Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 4 - Evidence, June 14, 2016
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 14, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9:30 a.m. to study the development of a strategy to facilitate the transport of crude oil to eastern Canadian refineries and to ports on the East and West coasts of Canada.
Senator Michael L. MacDonald (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, this morning the committee is continuing its study on the development of a strategy to facilitate the transport of crude oil to eastern Canadian refineries and to ports on the east and west coasts of Canada.
Our meeting today will have two parts. For the first hour, we will hear from a researcher from the University of Ottawa. During the second hour, we will hear from the Assembly of First Nations.
Our first witness is Professor Monica Gattinger of the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. She is also the Director of the Institute for Science, Society and Policy. Her area of expertise includes energy policy and governance.
In the past few days, we have had a few changes in our schedule, and I would like to thank Professor Gattinger for her flexibility. I now invite her to begin her presentation. Afterwards, honourable senators, we'll have questions.
Monica Gattinger, Associate Professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa, as an individual: Thank you. As was mentioned, I'm the director of the Institute for Science, Society and Policy at the University of Ottawa. I also chair an initiative called Positive Energy at the university, which I'll speak to in a moment.
As director of the institute, one of our areas of expertise and interest is evidence-based decision making, and I would like to congratulate the Senate committee for undertaking this very important study and looking to the evidence around these key issues regarding Canada's energy future.
It's an honour to be here today. I thank you very much for the invitation. My presentation will be made in English.
[Translation]
If you have questions in French, I will be happy to reply in the language of your choice.
[English]
The title of the presentation, as you've seen, is "Public Confidence in Energy Development in Canada, "with the somewhat unusual subtitle of "Elephants, Horses and Sitting Ducks." I'll speak to that metaphor in a moment, but it is a metaphor we have found in our research is quite useful for thinking through some of the issues that pertain to public confidence in energy development.
The context for this presentation is the Positive Energy project, which I'll speak to in a moment, and then I'll dive straight into discussing public confidence, looking at some of the drivers underpinning public confidence and beginning to think through a diagnostique. Why are we seeing some of the challenges that we're seeing in terms of social opposition to energy development, and this is where we get into the metaphor of elephants, horses and sitting ducks. I'll end off with some ideas around a prescription for how to strengthen public confidence.
Positive Energy is an initiative at the University of Ottawa that uses the convening power of the university to bring together key energy players to strengthen public confidence, and those players are policy-makers, regulators, industry, environmental NGOs, indigenous groups and academia. But we do more than just convene. We do what I refer to as convening plus, which means we also take solution-oriented applied research to inform dialogue and action.
Today's presentation is drawing on a framing paper that I'm currently writing on public confidence, which will be released in the coming weeks. In essence, this paper aims to connect the dots when it comes to the challenge of garnering public confidence in energy development. It draws on our research to date and on other research that's being undertaken by a variety of other organizations in this sphere. A summary of this paper, a summary version of it, was used as a discussion paper at a stakeholder workshop last week in Winnipeg in the lead-up to the Energy and Mines Ministers' Conference this year in Winnipeg.
The overarching message, and my overarching message today, is that public confidence and the development of public confidence in energy development is a multifaceted challenge. There are many strands to this issue, many moving parts, and there is a really important and extensive need for collaboration and coordination across governments, policy and regulation.
So what drives public confidence? I'm on slide 5 now here. We can think of three key drivers that influence and impact public confidence. Certainly governments, policy approaches, regulatory approaches; but also industry, notably industry performance in the energy sector, as well as society. People look to what NGOs are saying about energy development. What are the responses of local communities, whether those are local communities or indigenous communities, to energy development? People also of course listen to their friends and think through their discussions with friends and neighbours as well when it comes to their level of public confidence in energy development.
If we turn to slide 6, this is really where we get into the diagnosis. Why are we seeing such high levels of social opposition to energy development in recent times? I think it's important to underscore that this is not exclusively a challenge for fossil fuels. While pipelines and oil and gas development are often the flashpoints for social opposition to energy, we can think about renewable projects as well. Large-scale hydro and wind farms are also in many instances recently facing social opposition.
In this presentation, we will look at a number of interlocking factors that are helping us to try to understand why we see social opposition and reduced levels of public confidence in energy development.
If we look at the outer circle, the first is social and value change. This is social and value change across all sectors, but certainly having an impact on energy development. Then when we get into the energy space, we can look at a number of policy gaps, and I'll talk about those in a moment. Public authorities also have responses to these policy gaps, whether that's policy-makers or energy regulators. Then there are also, of course, project proponent practices.
In this presentation, I'm just going to focus on the first three of those circles: social and value change, policy gaps and public authorities' responses.
This is where we get into the animal metaphor. I'm on slide 7 now, social and value change. We have come to think of these issues as horses that have left the barn. There have been fundamental changes in society and in social values in the post-war period, and I will point to five of them here that are having a significant impact upon public confidence in energy development.
Across Western industrialized democracies, we see a decline of trust in institutions, whether that's governments or industry, and a decline of deference to authority and expertise. One of the consequences of that is that we are also seeing a reduced trust in the evidence, whether that evidence is being prepared by governments or by expert scientific bodies and the like. There is a reduced level of trust in evidence. That's a challenge for energy development.
Second is a desire for greater public involvement in decision making. Citizens want to be involved in decisions that affect them, but one of the consequences of this is that we're increasingly seeing tensions between participatory democracy and representative democracy, participatory democracy meaning folks wanting to be involved in decisions that affect them and representative democracy meaning elected officials at the end of the day needing to make decisions.
Third, we're seeing a shift from communitarian to individual values. The line of sight for folks' interest is increasingly at the individual level rather than at the community, regional or national level, and one of the consequences of this is that appeals to the national interest are gaining less traction.
Fourth, there is a rise of what can be thought of as anti-corporate values, so less confidence in big business and a preference often for smaller scale, locally owned projects over larger scale "big business" projects.
Finally, there is a decline in risk tolerance, so lower levels of trust that governments or industry can properly identify risks related to energy development and can actually mitigate those risks.
The bottom line is that we aren't in 1950s Kansas any longer. The horse has left the barn on these issues. Social and value change is very much a new reality when it comes to energy decision making.
So what about the elephants? What are the elephants in this metaphor? The elephants are the policy gaps that have an impact on public confidence in energy development. In the paper, we're using the metaphor of many elephants in many rooms, and I'm going to point to three of those here.
The first is climate change. In the absence of, from many folks' perspectives, meaningful movement and adequate forums for grappling with climate change, we're beginning to see much more opposition to individual energy projects for broader policy reasons related to climate change than to the individual project per se.
The second is reconciliation and indigenous concerns when it comes to energy development. As we know, many of these issues go far beyond energy. It's about clean drinking water, appropriate housing, education and murdered and missing indigenous women. Many of these issues are finding themselves washing up on the steps of individual energy project proposals.
And finally, there is a lack of mechanisms to address the cumulative effects of successive energy projects or to plan regionally around projects. Many of these elephants, these policy gaps, are exacerbated by silo-ization both within and between governments, hence the call that I mentioned at the outset of the presentation for greater coordination between governments.
What is the impact of this? This is where the sitting ducks come in. In this context of social and value change and of policy gaps, energy decision-making processes have been at some level sitting ducks in that context. Many of these unresolved policy issues, as you will see on slide 9, are actually beginning to be played out in regulatory processes for individual energy project proposals. Some of the reactions that public authorities are having to this, whether it's trying to reduce the level of involvement of people in regulatory processes or whether it's trying to reduce timelines around regulatory processes, are actually serving to further undermine public confidence.
So what to do in this context? This is where the presentation will leave off.
There are four key things that I'd like to point to. The first is to accept the horses, accept that social and value change, those fundamental changes, mean that we are in a very different context for energy development than we were in, let's say, the 1950s. If you look at the pipeline sector, the last time we had this many major pipeline proposals, either on the books or before regulators, was in the 1950s. At that time, a royal commission was struck to try to sort through how to address these various issues, but again, fast forward to 2016 and a very different context in terms of social and value change. We can't turn back the clock on it. We have to think through how to you do energy in that context.
The second is to befriend the elephants. We have a number of policy gaps that governments would do well to address, notably, as I mentioned earlier, around climate, around reconciliation and around cumulative and regional effects of energy development.
The third is to get the sitting ducks back on their feet. How can we go about strengthening energy decision-making processes and strengthening confidence in energy decision making? That's not only in terms of the substance of decisions, so ensuring that decisions are made in ways that are seen to be fair, that are made based upon the best available evidence, but also focusing in on the process of energy decision making as well, ensuring that there is access for individuals to be involved in energy decision making and that information is available for those who are interested, whether it is individuals or groups or communities, and have the capacity to be engaged in energy decision making and also ensuring that those processes are seen to be representative.
The final thing I will end on is that I'm actually cautiously optimistic, and I think there's a very exciting opportunity for Canada to move from the bleeding edge to the leading edge of this issue. As a democracy, we are facing these challenges, as are many other western industrialized democracies with large resource bases. I think Canada has a real opportunity here to think through how you do energy decision making in the 21st century.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, professor, for your presentation. We will now turn to the senators for questions.
Senator Doyle: Thank you for your presentation. It was very interesting.
In our committee hearings, we have had many references to social license as it applies to pipeline projects. Depending on who you talk to, that concept can mean anything from genuine consultation with interested and affected groups to groups who could very well have a de facto veto power over the project, and somewhere in the middle of all of that you have the national interests. In your view, are these two concepts closely related? Are they mutually exclusive of each other?
Ms. Gattinger: Thank you very much for the question.
There's been a good deal of debate within energy circles about the utility and value and appropriateness of the concept of social license. It's important to recognize that that concept emerged in the mining sector as a social license to operate, and it applied exclusively, and still does, to individual mining companies and their operations with respect to a particular project.
As some of the challenges around energy began to become more salient, folks were looking for a concept that can help us to think through these issues, and that concept of social license came also to be applied to the energy sector. My view on the way that it's been applied in the energy sector is that it hasn't necessarily been helpful in advancing a productive conversation around these challenges because it's been applied in such a way that rather than focusing exclusively on individual company's practices, it has actually been applied in a way that extends across the entire decision-making processes, including policy-makers and regulators.
Taken to the extreme, it's precisely as you mentioned, senator, and I thank you for the question. One could look at this concept as actually conferring a veto on any individual or group that opposes a particular energy project. I don't think that's a direction that we want to go in. I think what we need to think through, in a democratic context again, is how you balance participatory democracy, people being involved, with, at the end of the day, representative democracy and governments, whether it's regulators or politicians, needing to make decisions.
I think strengthening confidence in that process of energy decision-making is where we should be focusing our efforts. In our work, we have very consciously not used that concept of social license for precisely that reason. We've either spoken to public confidence, as I have today, or social acceptance and support for energy.
Senator Doyle: We've also heard that certain pipeline projects have achieved considerable buy-in by groups in whose territory a given pipeline might be slated to go. In your view or experience, what is a buy-in? Does it include a sharing of resource revenues and pipeline jobs and even consultation with groups long after the pipeline has been finished?
Ms. Gattinger: This very much again comes to what I mentioned earlier in the presentation, social and value change and individuals wanting to have a say in decisions that affect them, and increasingly that the line of sight for interest is at the local or community level.
For these large, linear infrastructure projects, it's very important to think through not only what our decision- making processes look like for those projects, ensuring that we've got good opportunities for individuals to be involved, ensuring we've got decision-making processes in which there is public confidence, but also to think through, and we're doing some early work around this, what fairness looks like in the 21st century.
If you look to the United States, some of the jurisdictions that are developing shale gas where hydraulic fracturing is being undertaken in fairly extensive ways have begun to think through how you can try to ensure that the distribution of benefits and costs around the development of that resource is done in such a way that it's perceived as fair not only at, let's say, the state level but also at the local level as well.
In some instances, that has actually meant a funnelling of severance taxes, roughly equivalent to royalties here in the Canadian context, to local communities in a very direct way, so that those communities can see the direct benefits of that development to their community. These are some of the balances that we need to try to strike in the current environment.
Senator Unger: Thank you very much, Ms. Gattinger, for your presentation. I'm from Alberta and we certainly know a lot of these issues.
Going back to your slide about what drives public confidence, you mentioned that industry has a role. I wonder what your opinion is of how industry — and I'm talking about the hydrocarbon industry — has performed.
Ms. Gattinger: It would be difficult to answer that question in a blanket way. As you would well know, there are many different companies, each with different cultures, histories and practices.
One of the challenges that we're facing currently — and I didn't mention it in the presentation, but I think it's important to recognize — is that, as a result of the "shale revolution," we're really seeing a transformation in North American energy markets. Changes in the ways, the directions, the destinations, where the producing areas and the consumption areas are — those have meant significant transformations in energy infrastructure, including in pipelines.
As I mentioned a moment ago, you would have to go back to the 1950s in the Canadian context to see this many major pipeline proposals either on the books or before regulators. Pipelines are getting attention in a way that they have not had attention for many years and, again, in a social context that has been fundamentally changed.
As I mentioned earlier, we've got increasing concerns about climate change, so many pipeline projects are actually being targeted over concerns about climate rather than concerns about the individual project per se. We have pipelines transiting through areas, or proposed to transit through areas, that perhaps have not had pipelines before — again, in a context of increasing recognition and rights for indigenous peoples and concerns over reconciliation.
I think industry is grappling with how to function in this very different context.
I would imagine you have had witnesses before you who would say that when it comes to the performance of the pipeline sector, 99.999 per cent of the time— add however many 9s the pipeline sector is able to calculate to — it is able to deliver its product safely and without incident. What we do see, though, is that when there is an incident, it receives a tremendous amount of attention.
Industry is grappling with these issues and trying to think through how to develop greater levels of confidence in our industry in a context, again, where social and value change is such that people will more often remember the pipeline spill than they will the 99.999 per cent of product that makes its way to its destination without incident.
Senator Unger: Just to comment about Alberta and the oil stands, there are more than 1,700 Aboriginal people in permanent jobs at the oil sands. Over the past 14 years, Aboriginal companies have earned over $8 billion in revenue through working relationships in the oil sands. In 2011 and 2012, oil sands companies contributed more than $20 million to Aboriginal communities in that area. I think that Alberta has done extremely well in working with Aboriginal people.
But I have a different question, and this one is about the NEB. In a summary of the white paper that you co- authored, one recommendation is to make changes to the NEB Act to be sure that the NEB is unconstrained in its ability to regulate appropriately and has public confidence in its mandate and decisions. I would certainly agree with that. Can you elaborate on how the NEB is currently constrained, and what specific changes you feel are necessary in order to free the NEB from that controversy?
Ms. Gattinger: I appreciate the information relayed about indigenous communities and the benefits that many indigenous communities are seeing from hydrocarbon development. We often hear the negative side and not necessarily the positive side, so I thank you for that..
With respect to the white paper, as you mentioned, I was a co-author on a white paper on "social licence" that was spearheaded by the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy. It's important to note that paper was the work of multiple academics. It was a wonderful experience to be involved in, but I think it's noted in the paper that it's not a work of consensus. As with many issues, including this one, there are tremendous levels of debate around what the appropriate diagnosis is and what prescriptions should be. I wanted to give that rather lengthily caveat to say that what I am about to share with you is my own view and not necessarily reflective of the others who were involved in preparation of that white paper.
Again, to come back to the presentation that I've just made, one of the reasons that we're seeing such tremendous focus and controversy in the regulatory process has less to do with regulation and energy regulation per se and far more to do with the policy gaps — the elephants in the room that I mentioned earlier in my presentation. It's so important for us, when we're thinking through what kind of changes we might make to regulatory systems, notably the NEB, to ensure that we're working with an accurate diagnosis of the problem and not focusing exclusively on one area.
Changes to the regulatory system are necessary, in my view. Strengthening public confidence in that system is absolutely essential, but it's a necessary but insufficient condition when it comes to strengthening public confidence in energy decision making for all the reasons that I mentioned a moment ago.
We need to really look carefully at the relationship between policy-makers and regulators and, again, reinforce that important role that the regulatory process plays in terms of an evidence-based, neutral, objective, expert-based assessment of individual project proposals. That may very well mean thinking about how we do a better job of ensuring information, access and representation in that process.
But, again, in the absence of dealing with some of these elephants in the room, with strengthening public confidence in energy development, you can only go so far with changes to the regulatory system.
Senator Mercer: Thank you for your presentation. It's very interesting.
I wanted to clarify a term you used, because people watching may not understand it, and I'm not sure I do. Under your horse of social and value change, you said shift from "communitarian to individual values." What is "communitarian"?
Ms. Gattinger: "Group values" is an easier way of putting it. It is shifting from thinking about society writ large and interest with respect to society writ large toward a greater focus over the last number of years — the last number of decades — we've seen toward individual interests. It is line of sight when it comes to thinking through support for an individual energy project or energy policy frameworks, much greater focus at individual and local levels over the group. It could be society, regional, provincial or national level.
Senator Mercer: One of the issues I see is the fact that we're not looking at this from a national perspective. Well, we are in the case of my Province of Nova Scotia. We're talking about getting oil and gas from Alberta to my province. But one of our main purposes here is about getting oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to tidewater, so we can export it to other people around the world at prices higher than we are selling it to the Americans, because the Americans, of course, take a discount. This is the issue.
I get to your other heading of what to do. You say getting the ducks back on their feet, strengthening confidence in energy decision making, substance of fairness, evidence-based, et cetera. How do you do that?
Ms. Gattinger: That is a tough question; thank you for it.
We have undertaken public opinion polling research. As you would probably know, if you poll Canadians about their levels of support for energy development, whether it's oil and gas or renewables, the majority of Canadians support oil and gas development, support renewable development, even support further development, so increased development in those sectors, including in oil and gas. What we do see, though, is that Canadians are also looking for a balance between the economy and the environment, looking notably to the federal government around climate change and movement on climate change.
Where sometimes we see that level of support that is there sort of in the abstract sometimes break down is when it comes to individual project proposals, where it's almost like citizens think with two sides of their brain. On the one side, they think about what is in the interest of the country writ large in sort of an abstract way, but then, when there is a project in front of them that will have an impact on their community, whether it's traversing through their community or ending in their community, then there is a little bit more focus on what the local interests are and what their individual interests are.
What we need to think through at that national level how we put in place a framework that people can have confidence in and that not only delivers for the economy and society and the environment writ large but also is perceived as fair when it comes to the distribution of benefits and costs across the country. I think linear infrastructure, back to Senator Doyle's question at the outset of this session, is particularly challenging in that respect, given the way in which costs and benefits are distributed on those projects. What does "fairness" look like in the 21st century? We are going to have to give that some pretty serious thought.
Senator Mercer: I appreciate that. I really think that one of the issues that we have is that Canadians are not looking at the benefits that are happening in downtown Toronto because of the export of crude oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan. They somehow have missed the economics lesson that says what is good for Alberta is good for Toronto.
How do we link that? Senator Unger tried to do a link to the Aboriginal community, and we're going to hear from some Aboriginal people later today. I really think that we need to do a linkage here of how exporting bitumen from Alberta is good for every community in Canada. As we say in Atlantic Canada, high tide rises all boats. This is a very important high tide that we are talking about.
Ms. Gattinger: It is, and, in that context, it is all the more important to try to identify what drives lack of confidence in these projects and what drives supporter opposition to these projects. Research that we have done to date suggests that — and, again, I mentioned it in the presentation, but I will come back to that for this particular question here — there are a variety of different drivers of support and opposition. Some of those can be economic. So where is the benefit for my community? Yes, there, perhaps an economics lesson is in order. However, some of the other concerns are much more about the way in which those resources are being developed and looking at the environmental impacts, in this case, of oil and gas development, specifically of oil development.
To return to the public opinion polling data, the public opinion research that we have undertaken, Canadians are confident that Canada can develop its energy resources in ways that respect the environment. What I think they have been missing up to this point is a plan. How are we going to do that? What is that going to look like?
Again, public opinion polling data that I am aware of from other organizations suggests that Canadians want to see a transition toward a cleaner energy future. They may think that transition can be undertaken more rapidly than is actually feasible in economic terms, in environmental, in market terms, et cetera. However, putting in place some sort of framework that would demonstrate to Canadians that the country is moving in the direction of a cleaner energy future might actually take some of the pressure off of some of these individual projects.
Senator Mercer: Buying all of that, who is responsible for building that confidence in Canadians?
Ms. Gattinger: I wish I could say it was a single entity that was able to undertake that relatively easily. As I said at the outset, the main message of my presentation today is that this development of public confidence is a multi-faceted challenge. It requires a lot of collaboration and coordination across governments.
I think there is a window of opportunity right now, and I am cautiously optimistic on this. There is a window of opportunity right now with a number of different decision processes that are ongoing. We have the First Ministers' meeting around climate. That is a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate movement in the country on that important issue.
We have the Council of the Federation meeting around the development of a Canadian energy strategy. The federal government has been invited into that process. If all of that can be worked out, again, it is a wonderful opportunity to look at what Canada's energy future looks like.
Third, we have the Energy and Mines ministers process, which, this year, is focusing on public confidence as its key theme. That is an opportunity to look at what can be done to strengthen public confidence at that level of regulation and issues that are within the mandates of energy and mines ministers.
All of this to say, multiple actors need to be working together in a strategic and coordinated way.
Senator Runciman: Going through this process, it's nice to hear you are cautiously optimistic, because I am not. I wonder if you could talk about the implications of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples with respect to how that may impact. There are a couple of elements here that I saw.
I am looking at a note here, dated not too long ago. It was this month.
. . . 130 First Nations, led by the Yinka Dene Alliance signed on to the Save the Fraser declaration in British Columbia, in direct opposition to the Northern Gateway . . . . The pipelines are a no go," said Stuart Phillip, grand chief of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs . . . ."
He was arrested, obviously, over the Kinder Morgan Mountain project.
Then, we see the NEB approved Trans Mountain twinned pipeline, an existing pipeline. Automatically, people are jumping to their feet, including the mayor of Vancouver, who showed up in Ottawa here last week to lobby the government on not approving Trans Mountain, even though the NEB has approved it and set up over 100 conditions, I believe.
Perhaps I can first ask your reaction to the UN declaration and the seemingly rigid resistance of so many in the Aboriginal communities, and then I have another issue that I want to raise with you.
Ms. Gattinger: The cautious optimism, I suppose, in part, is borne of a personality trait.
That said, there is no question that this is going to be hard. There is no question that we are facing a variety of challenges. Some of those policy gaps I mentioned on climate, on reconciliation, on cumulative effects and regional planning are really hard slogging to address.
It remains to be seen the way in which the government will implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Returning to a prefatory remark by Senator Doyle, one of the concerns is: Would that be implemented in such a way that it would confer a veto? If that is the case, it could be quite challenging for any of these projects moving forward. Our federal government definitely has its work cut out for it in thinking through the way in which it will implement that declaration.
On some of the broader issues, there is an opportunity. I certainly see this in terms of federal-provincial relations. Post-1980 and the National Energy Program, provinces actually coming together to collaborate around energy rather than competing and conflicting with one another was relatively challenging. We have seen significant movement on that through the Council of the Federation with the Canadian Energy Strategy. If the federal government is able to get engaged in that in a productive way, again, avenues are there, but it will take significant and careful thought about what key issues need to be addressed, who needs to be at the table, what some of the areas are where participatory democracy may be coming into tension with representative democracy, and where and how governments will identify the appropriate balance points between those tensions that we increasingly see.
Senator Runciman: The other element, and I'm sure there are many others that make me less than optimistic, is the third party opposition out there seemingly to any development in the energy sector. We have heard the Mayor of Vancouver being very vocal; and the Mayor of Montreal, with other mayors supporting his position, who wants no pipeline through Quebec, despite the fact that they import from countries that have terrible environmental controls and horrific human rights records. In any event, that is their position.
Organizations like the World Wildlife Fund and the Suzuki Foundation don't want anything coming out of the ground. Some of them are well funded, some by U.S. money, which is ironic because the U.S. has sort of beaten us to the punch, if you will, in terms of development of the energy sector as they now export oil.
In any event, I made the point to representatives of the industry here that there has to be a more strategic approach on the economic side of this as well. You see the advertising. I have seen the television ads on the broader economic impacts to the country; and we have heard that kind of testimony.
We heard a witness who talked about a couple of more specific things that I think should be approached not just by the industry but also by third parties, such as Canadian chambers of commerce and Canadian manufacturers. He talked about Algoma steel in Sault Ste. Marie, which is on its knees in terms of production. He said that two LNG plants in British Columbia, which would represent one half of a year's production out of that steel plant, could rescue them. They have been rescued already a couple of times by government. He talked about over 100 businesses in Quebec that are dependent on the energy sector.
I asked him whether he had been in Sault Ste. Marie. They happen to have a cabinet minister representing that area in the province of Ontario; and the provincial government has not been terribly supportive. Have you been there and talked to that community so they can make an impression on their MPP? Have you been to those Quebec communities? There has to be that kind of effort as well. You can put big messages on television, but we will be watching the hockey game or whatever and they will not sink in. However, if you can go into a community and say that you can assure them of jobs for them, their kids and grandkids going forward, those are the kinds of messages that balance these other issues we have been talking it.
There needs to be a more strategic approach to getting the message out to Canadians at a more familiar level, if you will — to the households and the communities rather than these big picture messages. That's a strategy that they should look at. They have to draw other people who will benefit from this — the provinces and communities — but I don't see that happening yet.
Ms. Gattinger: Thank you very much for those remarks, which generally I would be very much in agreement with.
Certainly there is a place for some of those broader communication messages around economic impacts. Many of the things we see in our research as well speak to exactly what you said: the importance of engagement at the community level and connecting with people where they live and work and connecting at the local level in terms of thinking through the impacts of energy and other projects on their daily lives.
There is no question as well that the debate has tended to be quite polarized. If you were to look at public opinion polling data, you would see that the majority of Canadians are not on either tail, if you will, of those polarized debates. The majority of Canadians are in the centre and looking for some sort of plan to know where we're going with Canada's energy future.
I appreciate that there is no question of it being a challenging issue, and I think the elements are there. We need to look at this as a coordinated, multi-faceted issue. There is not a silver bullet for this one.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you, Professor Gattinger, for your presentation and drawing our attention to your metaphor of elephants, horses and sitting ducks.
You are right in saying that people are looking for a balanced plan or framework. For example, if there is to be further accommodation of pipelines, people want to know what the plan is for climate change overall and how we're going to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. You have raised a wide range of issues and a wide range of stakeholders that need to be involved with all of this.
With the breaking down of silos, it seems the federal government, in consultation with the provinces and territories and industry, will have to do a lot of that if it is to gain general public support and understanding of the direction that this whole matter is going in terms of energy development.
Let me try to take some of the things you talked about and relate them to what is going on in terms of the National Energy Board hearings. They're trying to determine who would best represent the various interests involved before their hearings. Perhaps you're suggesting something that would be broader. Should all Canadians have an opportunity to be exposed to that hearing? You can't obviously have them all come to a table and sit here like we are here or like the National Energy Board might conduct its meetings, but there are various social media methods and new technologies that perhaps could be used in that regard. What would you envision in terms of how the National Energy Board might play a role in this because they will have a role in terms of licensing and environmental assessment of the matter?
Ms. Gattinger: That is the question of the day in many respects. As we know, the new federal government put in place a number of conditions and has now undertaken a subsequent consultation process following the NEB process. It's a tough issue. I say that because the NEB was set up in the first place as the result of the Borden commission in the 1950s. It was very much about depoliticizing the process of decision-making for energy projects. This is why we set up arm's-length, independent, quasi-judicial regulatory bodies, whether in energy or other sectors. The governments set the overall policy framework — that is, what we are going to do around climate change, reconciliation and cumulative effects, et cetera — and then confer on a regulatory body a mandate within which they operate to either approve, not approve or approve with conditions individual projects that come before them.
The approach that we are seeing right now concerns me a bit, I must say, in that I can understand the government's desire to expand the opportunity for Canadians to be engaged on these issues, to be engaged on individual projects and put in place these post-NEB consultation processes. However — and we will see — if individuals engaging in those processes are engaging on issues that are outside of the NEB's mandate — for example, climate reconciliation — it's not clear to me how that will actually help the government make a decision about an individual energy project.
In the absence of a policy framework that addresses those issues within which a regulator then makes decisions about individual projects, we wind up with this sort of half policy, half regulatory process. I will put this in a very extreme way, using climate as an example: I don't think it's a good idea for Canada to make climate change policy one pipeline at a time.
Senator Eggleton: I take it what you are suggesting by all of this is that federal and provincial governments and industry need to get out in front in terms of developing a balanced view of this framework before actually getting down to specific details of specific projects at the National Energy Board. In other words, do you think we have put the cart before the horse by rushing off to the NEB in a very limited fashion without having addressed all these other issues?
Ms. Gattinger: I don't know that there has been much of a choice for governments in that sense, simply given where a number of these project proposal processes are at. That said, governments are in a tight spot. They are facing timelines with respect to individual projects, but some of these broad elephants — policy gaps around reconciliation and climate — will likely take more than six months to sort through. There are some challenges there, to be sure, but I would generally agree with the way that you framed it.
Senator Greene: Thank you very much for your presentation. I missed the first part, but it was excellent, and I wish that I was here, actually, and I don't say that all the time.
Like you, I am cautiously optimistic about this whole project and what we are doing. I think the reason I am is that I simply believe it would be an historic mistake not to bring petroleum to tidewater via pipelines.
I really like your phrase, "building public confidence." I certainly prefer it to "social licence." If you were put in charge of building public confidence, what are the one, two or three things you would do that we are not doing now?
Ms. Gattinger: Thank you for that question. That's a wonderful question, would that be true.
Given the social and value change that we have seen, namely declining levels of trust in governments and in industry and declining trust in experts and expertise, it really does begin to point to thinking about how we could do energy differently, and that process becomes extremely important. Yes, there is the substance of the decisions at the end of the day, but there is also the question of the process to get to those decisions and whether people can have confidence in that process.
On the broader questions that Senator Eggleton raised, I don't know that I would call it a royal commission, but I would put in place some sort of third party, independent commission body that would be seen to be representative and credible. It would have representation from industry, ENGOs and indigenous communities and, at the local level, engage municipalities rather than see them as a problem, which is often the case that we are seeing right now.
Put in place a process that would then have some confidence from members of the public and that could begin to sort through and hash through some of these issues. That could very well include robust consultation processes and commissioning studies that would be relevant in terms of decision-making for Canada's energy future, and I would call it something to that effect — that is, a blue ribbon panel on Canada's energy future, or something to that effect.
Again, I think that would take a bit of time, but it would put in place a mechanism that could begin to develop some confidence in Canadians that governments are taking this issue seriously and that they are engaging in a way that is seen to be representative and that folks can have some confidence in.
At the end of the day, recommendations could come out of that body which might be recommendations that would be difficult for governments to get to in intergovernmental processes but might be easier for them to adopt had they been developed through a robust process in which folks had confidence. That would be number one from my perspective.
Senator Greene: Good. Thank you very much. That could be a recommendation in our report.
The Deputy Chair: Professor, our time is up. I want to thank you for your participation.
Senator Mercer: Sorry to interrupt, chair, but before our witness leaves, she mentioned she was releasing a paper later this week, and I was wondering if perhaps we could get a copy of that paper for the committee.
Ms. Gattinger: Most certainly. It is coming out in the next number of weeks. Absolutely, I can follow up with that.
Senator Mercer: Good. Thank you very much.
Senator Unger: Professor, given the participatory democracy, which I translate as activists who, as my colleague referenced, are funded by U.S. interests, and the fact that right now the U.S. is exporting oil to Eastern Canada — and, of course, their oil is coming from these countries with horrible human rights records — and the fact that I am reading more and more that Canada is lagging seriously behind in this race, how is this fairness? Can this balance ever truly be restored? Canadians are looking for balance and you offered suggestions, but is this really a fight that we have maybe lost? I know you are optimistic, but I wish I could be.
Ms. Gattinger: Thank you for the question. I think it's very important to draw a distinction. At the outset of the presentation, I had a number of drivers of public confidence, and one of those drivers was society, including NGOs, local communities, indigenous communities, friends, neighbours, et cetera. It's so important to draw a distinction between the concerns being expressed by local communities, residents and groups at the local level and what concerns are being addressed and raised by regional, national or international nongovernment organizations, notably on the environment.
We are actually undertaking some work right now to try to tease out those distinctions. I think they are very important to make because some of the more polarized elements of the debate are with the latter groups rather than with the former groups.
Senator Unger: Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Professor, thank you again for your participation here today.
Continuing our study on the development of a strategy to facilitate the transport of crude oil, I wish to welcome our next witnesses. From the Assembly of First Nations, we have Perry Bellegarde, National Chief; Craig Makinaw, Alberta Regional Chief; and William David, Senior Policy Analyst, National Chief's Office.
Chief Bellegarde and Chief Makinaw, thank you for attending our meeting. Please begin your presentations. Afterward, senators will have questions.
Perry Bellegarde, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations: Good morning to the senators. I am going to turn it over to my colleague, Chief Makinaw, for his formal piece. He's going to read that into the record officially, and I'm here to assist and help with questions. As national chief, I get to hand out portfolios. With regional Chief Makinaw, this is his job. I will turn it over to him first, and then we'll open it up.
Craig Makinaw, Alberta Regional Chief, Assembly of First Nations: Good morning, senators. Greetings, and my thanks for this opportunity to share some thoughts and perspectives with you this morning.
First Nations, federal, provincial and territorial governments are all considering the issue of moving oil to tidewater. For all of us to get to a regime that promotes cooperation, there are several realities to keep in mind.
First, in all resource development, decisions are made on a project-by-project basis, and First Nations are neither always for nor always against development. We have perspectives on all sides of the debate, just as there are nationally and globally about where the balance lies between environmental protection and economic development.
Second, First Nations occupy a particular place in regard to individual project approvals and the broader dialogue because of our inherent jurisdiction over these lands and our right to self-determination.
Third, no government's jurisdiction is absolute. Our inherent jurisdiction is not absolute. Neither is the Crown's assumed sovereignty absolute. In other words, the international human rights system recognizes that, as peoples, First Nations authority exists alongside that of the Crown, equal and not subservient to it.
The Crown must recognize and respect the right of each nation to say "yes" or "no." It is an aspect of our right to self-determination. Like all rights, the right to self-determination stands in relationship to the rights of other peoples and to our responsibilities as humans to the lands and waters, and to future generations.
First Nations can, and many do, choose to benefit from oil and gas production, and that's a critical point. First Nations export oil and gas resources, because Canadian law is informed by and must respect the right to self- determination.
There are First Nations with serious and well-founded concerns about the safety of pipeline and rail transport through their territories. Spills impacting First Nations harvesters and First Nations communities are not uncommon incidents. These incidents only highlight the need for processes to approve and regulate pipelines, as well as to respond to emergencies and compensate for possible damages, and to include First Nations rights and interests.
Today, I will highlight deficiencies of the current federal regulatory regime. These can be summarized by saying: One, First Nations have been sidelined in the federal regulatory decision-making process for approving and regulating pipelines. First Nations are treated as bystanders. The current system for approving and regulating energy infrastructure in Canada does not serve anyone well. One reason is that First Nations are treated as bystanders in all aspects of regulation relating to transport of oil and gas products.
The current process for approving pipelines is a process between companies and the National Energy Board. Neither the National Energy Board Act nor the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 permit environmental assessments to consider the rights of First Nations, only environmental effects. In our view, the scope and range of environmental effects is under-inclusive of First Nations rights.
Procedurally, the only opportunity for First Nations to engage in that process is through the general provisions for public involvement. Environmental NGOs and First Nations have both identified severe failings with the ability to appear and bring evidence to National Energy Board hearings.
Once a National Energy Board hearing is complete, the National Energy Board then drafts recommendations for approval by the minister. Only if a proposal is approved can First Nations rights become relevant to the regulatory process. In fact, the only way for First Nations to assert their rights in the approval process is to challenge the validity of the process in court.
The National Energy Board process is a regulatory regime that, at times, compels First Nations to litigate to have our rights even heard, much less respected. The National Energy Board has been found not to have the jurisdiction to even carry out a treaty-infringement analysis. Such defects necessarily require First Nations to challenge approvals that ignore treaty and inherent rights. This kicks off a separate legal process between First Nations and the Crown, where the proponent becomes a bystander.
The current regime also over-delegates the Crown's legal obligations to proponents, contrary to the principles of the Supreme Court decision in Haida Nation.
The interim principles introduced by the current government do not change the fact that First Nations are bystanders in the regulatory approvals process and that proponents are bystanders in the consultation and accommodation process. The interim principles are a partial step in the right direction, though, by ensuring the decision maker is privy to all relevant information prior to making a decision.
First Nations must be full partners in the approval and regulation of pipelines, and you need us to help to redesign the current broken system.
The same could be said for the rules promulgated under the Pipeline Safety Act. First Nations rights currently receive no consideration under the Pipeline Safety Act, further eroding First Nations trust in the process of regulating pipelines in Canada.
Consider some First Nations perspectives: A company approaches a First Nation and tells them that it is planning some kind of project, but some First Nations don't see a project. What they see is an undertaking that will interfere with First Nations rights. Sometimes this interference is temporary or minor, and sometimes this interference is serious and permanent.
The government or the proponent will ask the First Nation to explore opportunities to lessen the impact of the project on rights and, in extreme cases, to waive its rights. This is a free, prior and informed consent, the ability of First Nations to say yes or to say no to development that would otherwise be impermissible under the law.
From this perspective, consent is really an opportunity for First Nations to say yes to development. When First Nations do not provide consent in Canada, it means that they will undertake a lengthy and costly series of court battles to ensure respect for First Nations rights.
Instead, we find many in industry are focused on a no. What does it mean when a First Nation says no? It means that, from the perspective of the First Nation, that project is too risky and will have too much of an impact to be able to go ahead. If a court determines that the impact of the project on First Nations rights would be too great, a First Nations no simply means that an otherwise impermissible project remains impermissible.
This is not a new and not a radical concept. Consent is already a firmly established concept in Canadian law. What the declaration adds is that consent must be free, prior and informed. For Canada, this shouldn't be revolutionary either. Of course, consent isn't valid if it's obtained by coercion. By the same token, Canadian law already recognizes that consent must be obtained prior to Crown action.
Consent must be informed. What First Nations need, and what Canadians need, is a regulatory approvals process that ensures that First Nations can make informed decisions about development and that the information provided by proponents and by the Crown is relevant to the rights, interests and aspirations of First Nations. A system that requires this information to be exchanged is one that will improve meaningful dialogue between First Nations, proponents and the Crown and improve First Nations trust in the regulatory process.
Such a process should also be viewed as one step towards implementation of the First Nations right to self- determination. We need to move beyond yes and no. We need a system that fully recognizes the jurisdictions of First Nations, a regulatory jurisdiction that stands on equal footing with other jurisdictions and a jurisdiction that is clearly part of the broader Canadian constitutional framework, a jurisdiction that achieves reconciliation by mobilizing First Nations principles of sustainability and prosperity with broader Canadian principles, such as rule of law, nondiscrimination and cooperative federalism.
That's the presentation.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, chief.
Does anyone else have any comments to make before we go to questions?
Mr. Bellegarde: I think, for me — and I just speak; I put aside notes and everything else — when you start talking about transportation, trying to get the oil and gas resources to market, my colleague talked about the need to respect indigenous licence and the right to self-determination, meaning yes and/or no. You have 634 First Nations in Canada. You have 130 of them saying very clearly no, but you also have some others saying very clearly yes. So it is about balancing, respecting that right to say yes and/or no.
I think the most important thing is to have processes and systems set up between the federal government, provincial governments, industry and First Nations governments to create space for that dialogue to happen, to find common ground. That's the objective. It can't be an either/or. Are we going to choose the environment over the economy or the economy over the environment? It's finding balance, finding balance. That's the most important thing.
Processes have to be established on this whole issue because it's really creating divisions, and there are many divisions. You have to create the space to find balance and dialogue and make sure that indigenous peoples' rights are respected as you go through with this process.
The regulatory review process: I'd like to see indigenous people on the National Energy Board. I'd love to see indigenous people on the Supreme Court of Canada. My position has always been: Wherever decisions are being made that impact on First Nations people, inherent rights or treaty rights, you have to have our people around, right? It's as simple as that. Around decision making tables, you need to involve indigenous people so that the voices can be heard so that you find that balance, find that space. That's what it's all about.
On an international level — this is my own personal thought — we're too dependent on fossil fuels. Greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, there are so many things coming down, and we have to really, as human beings, the two- legged tribe, if you will, decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and start making key strategic investments in alternative, green energy. I think that's the path forward.
It's a phased approach. We're not going to stop driving cars tomorrow morning, and neither are we going to stop flying in planes. We're not going to do that, but there has to be a very planned out, key, strategic, phased approach to this as we go, and those are my thoughts on it as National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations. It's all about balance.
The words I'll use are "indigenous licence," which is very key as well, not just social licence but indigenous licence as well. That's a key concept because it's not only about public confidence in social licence, it's indigenous licence, especially in light of free, prior and informed consent and Canada's recent monumental position about supporting the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples without qualification.
I just wanted to share that.
Senator Mercer: Chiefs, thank you for being here. We really do appreciate your time and your input.
How do we get everyone to the table, and how do we get everyone to agree that the basis of coming to the table is how we maximize the benefit for all communities? In your case, obviously, you want to benefit the indigenous community, but I know that your interest goes beyond the indigenous community. You want to benefit the larger community, too, because what is good for everybody is good for you. How do we do that? How do we get people to the table?
Mr. Bellegarde: Basically establish intergovernmental processes, whether you call them bilateral or you call them trilateral. For example, you have the Council of the Federation coming up. Last year, when they announced their National Energy Strategy, I was the national chief saying, "What? Give me the who, what, where, when and why." We weren't involved in developing or designing anything. If you want to design a national energy strategy, you make sure you have the proper processes in place.
It's a simple message: Before federal governments and provincial governments or industry try to build anything, build a respectful relationship with indigenous people. That will create economic certainty.
I heard you earlier talking about a blue ribbon panel. I'd look more at bilateral processes where indigenous people are involved every step of the way in the development, design and implementation and delivery of any program going forward. That can happen with the great political will we have federally, working in concert with the Council of the Federation. We can design those processes going forward so that we find that balance between the environment and the economy. Whether you call them tables or intergovernmental affairs processes, those should be established sooner rather than later. That's what I would recommend.
It's enlightening as well to see the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has adopted something very fundamental to Canada. They've also endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples— a powerful statement. Industry is starting to get it, and they're beginning to focus on more than just the simple P for profit because the planet and the people are to be considered also — the three Ps. There are powerful movements to create those spaces for balance.
Senator Mercer: Involving indigenous people in all steps sounds ideal. If we could flip a switch today and say that it will happen, would it slow the process?
Mr. Bellegarde: Rightly so, and it should slow it down. Yes, again, you don't want to do anything rushed. You don't want to do anything that's going to leave anyone out. We might be 1.5 million people in terms of numbers in Canada, but 4.5 per cent of Canada's population is indigenous people; but I always say that we're not ethnic minorities. We are indigenous people with inherent rights, one of which is the inherent right to self-determination because we have our own lands, our own languages, our own laws, our own identifiable people and our own identifiable forms of government. Those rights need to be respected and can't be infringed upon. It's a matter of creating space to bring everyone to the table.
Senator Mercer: We continue to talk about the bad examples or the lack of good examples. Is there a project we can point to that was done right — that properly involved indigenous people to the point where a project went from concept to fruition with the full involvement of indigenous people? Has anyone done anything right on this file?
Mr. Bellegarde: Are you talking specifically about pipelines?
Senator Mercer: No.
Mr. Bellegarde: Are you asking about any relationship with industry?
Senator Mercer: I'm suggesting that the model could be transferable to discussions on pipelines.
Mr. Bellegarde: Let's take it in terms of the private sector. I'm from Saskatchewan and a small reserve called Little Black Bear in the southern part. I have held up Cameco in the northern part where they're mining uranium. They have a number of First Nations people on their board of directors. They have a number of First Nations people in entry level positions and middle management and senior management. They have resource revenue sharing back to indigenous peoples. In fact, 54 per cent of their workforce is indigenous people.
It's because of a simple requirement before any provincial government issues any licence or permit to any private sector business operating within provincial boundaries. We always recommend that before they're issued a licence or permit to operate, a private company or industry operating should develop and have a plan in place for First Nations engagement regarding employment, procurement and any benefit sharing back.
If a company has those three things in place, it will be granted a licence. If it doesn't, it won't be granted a licence or permit to operate in Quebec, B.C., Alberta, N.W.T., Manitoba, or Saskatchewan. You will see key strategic partnerships in place; and I think that's a simple policy change going forward.
I'll just use Cameco as one example, and there might be others; but I'm not an expert in industry operations, but I will give a shout out to Cameco for doing it in a good way.
Senator Mercer: That's one thing we need to think about; and that's a good example. It's a different industry, but it's also the same process as we develop.
Mr. Bellegarde: When I was Chief of Little Black Bear First Nation, Tim Cutt was the President of BHP Billiton, a multibillion-dollar potash company. They were potentially expanding a potash mine in Melville, Saskatchewan, half an hour away from my reserve. He spent the whole day with me, visiting my elders and my community. We were in ceremony together. He was building a relationship. That's an example of how industry can come out and really build a relationship. That is another example to build upon. Before you try to build anything, build a respectful relationship with indigenous peoples and governments.
Senator Mercer: I couldn't agree more.
In your presentation, you also mentioned the overdependence on fossil fuels by all of us. I find it interesting that we're now talking about how we involve our indigenous people properly and respectfully in the process of the pipeline. We can also see, at least my granddaughter can see, the end of our reliance on fossil fuels as technology changes. We're bringing our indigenous people to the table at the end of the process, not at the beginning of the process, in many ways.
What happens beyond oil and gas? Is this model that you're talking about transferable to other industries that might be developing, say, in mining? You gave the example of your community. Is it a transferable model?
Mr. Bellegarde: I'll make some quick comments and perhaps Chief Makinaw may have some as well. When we talk about a relationship with industry and developing the natural resource wealth, it is all about balance. In terms of the pipeline issue and the transportation of oil and gas, some First Nations say, no, no, while others are involved, so we're trying to find the balance.
I can point to the chiefs that say no. I work with 634 chiefs who are the rights and title holders. It's not the Assembly of First Nations that is the rights and title holders; it's the chiefs and the people out on the land on the ground. That's why we talk about the right to say yes or no. Some say yes and some say no.
Some who support the pipelines are oil and gas producers — 14 chiefs are oil and gas producers and want to get their product to market. Then you have some chiefs who want to look at equity ownership in pipelines. Some chiefs say that the pipelines will cut across their traditional territory lands so they're looking at a tax to add to the business operation cost and plan going forward. Some are engaging in that system while others are simply saying no. It's a balance with respect for the right to say yes and the right to say no.
If it's transferable, we have to start looking to greater investments and technology for clean green energy, no question. We have to start putting more energy and effort into creating less dependency on fossil fuels. Even clean energy, hydro for example, can impact on rights. I'm going to give one example from Northern B.C. Site C is a major billion-dollar hydro development that will affect the rights to hunt, fish, trap and gather. That's a major issue.
Even if you're going down the path of clean green energy, if we're not involved every step of the way in those multibillion-dollar projects as indigenous people, it still could hurt inherent indigenous and treaty rights. I just give that as an example. Could it be transferable? Sure — no question.
It's a simple thing: Make sure indigenous people are involved every step of the way in the design, development, and delivery of any program or policy going forward. It's a simple thing.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you for being here. You have made a valuable contribution to this approach with your remarks.
Let me start with Chief Mackinaw in terms of your statement about being bystanders in the process. In particular, I am thinking of the National Energy Board process and how we might improve that. Chief Bellegarde has suggested there should be indigenous people on the National Energy Board, in the hearing process, and that's a good point, but let's see what else we can do to improve the National Energy Board process.
They say they have developed an enhanced Aboriginal engagement initiative that aims to provide proactive contact with Aboriginal groups that may be affected by proposed projects that require a public hearing.
They have also engaged in "oral traditional evidence." They say it's one of the ways for them to gather information in the process and that they have attempted to do this, or have done it, they say, as part of their process for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline, as well as the Energy East Pipeline.
Have you noticed these kinds of improvements? What would you say about them?
Mr. Makinaw: I do know they did a few hearings in B.C. on Trans Mountain, like you said, and Northern Gateway. I am aware of that. They are trying to improve on the process, but it will take a while before things improve.
Years before, to use my band from Alberta as an example, we took the federal government to court on the oil and gas in the eighties. We were one of the two bands that took our money out of trust here in Ottawa; that was us and the Samson band. I am familiar with the legal aspect of how the IOGC, Indian Oil and Gas Canada, and the federal government deal with oil and gas.
I am glad that it is shifting to a different way now where there is more discussion and meetings with us to develop a better process. I am glad that is happening, and I am hoping down the road, like the national chief has been saying for the last year, that they try to work with us. I see that as a positive and I hope we head that way and have more of our people involved all the way through.
Once that happens, I can see where things would work better for everyone and down the road we will address the concerns on each project as it comes through. I hope we keep working on that until we get to the point where we will have a process that everyone agrees on.
Senator Eggleton: That is very good and valid, but you are still talking as if you are bystanders. Is there anything else you think could be done that would take you from being a bystander to more a central part of the action, where you are more aware of what is going on and where your input garners more respect?
Mr. Bellegarde: On that one, senator, respecting First Nations jurisdiction, establishing their own environmental regulatory review process is one key thing.
I think of the Ajax gold mine in British Columbia. Chief Wayne Christian and the chiefs in the Kamloops area set up their own environmental regulatory review process with their elders and community members to determine whether or not there should be a gold mine next to a lake. It is so close. That went on for two or three weeks. This is self- determination in action. We don't know what that decision will be at the outcome of their own process, but the industry was part of that process. That is one thing: Respect First Nations jurisdiction when, where and if they establish their own regulatory review process. That is in addition. Then you will have your National Energy Board regulatory review process. That is something else.
Senator Eggleton: You need to dovetail those.
Mr. Bellegarde: Yes, you could dovetail it, but I am saying to respect that First Nation jurisdiction over a process that is ongoing. That is one example.
Senator Eggleton: Let me ask you about different ways of engaging indigenous peoples that we have been hearing about in our hearings here. Certainly, as a sharer of the revenues, they could be revenue sharing agreements, collaboration agreements, co-ownership of projects and something called corridor coalitions, which seem to deal with both environmental and resource sharing possibilities.
My colleague asked you about specific companies, but is there any one particular model that you think is best to focus on?
Mr. Bellegarde: All of the above, senator: On revenue and benefit sharing, there is no question, as well as equity ownership of the pipeline. It comes out as safety. First Nations people want to be sure that if there is a spill, do you have the capacity for quick cleanup? You want to make sure that capacity is there. That is a big piece.
There might be merit to that corridor area piece. Where is it going? To work collectively on that, if it is to move forward, again it goes back to the point of and/or yes or no as it comes back through traditional territories and ancestral lands.
Three things that are key are benefit and revenue sharing, equity ownership in the pipeline and making sure safety is fundamental going forward in that corridor. We all know this is where it will happen. Those are three key things that you have to keep pushing and supporting.
Senator Eggleton: In terms of industry's approach to your communities on this, there are the pipeline proponents themselves — the people who are going to build the pipeline — but then there is also the industry in Alberta, or wherever, that wants to get their product to market. Are they reaching out? Do you get much sense that they are reaching out to tell their story to you and consult with you? You mentioned BHP. Is that happening very much in the oil and gas industry?
Mr. Bellegarde: I think Greg will answer that and I will add to his remarks at the end.
Mr. Makinaw: On the Alberta side, there has been a lot of consultation on all the projects with all the bands in Alberta, so it has been done. I think a lot of the bands are waiting to see what will happen with these pipelines, too, because the producing bands are the ones that are especially affected. They are waiting to see what is happening with the decision that will be coming down later this year.
Another example to look at would be in Alberta right now, where they are looking at solar energy projects. Companies are coming in and discussing revenue sharing stakes in the company with the bands. That process is going on right now. A lot of the bands in Alberta are looking at that alternative energy initiative as an option. They are looking at that at the same time as this is happening.
Mr. Bellegarde: The only other thing to add is that the old divide-and-conquer tactic has been overused a bit. Industry will come out and cut a deal with my fellow chief here, but he can't share it with me because there are confidentiality agreements. He might have cut a better deal than I can get. The whole industry is doing a little bit of that, and then we can't come together as a collective.
For me, it's always that we have to extend our jurisdiction beyond our Indian reservations. He is from Treaty 6, and I am from Treaty 4. We exert our jurisdiction throughout our treaty territories and ancestral lands. You have to look at every territory across Canada. If you start doing that, then there should be a Treaty 6 tax or a Treaty 4 tax. We have done that, in one instance in Treaty 4: When one pipeline was cutting across, all 34 First Nations got compensation.
Yes, it's there. They are reaching out because they know now that they have to partner with us. They know now the UN declaration has been endorsed and there are section 35 rights coming in and they know now of the Tsilhqot'in case. Again, that is out there, and now there is this furor about free, prior and informed consents, and I am saying, "Don't be alarmed. The sky is not falling. All we need to do is find processes to sit down and talk about this now." "Is it vetoed?" "Don't even talk about veto. Put that on the shelf over here." "Indians have a veto and will be saying no all the time." That's not helpful for the dialogue. Put that to the side and create proper processes where we can respect and find common ground. That's going to be the objective.
The answer is yes and no, industry reaching out, getting away from divide and conquer, looking at collective rights as well.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you.
Senator Unger: Thank you, Chief Mackinaw and Chief Bellegarde, for being here. A lot of my questions have been addressed, but I would like to start by talking about the area of the oil sands in northern Alberta, primarily the regional municipality of Wood Buffalo. It is home to the oil sands and several Aboriginal communities. I think you have been referencing them, including Anzac, Conklin, Fort Chipewyan, Fort MacKay and Janvier, all home to multiple First Nation and Metis people. More than 1,500 consultation meetings were held between First Nations and industry on oil deposits, pipelines, forestry and other resource developments between 2011 and 2012. Chief Mackinaw, I think you addressed that as well.
I'd like to say a couple of things about greenhouse gas emissions. Between 1990 and 2011, GHG emissions associated with every barrel of crude produced in the oil sands have been reduced by 26 per cent. The source of this statistic is Environment Canada.
Another statistic is that Canada, which has 0.5 per cent of the world's population, produces 2 per cent of GHG emissions. Oil sands account for 7.8 per cent of Canada's GHG emissions and just over 0.14 per cent of global GHG emissions. The source for this information is Environment Canada — that's 2012 — and the United Nations statistical division.
I think it would be a wrong argument to try to say that the oil sands are responsible for affecting climate change any more than, say, the emissions from cars in Toronto or some of our big urban centres. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Makinaw: From Alberta's point of view, as you are all aware, our NDP government is putting in carbon tax levies, which will start in January of next year. All of the companies are going to be working toward reducing their carbon emissions. It is especially going to affect Syncrude. It is going to be interesting to see how industry will be working to achieve these goals. With the meetings coming this fall, COP22 coming up, Alberta has to meet those emission goals. I see that as something that is going to be of benefit to the environment.
I'm hoping that, as we are moving along, they will have our people involved through the whole process, right from the beginning until everything is established. We have a lot of environment people, especially in the Treaty 6 and Treaty 8 area, out by Fort McMurray, that have been working in the oil sands area, and they could be of benefit for future work, with regard to the environment, with Syncrude.
Mr. Bellegarde: The only thing, senator, I would add on that is that, in northern Alberta and all the developments up there in the First Nations, lots have been benefiting economically. At the same time, there are a lot of cancers being known. The animals are getting sick. Those are also evidence of something happening because of industrial development.
Again, it is not an either/or. I go back to always continuing to balance, to make sure that things are not affected in a bad way, not only for my children or your children but for future generations yet unborn. There is only one world. We all need air to breathe, and we need water to drink. Yes, we need to drive cars. It's not a quick fix.
My point being, there is a need for a national energy strategy, no question, and there is also a need to involve indigenous peoples every step of the way in the development of that strategy. COP22 is coming up in Morocco in November. There is a provincial meeting with the feds in October, and indigenous peoples will be there: I will be sitting there as well, hopefully, bringing these issues and concerns forward. We have four working groups now that Catherine McKenna set up on the environment. In the next five months, we have to get our heads around this strategy going forward. Is it cap and trade? Is it a carbon tax? Is it carbon capture? The whole dialogue is lowering from 2 degrees to 1.5 degrees. Yes, that is going to have an impact on industry. We know that.
When you start talking about all of these statistics, I am not going to debate the statistics because you are reading them, and you have evidence. Everything moving forward should be evidence-based.
My whole point is finding the balance. I am not trying to harm what is going on, but it's making sure that there is balance, because I know that there are chiefs up there and their people who are concerned about the sicknesses that are happening. Something is happening, and there is not enough study done to find out what is happening. Again, back to balance.
Senator Unger: Speaking to balance and, specifically, to lung cancers or cancers, in your opinion, to this point in time, has there been any study or any investigation at the University of Alberta looking into the causal factor of that? Another statistic that has not been attributed to any particular thing is that Alberta has the highest incidence in Canada of multiple sclerosis. Yet, there is no medical accounting for that. I think we need the medical/scientific community to certainly become more involved, but, at this point in time, you can't specifically say that this is why. These things are occurring, and there are many questions, correct?
My other question is on a different vein. You referenced the carbon tax — Chief Mackinaw did — that will affect industry. Already, $30 billion in future investment in Alberta has been withdrawn. Are you at all concerned that, at some point, the companies will say, "Enough. We will finish the work we are doing, and we are out of here?"
Already, Canada — and I have been reading articles written about this — has dropped significantly in the global perspective of an oil-producing or-hydrocarbon producing country. We are being left behind. The reason is that Canada can't make up its mind. All they do is study and debate. I am not saying that study and debate is a bad thing. I think good things have been accomplished through it and, certainly, with your involvement in the process. But, if we are losing ground, five years from now, we could be sitting here still talking about this, and it will not matter.
Mr. Bellegarde: I would say, senator, with all due respect, as indigenous peoples, our worldview is simple. We don't see colour. When we go to ceremony, we are all the two-legged tribe, if you will. We respect our relatives, the four- legged ones, the ones that fly, the ones that swim, the ones that crawl. We acknowledge those four cardinal directions of beings that sit there. We acknowledge Mother Earth, Father Sky, Grandmother Moon, Grandfather Sun. We are connected. We also acknowledge those grandmothers that protect the waters — seawater, freshwater, rainwater. When water breaks, life comes. We are all connected and part of that.
As to why I say it in this way, I come back to the importance again: There is only one world. What are we leaving for our children, grandchildren and those children yet to come — seven generations down the road?
I believe in my heart, mind and soul that we are too dependent on fossil fuels. There are a lot of employment and economic opportunities if we start phasing toward green energy and looking at alternatives. I sincerely believe that the jobs that will be lost in the oil and gas sector could be made up in alternate energy technologies, if there is enough research and development, and innovation and technology.
That is what I believe, because we are all part of this — not only in Canada but the world. That is what I see. Even if we are losing ground, where is the strategy and plan, nationally and internationally, to bump that up?
Follow the money. Look at the other countries in the world that are really turning their efforts to clean energy and green energy, millions upon millions of jobs and employment created. I think that is something we can look at.
We know Canada is rich in resources; there is no question about that. It's balance, balance, balance. If we are to look at it, the economy is a 100-per-cent-owned subsidiary of the environment. That's how I look at it. It is balance going forward.
Again, I will not be saddling my great-great-grandchildren with a big headache because we didn't do things correctly in terms of policy, legislation and strategy going forward. No way.
Senator Unger: You referenced the Council of the Federation and how they left you out of their discussions, and you said, "we are now working with," so does that mean you will be at the table when the next discussion comes up?
Mr. Bellegarde: With your help and lobbying assistance from all these noble senators around, and messaging the premiers, you make sure the indigenous peoples are there, especially the Assembly of First Nations — and we should be there.
Senator Unger: I am all for it.
Mr. Bellegarde: That's it. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: With that, our session has come to an end. I would like to thank Chief Bellegarde, Mr. Makinaw and Mr. David for being here.
Honourable senators, at our next meeting, we will be hearing from Peter Forrester from Kinder Morgan.
(The committee adjourned.)