Mr. Van Wielingen, in your written statement, you said that Bill C-69 is fundamentally deficient as it compromises the independent governance processes. Can you speak a little bit more on that? What specific amendments would you like to see to remediate that deficiency?
Mr. Van Wielingen: It’s a difficult question for me. This perspective of an independent governance is extremely important. I live in the world of governance. As chair of AIMCo, a Crown corporation, and maintaining an arm’s-length relationship with the government, it was of critical importance for us to avoid the risk of political and investment decision-making.
The pension funds in Canada are the envy of the world because of their governance structure. Historically, our energy regulators have been the envy of the world because of the independence of our regulator. What I see when I look at the way this bill is written is a significant shift towards politicized and political decision-making by an elected official and away from independent regulatory decision-making. I believe, even from the perspective of elected officials, that you want protection from the exposure of undue influences from within and outside of government.
I think that when you look at the recommended amendments, there’s a series of amendments that in a sense deal with this. I’ve seen them from CAPP and from the pipeline association. I think all of them are going in the right direction.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: It is true, though, that CEAA 2012 was the act that introduced the politicization of this process. Really, CEAA 2012 did us no favours. Amending Bill C-69 would actually be more beneficial than not having this bill at all. Would you agree?
Mr. Van Wielingen: Yes, I would agree with that.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Thank you both for your presentations. I would like to continue the conversation about over-politicization. Ms. de Lange, in your presentation, regarding how to estimate harms and damages, your last point was that this leaves decisions at the discretion of powerful officials. I think we’ve just heard a very similar conversation with Mr. Van Wielingen.
We have heard from many witnesses that there were broad subjective policy issues found in the list of factors to consider in project-specific reviews. We’ve also heard that this is subject to politically motivated decisions at the end of a long and expensive process. Could you please comment on that?
Ms. de Lange: As I explained earlier, I think we need to build into this act more specific criteria for decision-making because that creates a framework for the decision-making so that it can be more objective. I’m a CPA and as an accountant, objectivity and fairness are primary. I think that is emphasized when we create a stronger framework and more criteria, including quantitative and qualitative analysis. That’s really my point.
Even in a recent policy paper around impact assessments, there’s nothing about quantitative analysis, nor does it contain cost-benefit analysis, MPVs or approaches that insurance companies use, for example. They’re very good; that’s their whole business. We could probably get a lot of expertise from them. I know they’re very concerned about how to manage risks around these projects. We should bring them into the conversation in terms of how to build a framework for calculation.
I think what’s great about this bill is that there’s a stakeholder orientation. There’s a lot of consultation with a lot of different groups. Insurance companies could be some of those stakeholders that we bring in to tailor some of the quantitative analysis, for example. I think there needs to be a framework within the bill, but you can only make it so specific. That’s where, within the stakeholders, you can bring in experts who know how to calculate the probabilities of future issues. Net present value brings future estimates of damage, for example, to the present, so that you know what trust fund to set up at the beginning of a project and then over time that fund may build based on interest. When you get to the end-of-life, the money is there to resolve the problems.
Senator Seidman: Thanks. Do I have a minute to hear from Mr. Van Wielingen?
The Acting Chair: You have half a minute.
Senator Seidman: Mr. Van Wielingen, would you like to add something more to that?
Mr. Van Wielingen: I agree that I’d like to see more specific, clearer criteria for decision-making. I would also like to see a clearer orientation towards national interest at the front end and then let the regulations, in a sense, manage the rest of the process.
One other point I’d make — and I do not know how seriously it might be considered — is that final decision-making should not rest with one minister. It should rest with three ministers. I would suggest Finance, Natural Resources, and Environment.
Senator Patterson: Thank you to the witnesses.
Mr. Van Wielingen, ARC is Canada’s largest private equity investment management company. You’re the director of another large investment management firm. We have heard that Bill C-69 was necessary to restore credibility to the regulatory system. We’ve heard the National Energy Board described as having been discredited. You know a lot about the global energy industry. Could you elaborate a bit more on the reputation of the National Energy Board and whether it was discredited and is in need of an overhaul?
Mr. Van Wielingen: I’ve grown up with the National Energy Board. I’ve talked to many investors over many years about the National Energy Board. I’ve always held it in the highest regard. I think industry leaders have held it in the highest regard.
It feels very discouraging to me to see the way they have, in fact, been discredited. I would have much preferred, in a sense, just the modernization part of the National Energy Board and keeping policy decisions within the government versus the board itself, but to allow the board to do its normal work, to submit a report and take full responsibility for its findings.
Right now, the way this is progressing, it looks like the National Energy Board’s role is being diminished and undermined. Its input and credibility are being pushed somewhat to the side.
Senator Patterson: You have described in very alarming terms the energy industry in Canada being in a meltdown, distressed. I want to know if you feel confident in saying that you are expressing the views of your peers and colleagues in the energy industry.
I think we’re privileged to have someone like you appearing before our committee, who has real skin in the game. I want to know if you’re confident that this is what you’re hearing everywhere.
Mr. Van Wielingen: I appreciate you asking the question with so much clarity. I’m totally confident that this view I’ve expressed to you represents the view that is held by my peers, by business leaders in the energy sector and, quite frankly, by most Albertans, who aren’t even really involved in the energy sector.
The distress I talked about, the alarm, the depressed sentiments, the loss of confidence, I have never seen anything like it in my whole career.
Senator Richards: My question is to Mr. Van Wielingen. I feel as gloomy about this as you do. I’m wondering, is there any way to get it back? Is there any way to get the confidence of foreign investors back? With the U.S.A. gone, and 66 per cent more oil from Saudi Arabia, and RBC saying we’ve lost $100 billion. Even if this passes with amendments, what are the chances of stabilizing the industry here in Canada?
Mr. Van Wielingen: That’s a fantastic question. I’ll be very open with everyone here, as you would want me to be.
I had a conversation with Gerry Butts. One month before he resigned, he reached out to me. He basically asked the same question you just asked, and that is: How can we turn this around? How can we rebuild confidence?
It surprised me that he asked me that question. I gave him a set of recommendations that I followed up with in writing. One of them was that we need political leadership in Canada to stand in front of the industry and extol its strengths and accomplishments to the world. There’s a lot there. There’s a lot that can be substantiated and evidenced.
It’s an extraordinary industry that has done an incredible job and is widely recognized around the world for its expertise, its resource base, its ethics, and its orientation towards human rights. There’s a lot to sell. I know that because we sell Canada’s energy sector globally.
What I said to him is, “Yes, you can do all these amendments, and that’s fantastic, but we really need leadership to stand in front of the industry and to speak to the world about the Canadian energy industry.”
Senator Richards: Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Woo: Thank you, witnesses. I wonder if both of you could talk about trends with institutional investors, sovereign wealth funds, pension funds globally, and what appears to be a growing reluctance to invest in fossil fuels, including Norway’s own sovereign wealth funds, which seems to be divesting itself of oil and gas assets, and how this connects to the whole issue of loss of confidence in investing in the Canadian oil and gas sector.
Ms. de Lange: There is a trend towards divestment. I think it’s widely discussed. Norway is an excellent example. They have managed their resources better than we have, for many reasons. They have the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. They’re encouraging clean vehicles and changing their economy. They’re still selling their oil and gas. They still have their national oil and gas company, but I know there is a lot of discussion around changing that.
Because they’ve managed their resources better, they haven’t had such a change in their economy so that it’s so dependent on resources. We haven’t managed our resources in such a manner.
Alberta should be rich. It shouldn’t be reliant on the ups and downs. If that resource had been managed better, there would be a wealth fund. We wouldn’t be so concerned about these ups and downs. We would also be able to transform Alberta’s economy so that we don’t have this issue, so that we can move into a new economy, into a cleaner economy, and the diversification of our economy could have happened more easily. Unfortunately, we’re facing this issue today.
Divestment is absolutely on the table with a lot of investors. It’s a movement, and it’s because there’s so much risk. That’s probably what you’re thinking about. Companies are doing risk assessments. Shareholders don’t like to see the risk associated with a lot of different types of businesses, and that includes oil and gas businesses, because the world is moving away. We can’t burn any more carbon. That’s the reality. We’re facing climate change. Ottawa is facing floods, so is Quebec, and over and over again. We can talk about this. The IPCC is saying this is an urgent issue. I think we’ve known this since at least the 1980s.
The world has been moving away from oil and gas for a long time. It’s not new. Divestment is what’s going to happen, because shareholders don’t want companies involved in this risk. It’s not a good investment.
This is part of the worldwide trend that we’re seeing away from oil and gas.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations. I wanted to speak about the negative environmental impacts that have occurred on First Nation lands.
Mr. Van Wielingen, on page 4, you said, “. . . there appears to be a singular focus on possible negative environmental impacts . . .,” an “. . . apparent turning of a blind eye toward the value of economic development . . . .”
There has been so much environmental damage done on First Nation lands all across the country, and it’s all industry. It’s energy, mining, forestry, hydro. It’s not limited to one.
Indigenous people have brought these concerns forward. No one has paid much attention even though they are title holders to much of the land.
I also understand that there was no consultation with Canadians with CEAA 2012, and it was passed in an omnibus bill.
Would you agree that the cost of remediating the negative environmental impacts has surpassed the value of economic development? Would you say that if industry had been more principled and balanced, First Nations and Indigenous people would not be facing this crisis today?
Mr. Van Wielingen: First, I really appreciate hearing the view. If you look at it on a long-term historical basis, I agree that if the industry had been more principled, there would have been less environmental impact. I believe the industry has gone through a real transformation. The leaders within the industry are looking at environmental impacts very differently. I know that is just one person’s view, and it has to be lived and experienced to really believe. I sit in board meetings all day, for years, with various energy companies, and I see this transformation occurring.
Nevertheless, I accept the point you’re making. Had there been more principled decision-making on the part of energy sector leaders, we wouldn’t have had the same kind of adverse impacts.
I don’t agree with the view that the costs of environmental impacts have surpassed economic benefit. I don’t think that’s the case. I think we’re able now to manage with technology and different processes, manage our environmental impacts much more effectively and capture the upside of development. The upside of development ultimately translates into social prosperity — not just financial but social prosperity — for the local people impacted and, more broadly, for society.
Senator Mockler: As we criss-crossed Canada, the Western trip and Eastern trip and witnesses from Quebec and Ontario, there is surely a lack of clarity and a lot of ambiguity. Canadians are looking not only for political but also for economic leadership, especially when we look at nation-building projects from coast to coast to coast. On that, they’ve heard me say everywhere I went: Energy East was one of those nation-building projects.
I have a letter here from the Council of Atlantic Premiers that I want to share with you, and they have many concerns. Here is one concern, and I’d like to have your opinion on it. The four Atlantic premiers said the following in a letter written February 27, 2019, to the Prime Minister of Canada:
Our assessment of Bill C-69 as it is currently drafted is that the significant changes being proposed to the scope and scale of federal environmental assessments in Canada will not meet the dual objectives of environmental protection and economic growth.
To that, I add: How do you define social licence in the projects going forward under Bill C-69?
Could both witnesses comment, please?
Mr. Van Wielingen: I agree that Bill C-69, as written, as the Atlantic premiers stated, would not satisfy the dual objectives of environmental protection and economic benefit. It surprised me. It shocked me initially when I read that there was almost an absence of orientation towards economic benefit. It looks like a singular perspective, and it frightens me. As an investor, it frightens me. As a Canadian, it looks like a singular perspective. It doesn’t look like a balanced perspective.
The second question about social licence is more difficult. I think we’ve given it too much credence in a funny way. I think we need to find ways to create social acceptability and go through processes to give people the information they need to increase the probability of impacted people buying in. The idea of a licence is in a sense formalizing social opinion. I know it’s kind of a phrase that is used, that’s been kicked around, that sort of a de facto almost regulatory approval. I think we may have pushed that too far. This is why we have our institutions to make these decisions on behalf of people.
Ms. de Lange: The international community no longer provides social licence for burning carbon. We have the Paris agreement and almost all countries around the world have signed and are involved in it. We have a responsibility to the international community and for ourselves. We’re one of the countries on this earth and we only have one planet.
With regard to social licence, many of the projects that we might entertain in this country no longer have social licence.
The other part about the economy versus the environment is a false comparison. In fact, history tells us that economies do better when they move towards investing in advanced technologies. A lot of the industries we’re talking about here with respect to this bill are part of an old economy. It’s not to our economic benefit to invest in many — not all — of the kinds of projects that we’re thinking about here. We have to move forward on new technologies that move our country forward and keep us competitive. Global competitiveness happens with technological investments. That is historically known. I can go back to the Industrial Revolution on that story.
I think investment needs to go into new and clean technologies, those technologies that have social licence because, quite frankly, they are aligned with a stronger economy.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much for your testimony, Dr. de Lange and Mr. Van Wielingen. It’s been most appreciated. Your answers to the questions were very clear. As you said, Mr. Van Wielingen, your openness by the two of you also was much appreciated by the committee.
For the second part of the meeting, we’re having challenges with the video presentation. We’ll start with the people who are here. We might do one from the floor, then the video and then come back.
I want to thank you very much for joining us here this evening. From the Professional Surveyors Canada, we have Michael Andrew Thompson, who is the Vice-Chair, and Wilson Phillips, who is the Past Chair. Mr. Phillips, the floor is yours.
Wilson Phillips, Past Chair, Professional Surveyors Canada: Good evening, members of the committee. Thank you for allowing us to speak to you today on two recommendations for amendments to the proposed Canadian energy regulator act. Professional Surveyors Canada has proposed these amendments to improve compliance, clarity and transparency for all Canadians. Professional Surveyors Canada is a volunteer, member-driven organization, representing 1,300 professional members and employing 40,000 Canadians in the professional surveying industry in every province and territory.
We have consulted with our members across Canada. We are thankful for the volunteer hours put into finalizing these recommendations. Our members have experience working in all land registry systems in Canada and know the importance of these systems to the public and our members. Our members have direct experience working under the current legislative and regulatory regime. We will be affected by the enactment of Bill C-69.
We are recommending amendments that will improve the bill as it relates to the public and our members. The two issues that our members are raising may not have been foreseen during the preparation of the current bill. The recommendations will improve understanding and compliance by the public and significantly improve transparency for the public.
The recommendation to amend the death provision of the definition of ground disturbance in the act seeks to treat every Canadian equally. Currently there are two standards based on a less than definite standard. The current and proposed definition treats Canadians with two standards. The proposed changes eliminate this confusion with no cost and assists greater understanding and compliance.
The second recommendation is to improve transparency and clarity regarding the prescribed area provision of Bill C-69. The prescribed area is an area of land that is affected by development of pipelines and other utilities but will likely not be obvious to all landowners affected by the development. To improve this provision in the act, the recommendation will allow for notification to the affected landowner by use of a public registry system. This will improve transparency and the approval process for any potential development, with negligible cost to stakeholders and long-term benefit to the Canadian land tenure system.
Professional Surveyors Canada has notified as many stakeholders as possible to determine if there is any opposition to the proposed amendments, including telecom, oil and gas and landowner advocates. No negative comments have been received. These amendments will not add to costs to the public. These amendments will improve transparency and understanding for all Canadians. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. We now welcome by video conference, from the Dene Nation, Mr. Norman Yakeleya, National Chief. Here with us in Ottawa, we have Cynthia Westaway at the table, who is Counsel and Director for the Dene Nation. Mr. Yakeleya, we will start with you.
Norman Yakeleya, National Chief, Dene Nation: Good evening, senators and honoured guests. I am Norman Yakeleya, National Chief of the Dene Nation. We are here to speak on Bill C-69.
I was recently before the Senate committee to speak on Bill C-68, our specific concerns about the bill and need to protect the fish and fish habitat. By doing that, you will, by extension, be upholding the rights and treaties we have with Canada.
We see Bill C-69 in a similar light. To us, the bills are related. They both speak to the need to protect the water, land, fish, animals and respect Indigenous and treaty rights as part of the sustainability process.
We support Bill C-68 and we support Bill C-69. It is a definite improvement over the 2012 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Bill C-69 creates many opportunities for Indigenous governments to work with the federal government. We support the requirement for mandatory planning, especially regional and strategic planning, before the start of the environmental assessment. We strongly support the inclusion of the requirement for sustainability in Bill C-69. While there is a definition of sustainability in the bill, how that definition is to be interpreted must be done in full collaboration with Aboriginal governments. We’re also interested in a co-drafting process for the regulations that will flow from these bills.
Consultation is not enough anymore. In the Northwest Territories, we have been engaged in full co-drafting of bills with the GWNT.
That is the way it should be on bills of critical interest to the Indigenous governments. The proposed navigable waters act does not address winter navigable issues. Many of these waterways get both winter and summer use by the Dene people. The Canadian navigable waters act, or CNWA, must always consider the effects of the works on frozen navigable waters.
The Dene use these waters within the territories for snowmobiles, sometimes for dog-team routes. Work that does not pose any threat during the summer can cause deadly results during the winters. Dams that release waters during the winters can change the ice conditions to dangerously thin ice. Dene trappers, such as Morris Klutsi and Morris Dazel, have lost their lives. Therefore, the CNWA must specifically complement the effects of works on the winter use of navigable waters by Indigenous people. This is important as this bill combines changes to a number of bills. This is of great interest to the Dene from the co-governments’ perspective. We’re encouraging the passage of Bill C-69 in an ongoing, collaborative, co-governmental approach in the implementation of the bill.
This bill speaks to how resource proposals are to be assessed, how the energy regulator is to function in low traffic, and how waterways are to be managed so as to not damage the environment as we all strive for sustainable economic prosperity.
Thank you, senators.
Cynthia Westaway, Counsel and Director, Dene Nation: I’m Cynthia Westaway, legal counsel for the Dene. I’m here as a technician to answer questions as they arise. We have an Indigenous law firm that works across Canada. We’re very excited about something which is an improvement and has all of the ingredients necessary to make it something quite special. It needs regulations; it needs policy; it needs implementation. Our message today is that it needs the will of those who can make it come alive.
It needs the interpretation and the honour and the respect of the regional leadership of the Dene Nation. We are always, in the North, very excited about a healthy, wealthy economy. Northerners are very entrepreneurial, very involved in the economy. They have shipbuilding companies that are owned and run by the Dene helicopter companies. The shipbuilding companies don’t go where the whales are spawning. They don’t go and break ice at the wrong time. We need that balance. We think this bill will help us strike that balance as long as the will is there.
We’re looking at sustainability and we’re looking at a partnership of diamond mining along with fishing. There has to be a real energy around this. We have put forward fairly lengthy submissions before the Senate and before the House. We participated in all the expert panels across the country. We are trying to make this bill the best it can be as a tool to move us all into the next centuries of health and wealth. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much to the three presenters this evening.
Senator Woo: My question is for Professional Surveyors Canada. I have two questions on the proposed amendments. The first one is on the depth of the pipeline. It seems very technical to me. Have you consulted with the pipeline companies on the choice of 30 centimetres versus 45 centimetres as the appropriate depth to be covered?
Second is the proposed amendment concerning depositing documents with the land registry office. That seems to me to be an issue of provincial jurisdiction. Might that be better left to provincial regulations?
Michael Andrew Thompson, Vice-Chair, Professional Surveyors Canada: Thank you and thanks for having us, Madam Chair.
For consultation on the depth-of-cover issue, we’ve had a wide range of consultation questions sent out to utility owners, telecom, oil and gas, industry groups including the Canadian Common Ground Alliance and CAPP. We have received no negative feedback on the depth provision.
As for the question of land registry offices, in the current act the right-of-way for a utility is registered in the provincial registry. Any caveat, or otherwise, for the prescribed area would be registered in that provincial registry in the same manner as the right-of-way is dealt with currently in the act.
Senator Woo: Could you speculate as to the distinction made in the original drafting of the legislation between the 30 and 45 centimetres?
Mr. Thompson: Yes. In the existing act and as this legislation is written, there are two standards. One is for urban areas or non-farmed areas for 30 centimetres in areas of no cultivation; it is 45 centimetres in areas of cultivation. The definition of cultivation is somewhat grey, whether that’s farmland or gardening. This amendment would simplify and clarify the ground-disturbing standard to 45 centimetres. By taking 45 centimetres as standard, you’re not putting undue burden upon, say, a farmer with a plow that needs to till more than 30 centimetres in order to cultivate.
Senator Woo: I don’t understand, though. This is in relation to a pipeline project. Why would farmers be affected? They’re not laying pipelines.
Mr. Thompson: With the ground-disturbing standard, if you are going to disturb more than the standard of 45 centimetres, you need to follow the ground-disturbance provisions of the act and regulations, which would include having utilities located, exposing those utilities as required, and following the ground-disturbance provisions, whether it is for crossing agreements with utility owners or otherwise. If you do not till or disturb as much as the standard, then you do not need to follow that protocol. For example, if a farmer is tilling 35 centimetres of land, they don’t need to get that crossing agreement or the “locates,” but if they were to disturb more than 45 centimetres, they need to follow that protocol with the utility companies.
Senator Patterson: I’d like to welcome National Chief Yakeleya to our committee. You talked about Indigenous rights and recognition. Thank you for your detailed presentation.
There are three ways in which Aboriginal people are invited to work with government, as you recommended in your presentation. You welcomed the opportunities for Indigenous governments to work with the federal government. It’s mandatory that the Canadian energy regulator establish an Indigenous advisory committee. The proposed impact assessment act also provides for the creation of an advisory committee with guaranteed representation of Aboriginal people from the three national organizations.
The Canadian energy regulator act would also include an advisory committee, again to be selected from three national groups, Inuit, Metis and — I guess the Constitution says “Indians,” doesn’t it?
My question is, do you think an advisory role on the minister’s committee and on the energy regulator committee and under the impact assessment act is enough?
Mr. Yakeleya: That’s a very interesting question. I think it’s not enough. We need to enshrine, instill or legislate the stronger participation of the Indigenous governments across Canada in the three territories. They must have the Indigenous knowledge in the legislation, such as in an advisory capacity where the Government of Canada has stated clearly the importance of reconciliation and involving Aboriginal landowners to be partners with the government in co-drafting legislation that is meaningful, where the engagement is strong and if there’s some other thinking in the committee hearing, you can strengthen the Indigenous knowledge into the importance of this legislation. That would be very welcome.
Other than the advisory capacity. We can get many advisers; we either choose to listen to them or not. We’re not in the driver’s seat. It’s like our dog teams: We’ve got to stand in the back and lead our dogs to where we want to go. If you’re sitting in the sleigh, you’ll have to listen to the driver to know where they’re going to go. They need to make sure they’re going where it’s safe and good for all people and the nation.
I’m of the opinion, senator, that we need to ensure there is something strong enough for the Indigenous knowledge to help all of Canada, not just ourselves but sustain our life for all people. We need to come to a place where we have a stronger say with our Indigenous people in these types of acts that you are discussing right now.
Senator Massicotte: This is a bit of a supplementary. I think Senator Patterson has a point, because you have a lot of advisory committees. They sit there, and it makes you feel good but they don’t have a real role. I wonder if it would be helpful — I’m just thinking out loud and I want your reaction, chief — if legislation says, “Yes, you create the committees, but they must provide a written report twice a year saying what advice they provide and any other comments they want to make.” Therefore you force them to issue a report to the public. It puts a lot more pressure on the agency, wherever it is, to respond to it. It gives them more of a real role than simply forgetting about them. Would that be helpful?
Mr. Yakeleya: That would be helpful. That’s a good path to embark upon and have some consideration with honourable committee members such as yourself down in Ottawa. That would ensure the Indigenous people are being heard and that our comments are being taken very seriously, working with the senators and in a system that is not always quick to look at the role of Indigenous knowledge.
There’s still lots of work. You’ve got a point. That will help move the file closer and we start to maybe understand a little bit about what the term “reconciliation” means. Thank you.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you for your presentation. I actually met with Mr. Thompson in Edmonton and was familiar with their request. I think it’s a very reasonable request to consider a change from 30 to 45 centimetres.
My question is for Chief Yakeleya. Thank you for your presentation. I don’t think I’ve heard anybody talk about co-development of regulations before at this table, and I find that to be very interesting. Have the Dene been at least consulted to date in the development of regulations? I’m assuming regulations are in the process of being developed. Has there been any consultation with the Dene?
Mr. Yakeleya: Maybe I could ask our legal counsel. I’ve just been elected about eight months ago. I could say from the territorial perspective in the last government that we co-drafted the *** legislation with the government of the Northwest Territories. That was two hands on the pen as we were co-drafting. That was really an empowering experience for the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Aboriginal people. I’m not too sure, senator — excuse my ignorance — how it’s done in Ottawa in terms of the co-drafting. The goal we would like to see is co-drafting legislation with our partners.
I may ask our legal counsel, Ms. Westaway, to speak if she has any experience from the previous leadership.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: That’s fine.
Ms. Westaway?
Ms. Westaway: Yes, we’ve had some important experiences but not enough. Canadians need to have the expertise of the Dene in this process.
I’m concerned about tokenism. I’m concerned about having one First Nations representative on any committee. We have 637 First Nations; five Inuit organizations; countless Metis organizations; and 32 bands of the Dene alone in our region, with six dialects in different languages. There’s a real regional expertise that’s lost if you have one advisory member.
If you can do that co-drafting, as we did in the Wildlife Act and the Indian Oil and Gas Regulations, you’re going to get the regional expertise and the benefit. That hasn’t happened enough and it hasn’t happened yet. We’re really here to talk about bringing the expertise to the regions, so that you get the best economic and environmental results.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Being from Alberta, I’m somewhat familiar with frozen roads. Having the Indigenous knowledge of navigable waters, in particular, and driving on frozen roads, there is a lot of local knowledge. That would be very important in regulations around that piece, in particular. I thank you for that.
Senator Mitchell: Thanks to all of you. To the surveyors, I want to say that yours is probably one of the most focused and precise presentations I’ve ever seen. It was quite refreshing in that regard. Of course, it doesn’t lend itself to a lot of questions, and mine have been asked.
Also very interesting to me, Mr. Yakeleya and Ms. Westaway, was your endorsement of Bill C-69 — in particular, one of the most important features of this bill, which is often overlooked but wasn’t overlooked by you, and that is what you refer to as the mandatory planning process. I think it can also be termed the early planning process. You specifically pointed that out as being important and significant, and I think it is, because it sets up the need for an assessment, then the assessment. It refines and specifies the process and the focus.
I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit upon that process and what you like about it.
Ms. Westaway: I’ll start, chief. Is that okay?
Mr. Yakeleya: Go ahead.
Ms. Westaway: What’s really interesting is when you get into a quick project-specific impact assessment, it can often be too late. We really need to think about this on a strategic level: yearly and quarterly meetings on these advisory committees so that the best work is already done. Then when you get to the specific project, you can polish your diamond. We really see that as a two-step process.
I know the chief has talked to me about making sure that the Dene are looking at whether there is an impact. Your idea of major and minor projects doesn’t work at all when you’re looking at a slough where the ducks are living and that’s your dinner.
I won’t take too much of the time, but how the Dene need to really be involved at the earliest level of engagement. Maybe I’ll turn that over to you.
The Chair: Go ahead, chief, if you have something to add.
Mr. Yakeleya: Thank you, Cynthia. Absolutely, we see this as key to the success of this whole process. It’s like it’s mandatory because we’re the original inhabitants of our land with the Inuvialuit, the Inuit, the Metis and the Dene. We live from the land. We come from the land. Even the word “Dene,” if you translate it, means above and below, and it means air and water and land. That’s where we come from. Because we have that knowledge, we want to share it with people. It is mandatory, just like we build our mooseskin boats. It’s mandatory to build our mooseskin boats. Depending on what kind of water we want to use it on. It’s mandatory that you have elders who have built these mooseskin boats for thousands of years that still carry on today. We use these mooseskin boats. It’s still different now. I say mooseskin boats to jet boats.
We’re changing the life of the people, but we still have that knowledge of the water. For the water, as I spoke to the elders, the elders said the water is so powerful today, even today our elders don’t understand it. We have lots of respect for it. We want to impress upon the senators that it’s important legislation. It’s important. We want to help you. We need to come to the table, understand and help all of Canada.
This is why we want to speak in favour of this. It’s very important. But we know that you have many other important things to discuss. That’s why it’s time now for the Dene and all the Indigenous governments to come to the table and work with you and make sure we do it properly, to the best of our ability.
The Chair: Thank you very much, chief.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for the Professional Surveyors Canada representative. It concerns your second recommendation, calling for the addition of paragraph (e) to section 198 of the act. My concern is that it would create obstacles and delay the process.
For example, in a former life, when I was a municipal mayor and we were opening up the airport section of Mirabel, a rumour was going around that all the farmland was going to be bought or sold for housing projects. As a result, many Europeans and Hong Kong natives bought up the land and it ended up being impossible to locate some of the property owners. Some of the land was bought by numbered companies and estates, and everything ended up being lost.
Don’t you think adding that requirement is likely to delay the construction process, specifically in cases where finding the owners proves impossible?
[English]
Mr. Phillips: Thank you for the question. Yes, the point is to speed up the process. Perhaps we haven’t been clear on that. The issue you brought up is land speculation, and that kind of stuff, and transparency. In B.C., they just passed legislation regarding that kind of transparency. I can’t remember what the name of the act is, but they’re proposing it to create transparency with regard to land ownership.
With regard to taking of interest, whether the interest is affecting a First Nation and they’re not being made aware of it, or an adjoining landowner and it’s not transparent during the approval process, you would like to get as much of that out front in the approval process as possible. We’re trying to make a system that’s very transparent, open and subject to analysis. What you’re describing in the Mirabel instance has happened in my fair province as well, with bridges and other land speculation. But item 2 doesn’t seek to address that problem or doesn’t make the problem, in my opinion, worse; it makes it better.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: When I brought up speculation, it may have caused some confusion, but the fact is that, at a certain point, tracking down owners is impossible. It’s not about figuring out who’s hiding behind a certain company; it’s about not being able to track down the owners. When they can’t be found, it’s impossible to negotiate a title, an easement or right of way with them. The situation is so bad that municipalities sell off the land because of outstanding taxes. Even property tax bills aren’t being paid because the owners can’t be located.
Don’t you think including such a provision could lead to unnecessary delays in cases where owners are impossible to locate?
[English]
Mr. Phillips: Certainly. Thank you for the question.
The proposal here is to create more transparency. It’s not to create more obfuscation. If there are other problems with obfuscation of who owns land, we are not trying to fix that problem with this particular item. We can only address the issue that has been raised.
To your point, there might be that issue raised. That would require separate analysis and legislation or regulation. As I suggested, it may be similar to the B.C. example.
Senator McCallum: My question is for the national chief.
I noted that you mentioned UNDRIP four times in your presentation. You are aware the United Nations declaration is on the Senate floor, being discussed now.
Could you tell us why you feel that UNDRIP is very important?
Mr. Yakeleya: I’ve been in politics for a long time. I retired as an MLA and thought, I have to get back into the good fight here. I got elected eight months ago. I believe in the cause, that the United Nations — the first time, as a residential school survivor in the North, that this type of discussion we’re having today, I never thought in my wildest dreams we would have something like this with the Government of Canada through the Senate hearings and other issues. We have the world now taking notice, and that Canada is working with Indigenous people to recognize the inherent right.
That’s my grandfather who signed a treaty in 1921 and told me that this treaty, through my grandmother, was a peace treaty we are making with the outsiders and that we are to honour that treaty. That we are to fish, hunt, trap, and live on our land according to our laws and tradition in the way that we are to give this serious consideration when we see outsiders come in. They are not to disturb our land.
This is very important to me, especially with one of our major elements in the Dene tradition of the waters. The waters are the gift to women. That is their sacred gift. We have to honour and protect our women through that discussion on waters.
For us to have this type of discussion is very appreciated. We need to know that we are partners. Those days of the Indian Act are long gone. I want to say to the members of the Senate that we’ve come a long way from the early days of how the people were treated by the Government of Canada to now. The Prime Minister has stated very clearly the role of recognition of rights and inherent rights and reconciliation, and the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Rights. Now we’re looking at legislation that’s going to go forward for our children of all of Canada. Especially with the Indigenous people. We’ve been down so far and put down so much, it’s unbelievable that now we’re speaking for our own rights and that we’re allowed to do this. It’s really important that we continue this discussion with senators like yourselves, who can make a difference for small people up in the Dene, Inuit, Inuvialuit, Metis and all people. That we have a chance to tell our children, “You can make a difference when we work together.” I guess that’s part of our working together. This is my second appearance to the Senate committee. I’m still a little nervous.
The Chair: You’re doing a great job, chief.
Mr. Yakeleya: Thank you.
Ms. Westaway: I think the United Nations declaration is such an exciting opportunity to implement domestically through the interpretation and the work of this act. There’s a real opportunity to have regional leadership, and that is, frankly, self-determination. Those are inherent rights, as the chief was describing. It’s, to us, a very hand-in-glove fit that you can implement this international treaty here domestically in a way that supports sustainable development. We see this as a very exciting opportunity.
The Chair: Any further questions by the senators?
Thank you very much to the presenters today and to all four of you. Everybody was very active in responding to the questions that were asked. Thank you so much. I know that when you come and make a presentation for five minutes, it requires hours of preparation. Thank you for your appearance here today. Thank you for helping us to move along with Bill C-69.
(The committee adjourned.)