THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
FORT McMURRAY, Wednesday, April 10, 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 8:03 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Rosa Galvez (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Good morning, and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Rosa Galvez. I’m a senator from Quebec and chair of this committee. I will now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald from Nova Scotia.
Senator Mockler: I’m Percy Mockler, from New Brunswick.
Senator Neufeld: Richard Neufeld, Fort St. John, British Columbia.
Senator Richards: Dave Richards, New Brunswick.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, Nova Scotia.
Senator Simons: Paula Simon. Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
The Chair: Welcome to you and to the citizens in the back. Thank you very much for coming. Today 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.
I want to stress to witnesses that we are addressing C-69 issues, and not other bills or areas not covered by C-69. This is done within the spirit of being efficient in our hearings.
For this first panel, we welcome, from Syncrude Canada, Mrs. Kara Flynn, Vice President, Government and Public Affairs. From the Coalition of Canadian Municipalities for Energy Action, we have Gene Sobolewski, Mayor of Bonnyville, and Mayor Don Scott of the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo.
We will start with your statement, five minutes, and after which we will have a question and answer period.
Mrs. Flynn, do you want to go first?
Kara Flynn, Vice-President, Government and Public Affairs, Syncrude Canada Ltd.: Thank you and good morning, Madam Chair, senators, and ladies and gentlemen. My name is Kara Flynn, and I’m Vice-President for Government and Public Affairs for Syncrude Canada Ltd. I’d like to first respectfully acknowledge that we are gathered today on Treaty 8 territory and the homeland of the Metis people. Syncrude Canada Ltd. operates the Syncrude project on behalf of four joint venture participants who are CNOOC Oil Sands Canada, Imperial Oil Resources Ltd., Sinopec Oil Sands Partnership, and Suncor Energy.
As the operator, Syncrude holds the critical assets of its valued employees, its reputation, all of our leases as well as our regulatory licences and approval. As a result, we are responsible for applying, attaining, and complying with all of our regulatory approval and licences. I recently chaired our regulatory panel through public hearings on an extension of our Mildred Lake mine.
You have a presentation before you. I won’t speak in detail to it, but it’s there for your information. I will now direct comments towards slide 3 in that slide deck.
Syncrude has been actively engaged throughout the consultation and review of the federal assessment process. We appreciate the government’s intent to enhance public confidence in the process and help get resources to market.
We support changes that increase regulatory process certainty and ensure Canada is a predictable and competitive business environment. I understand you heard from our colleagues in Calgary yesterday and have received their comprehensive analyses and recommendations for amendments to C-69. While I won’t take the time to go through all of the recommendations, please know that we at Syncrude are aligned with and supportive of their submissions, as well.
Today I am pleased to share with you some of our overarching thoughts and to highlight a few of the changes that we believe would result in the bill offering improvements over the current process.
As a provincially regulated industry, we would support an early planning phase that provides clarity and efficiency of the process. We learned firsthand that without clarity, the early engagement phase does little but add time into regulatory decision-making.
In a recent provincial application, we allowed two full years of engagement before our application was filed. We took this step in response to feedback from local Indigenous communities who wanted to be engaged early in the regulatory and consultation process. And they wanted to have the opportunity to understand the details of the project before the application was filed.
While this contributed to an increased consultation record, it did not, in our opinion, add value to the high-quality assessment and application that was completed through the formal and rigorous application process. The scope of the assessment must be defined early in the process, which would set out the expectations of the process and requirements against which the impact assessment should be measured. Ensuring only relevant factors within federal jurisdiction are considered from the start is necessary to eliminate significant delays throughout the process and to provide assurance that not all factors listed in clause 22 must be considered in any given project assessment.
Moreover, in the current draft of the Act, there is no ability to prioritize those that are most directly affected by a major project to have their voice heard in a way that’s different than the broader public. We support amendments that would empower the agency to determine the process for Indigenous and stakeholder participation that is commensurate with the impacts they feel from a specific project. These changes should lead to transparent, efficient, and more predictable process for the agency, proponents, stakeholders, and Indigenous people.
Syncrude supports the principle of one project, one assessment. For the successful implementation of the Act, it will be important to ensure cooperation agreements with the provincial lifecycle regulators are in place to allow for timely, efficient, coordinated review processes and substitutions where project benefits and impacts are clearly within the jurisdiction of a best place provincial lifecycle regulator. Alberta already has such a process in place.
Ensuring processes are coordinated and duplication is avoided where there are overlapping federal and provincial assessments allows supporting consultation and engagement to occur in a meaningful way. With the responsibility for natural resource development, we believe that the provinces are generally best positioned to act as the lead agency for not only the assessment but the decision-making and follow-up monitoring and auditing.
Speaking to slide 4 in my deck, in terms of overall competitiveness, our industry is already struggling to compete in a global marketplace as a result of the cumulative impacts of new regulation. The act should recognize in the purpose statement in subclause 6(1) that the intent is also about investment climate, improved investor confidence, strengthening the Canadian economy, encouraging prosperity, and improving competitiveness.
Another important amendment is also on the scoping of factors to ensure the agency does what the act intends and scopes the factors appropriately. Every project is different. What matters to each and every community where a project is found will vary. Indigenous rights and traditional uses of land will vary for different parts of the country, and those factors must be appropriately weighted.
Claluse18 of the act should be adjusted to make clear that the agency has the authority and obligation to scope the factors outlined in subclause 22(1) to ensure the tailored impact statement guidelines are tailored to each individual project and focus on relevant issues and to clearly communicate that the agency’s scoping decisions at the end of the early planning phase.
There’s a technical issue that we’d like to highlight with subsection 7(1) as it is currently drafted. Under the current act, CEAA 2012, you are prohibited from causing any harm to the environment prior to your project being approved. That makes complete sense. The wording in C-69, however, is larger than that. It makes it read as though you can’t do anything including engaging Indigenous communities. Deleting paragraph 7(1)(d) and incorporating the text as a new subparagraph 7(1)(c)(iv) would make it clear that the proponent is not prohibited from acts or things that do not change the environment.
Since the committee plans to submit its report to the Senate on May 9, it is unlikely the bill will reach Royal Assent before the June. The coming into force and implementation of any of the Acts created or amended by Bill C-69 requires supporting regulations and guidance. Rushing the gazetting and consultation on regulations and guidance to allow coming into force prior to the 2019 federal election will not provide sufficient time for a thoughtful analysis and consultation.
Deficient regulations and guidance will translate into poor implementation and create further uncertainty and investment risk to our industry. Therefore we urge you to amend the coming into force provisions of the proposed impact assessment act and the Canadian Navigable Waters Act to be no earlier than one year after Royal Assent.
I’d also like to close by highlighting, as several of my colleagues already have that regulatory process is not the place for policy debate. The regional and other assessments are the point at which to have those discussions. Thank you very much. I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have this morning.
The Chair: Mrs. Flynn, you talked about specific amendments. Have you included in your submission the details of what you just mention about some of the sections?
Ms. Flynn: Yes, Madam Chair, and we also support the amendments in the presentations that our industry colleagues have given great detail to in some of their submissions handed to you yesterday.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mayor Scott, it’s your turn.
Don Scott, Mayor of the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, Coalition of Canadian Municipalities for Energy Action: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to recognize that we are on Treaty 8 and unceded Metis territory. Honourable senators, thank you for taking the time to visit Fort McMurray and the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. My name is Don Scott, and I’m the Mayor of the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. I’m joined by Gene Sobolewski, Mayor of the Town of Bonnyville.
We are here to represent the Coalition of Canadian Municipalities for Energy Action, a grassroots effort that arose from municipal concerns surrounding Bill C-69. The coalition includes cities, town, regional municipalities, and counties.
The resource industry including hydro, mining, forestry, energy and oil and gas, is the lifeblood of many communities in Canada. These industries inject assessment into the communities and contribute to the creation of direct employment.
The status quo of the existing legislation isn’t an option, but neither is the proposed legislation. I’d like to take this opportunity to outline some concerns as well as a few suggested amendments for consideration. First, municipalities are obligated by legislation to provide front-line services to residents at reasonable tax rates.
Bill C-69 does not clearly outline the financial and administrative burden for municipalities. We are seriously concerned that this uncertainty will lead business and industry to invest elsewhere. I would suggest the purpose of the bill should be to improve investor confidence, strengthen the Canadian economy, encourage prosperity, and improve competitiveness. We would like to see these principles reflected in the legislation.
Second, we would like to see the term “jurisdiction” expanded to include local municipalities specifically in subclause 2(d) and clause 12. This will ensure a voice to those directly affected by a project and the proposed projects are considered with a greater understanding of environmental, health, social, and economic implications.
Third, with the bill’s proposed new regulatory structure, we worry that progress on municipal infrastructure projects will be impeded. We believe the language of the bill is open to interpretation and does not provide the necessary clarity on municipal land-use planning, waterway use, Indigenous consultation, or federal grants. For this reason we believe there are sections where municipalities should receive explicit exemption. Municipal projects should not be subject to this legislation.
Fourth, amendments to the Navigation Protection Act raise questions about how terms including “navigable water,” “vessels,” and “works” are defined in relation to water bodies. We would like to see specific language that incorporates municipal knowledge and guidance in the decision-making process. I’d now like to invite Mayor Sobolewski to share his thoughts.
Gene Sobolewski, Mayor of Bonnyville, Coalition of Canadian Municipalities for Energy Action: Thank you, Mayor Scott. We are joined in Fort McMurray today in the gallery by many municipalities who are here to echo the concerns that we are raising.
Bill C-69, in reference to a resource industry municipality, will have a devastatingly detrimental effect on our ability to procure assessment. It will destroy jobs and family security. It will result in the strangulation of community service delivery.
Municipalities across Canada rely on federal and provincial grants to update and rehabilitate aging infrastructure. The language in C-69 could escalate project costs, create uncertainty for project approval, jeopardize the consistency of funding streams, and foster unpredictability in the public process. The unintended consequences of the vague and all-purpose language in C-69 have caught municipalities off guard with sweeping legislative changes.
It is important to state clearly we understand and share the end goals that Bill C-69 intended to reach, but the bill, from a municipal perspective, will not meaningfully accomplish what it set out to do.
The Supreme Court has affirmed the duty to consult with Indigenous communities, and this principle is enshrined in the Constitution of Canada. We wonder if C-69 will create duality of process and require the courts to provide clarity as it’s written today. Municipalities can ill afford this type of ambiguity in the execution of major projects in the construction of bridges, landfills and sewage lagoons as examples.
Honourable senators, we thank you for engaging with community leaders and the public during your cross-country hearings, and we urge you to proceed with amendments that strengthen and improve this legislation. Thank you for your time today, and we would be happy to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We are going to proceed with questions, starting with Senator MacDonald.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you to the witnesses for being here this morning. I have questions for both of you. I’ll start with Syncrude.
It’s an amazing success story, Syncrude. And I have to confess, I haven’t been to the oil sands. I’ve often been invited by Senator McCoy to come out. I do want to come out and go through the oil sands. Their enormous technological achievement, the Syncrude project, and bringing it right back to Mr. Lougheed when he was premier, and what he did to trigger it. What was the peak number of people employed at Syncrude, and how does the price of a barrel of oil and getting our oil to market effect employment levels? Have you been able to measure that over the years in terms of its direct effect on employment?
Ms. Flynn: Thank you, senator. We are very proud of the technological achievements that Syncrude, and as my notes indicate, we have the only dedicated research and development centre in the oil sands and hold more than 200 Canadian patents for technology that is now widely used throughout the industry, much of which is to improve environmental outcomes.
Our 4,700 employees are permanent full-time employees. They are accompanied by thousands of contractors who work alongside us, each and every day. We are very proud to tell you that Syncrude, since we were first formed in 1964, has never laid off a single employee; not one. That, however, is not true for our contract workforce. With the swings of the market and oil prices and market access and the economy, it is the contractor workforce — the support system in our company — that takes the impact of downturns, as well as upturns and opportunities as our company grows and expands.
So while the permanent workforce, which is largely based here in Wood Buffalo and lives right here in Fort McMurray is very stable. The contractor workforce are the ones affected by downturns in market price.
But your question related to the price of oil, for oil sands companies, particular mining oil sands companies, we are like manufacturing. We are a very long lead time, highly capital intensive operations. So we take a life cycle approach to looking at the economics of project decisions and the investment decisions that will be made.
So it’s far more about the return on capital than it is about any day-to-day spot price of oil. Unfortunately with lack of market access and the piling on of cost due to the complexity of regulations and other changes, we have seen, across our industry including at Syncrude, the return on capital erode to a place that investment is highly at risk. Certainly for us we have international participants in our joint venture who have the opportunity to invest around the world and, obviously, they can choose to invest in the Syncrude project or they can make investments elsewhere. And it is things like regulatory certainty, efficient timelines, not duplicating process, and quick access to markets that are all factors in the decisions that they make on investment.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you.
For the mayors, we’ve seen a lot of major companies leave the oil sands over the past few years. Just recently Devon announced they were leaving. What impact do these departures have in your community? Does it worry you that major producers like Canadian National Resources have called C-69 unworkable?
Mr. Scott: Yes, I can speak for my region in particular.
Since the fire, we recently had a population analysis done, and we lost about 10 per cent of our population in addition to the investment that has been lost in the region. There was a time when this region was headed for a population approaching 200,000. Right now we’re at about 75,900. That’s down 10 per cent from where we were before.
I think the biggest effect of Bill C-69, and the current system that we have, is that it is creating economic anxiety. We’re not achieving the results for Canadians that we should with the current rules and the proposed rules. We need rules that really create — that spur growth. We’re the economic engine of Canada. We want to keep on running, but we don’t want legislation that trips us along the way. I’m sure my colleague is going to want to follow up with a few other comments.
Mr. Sobolewski: To address my municipality directly, as Kara had mentioned already, we rely heavily on the service industries. We don’t receive direct assessment through linear on the oilfield and the energy and resource sector. So my community relies exclusively on the contractors and setting up their businesses. That’s how we derive assessment.
So the contractor workforce in our municipality over the last three years, we’ve had a number of businesses shut down and close. Our population has reduced from about 7,000 to roughly about 5,700 in the last three years in the recent downturn. Accordingly with that, our residential assessment, in other words, the price of houses and things like that, that’s dropped 25 per cent in the last three years. We have residential houses that have been foreclosed on, and the family is still residing inside those houses because the banks themselves cannot sell the properties without a loss.
In my opening comments, I talked about the devastating effect. Devastating to our community because in a resource-based municipality, we rely on the programming that is derived from the royalties and funds provided through the provincial and federal governments back to the municipalities.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Thanks to you to each of you for being here early in the morning. It’s my first time also being in Fort McMurray, although as a Nova Scotian, I certainly know lots of people who have travelled to and live here.
Mayor Scott, in your comments, you spoke about the jurisdiction to include local municipalities, and I was really pleased to see that when you’re having discussions that we need greater understanding of the environment, health, social, economic implications, and I would say Indigenous nations and their concerns.
So what difference would it make if, in fact, municipalities are included under that definition of jurisdiction?
Mr. Scott: Thank you very for your question. I hope you do return to this region on another occasion.
Senator Cordy: More than one day, right?
Mr. Scott: I would extend that to all of you.
I would suggest that the word “jurisdiction” could be interpreted to include municipalities. If it’s explicitly stated, then it saves the ambiguity and the concern. That’s one of the reasons we thought that is important. We want to make sure municipalities are recognized. We’re on the front lines of delivering services and we want to make sure that everybody understands the impact the bill is going to have on municipalities. A specific listing of municipalities in those two sections will clarify that.
When things are not clear, inevitably, everybody ends up going into court. As far as I’m concerned, the existing process has been a disaster with lengthy delays and court processes. So, let’s make the bill as clear as possible.
Senator Cordy: We’ve heard that many times, that we’d rather be spending the time doing things, action item, rather than litigation. So you’re following true on what others have said.
Ms. Flynn, you spoke about a project that your group is involved in. That you took two years of early planning stage, and it made the process so much larger. So this bill, for the first time, in fact, calls for mandatory early planning and engagement phase. It’s not two years, though. Are you suggesting that it should be up to a two-year planning stage?
Ms. Flynn: No, we are supportive of clause 15, the 180 days and the early planning period. What we would like to see is that when notice of commencement is issued at the completion of those 180 days, that it is clear during the notice of commencement who should be consulted, on what they should be consulted, what is the scope of the assessment within federal jurisdiction.
So it’s using that time well to develop clarity for all participants in the process, the proponents as well as stakeholders, Indigenous communities, municipalities, and other participants so that the scope of the jurisdiction, the assessment and the review is clear from the end notice of commencement going forward.
We chose to go out extraordinarily early. We had made the decision inside our company to proceed with the application. We were already in the field doing gathering of baseline environmental data, so we wanted to reach out to our communities to have them participate and understand the development of our application as it commenced. That did add a lot to our engagement with our local Indigenous communities and many other stakeholders.
For the quality of the actual assessment and thoroughness of the application, 180 days is more than sufficient for that process.
Senator Cordy: You also made a comment about the coming into force. You said, no sooner than one year, and we heard — I’m not sure if it was one year — that for coming into force there should be an amount of time allocated so that companies, municipalities and all stakeholders have time to change over to the new parts of the bill. So, do you believe that a year sufficient time for this?
Ms. Flynn: It’s going to be an awful lot of work, and so you all well know better than I that regulations and guidance doesn’t begin until Royal Assent is given on an act. There has been significant consultation in the development of the legislation, it is equally important that the development of the regulation and the guidance to the agency is thoughtful. Much of the “how will this work in actual practical implementation” will get sorted out in regulations and the guidance. And there will be as many resource development industries, pipeline companies, et cetera, as well as oil and gas who will be wanting to be actively engaged and providing input into the development of those regulations. So we do believe a year is adequate, but it’s going to be a lot of work for all of us.
The Chair: Senator Simons.
Senator Simons: We’ve heard a lot from some of your colleagues, Ms. Flynn, about the CAPP and CEPA amendments, so I’m not going to rehash that because I wanted to ask you something that we haven’t talked about much yet on this tour. Syncrude has an enviable reputation for its relationships with Indigenous communities around it. I wanted to ask if you could speak a bit about how you have done your Indigenous consultation, and also when we get to the gender-based analysis factor, which I think has alarmed some people, if you could talk a little bit about how Syncrude already deals with those issues in its own practice and what other might learn from that.
Ms. Flynn: Thank you, Senator Simons, and congratulations on your appointment. I don’t think I have seen you since.
We are very proud of our history of working closely with all of our neighbouring communities particularly the First Nations and Metis communities within the region. It’s really founded in the very beginning of our company acknowledging that we are on the traditional land of local First Nations and Metis people. And we recognized that as a company long before it was enshrined in the Constitution. So it’s a very fundamental value to who we are as an organization.
We believe in early engagement, in providing the capacity to have quality engagements both ways with our communities. Also, we have been a strong and early proponent of ensuring economic prosperity is shared from the oil sands with our Indigenous partners. I’m happy to tell you that we surpassed $3.5 billion in spending with local Indigenous communities and, notably, more half a billion in 2018 alone; more than double what it was just a few years before. It takes concerted effort, focus and commitment at every level in the organization. It is something that belongs to every manager and every employee. It’s not one little department in a company focused on it, it is part of our business each and every day.
We’re also committed to sharing those learnings with our colleagues in industry, both in oil and gas as well as the broader mining industry in Canada. I’m the former National Co-Chair of the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, and one of my colleagues now continues to serve on that board. We’re on the board of Indigenous Works, which is Mr. Kelly Lendsay’s organization out of Saskatchewan, and are big supporters of Indspire, as well.
We believe in supporting early education in communities, providing support there, and creating employment opportunities within Syncrude. More than 10 per cent of our 4,700 employees are of declared Indigenous decent, which is higher than the local demographic in this region. As I mentioned, we also support Indigenous business. So, every aspect of everything we do every day is focused on that.
Your question, senator, relating to gender, we focus a lot on all aspects of diversity in Syncrude and have mandatory training for all of our leadership to facilitate and support them. About 20 per cent of our workforce is female, which is higher than many industry averages, particularly in resource development. I’m very proud to tell you that our managing director, or CEO in most company terms, is female, and there are three females on our executive leadership team out of 14. We focus not only on how many women work in the organization, but where they work in the organization and at what level.
The regulatory panel that I chaired — a technical panel with scientists and technical experts and engineers — has 14 Syncrude employees and 8 out of the 14 are women. So very proud to say that many of our leading scientists and managers are female.
We also have a very large Muslim community working in our company. We pay an awful lot of attention to respecting their culture and faith as well as all of the other multicultural aspects of our organization.
I think Mayor Scott would be happy to tell you about how wonderfully diverse the Wood Buffalo region is.
Senator Simons: So you’re not frightened of the GBA analysis section?
Ms. Flynn: I think it needs to be clear about what the intent of that assessment is. Like every factor in clause 22, it needs to be carefully assessed on whether it’s even relevant to the project that is being applied for. The project that we just took through provincial regulatory process, for example, was a sustaining project. It allows us to continue to operate at our current rates for an additional 14 years of mine life. Basically, the employees we currently have are able to continue to work for us for 14 years into the future. While that did not have a federal trigger, it is possible that other sustaining projects for Syncrude in the future may well have a federal trigger.
So whether that would be relevant in that scenario is a question that should be asked each and every time on each and every project. And be clear on what the intent of that analysis and assessment will be used for.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We need to move on.
Senator Simons: Was that —
The Chair: We are already at six minutes.
Senator Simons: I had a question for Mayor Scott, but maybe I’ll ask him later.
The Chair: Maybe you could have shorter answers, because in total we have three minutes.
Senator Mockler.
Senator Mockler: So this also means I have to be shorter too?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Mockler: I want to take this opportunity to thank — especially seeing the mayors. We all remember what happened to Lac-Mégantic disaster, and the roles and responsibilities and knowing also the fact that municipalities are the closest system of government and democracy near the people. One of the purposes of Bill C-69 is to ensure that impact assessment of designated projects takes into account all effects, both positive and adverse, that may be caused by the carrying out of designated projects.
For the record, what kind of projects will impact municipalities, not only your municipalities but municipalities coast to coast to coast?
Mr. Sobolewski: Thank you for the question. We’re regulated under the provincial legislation, but there are a number of triggers in Bill C-69 that can elevate those particular projects into the national scope, such as the mention of funding in clause 8 where they talk about must not provide financial assistance to pay any person for the purpose of the projects in any shape, way, or form. So think of sewage lagoons and landfills and major bridge projects, probably some of the most controversial programs and projects that can happen in a municipality.
So, you’ve got advertising on the internet and things of that nature where we’ve got a local program and proponents and opponents to projects that can use any and every tool available to them to stall or stop the project.
Bill C-69, in its current form, can elevate that to a national program, a national stage where opinions can be expressed on a local program and project from all over, not only from within Canada. Inviting public comment from all over the world on projects can have a devastating effect because Bill C-69 says the minister must consider all and any comments received from the public.
This process could, basically, stop projects or create so much uncertainty for the programming that we would have to wonder how we will be able to pay for the preamble and the studies required to be able to satisfy a national impact assessment, such as is being proposed in Bill C-69.
Mr. Scott: To follow up with that, we don’t want municipalities handcuffed by this legislation. There are a lot of projects that municipalities need to get done. We need to make sure that exemptions are put right in the legislation, so it’s clear that municipal projects, like the ones just described, get implemented. This legislation should not impede us from getting those projects done. We need to serve people. We need to get things done. We need to take action.
One of the concerns we have collectively, I think, is that this legislation can be the barrier to serving our residents. We don’t want that process to be made more difficult. There are already a lot of difficulties serving residents now. Let’s not make things worse with legislation that trips us up along the way. Let’s make legislation that helps people, not hurts people.
Senator D. Black: Thank you all for being here and for extremely strong presentations.
I want to say by way of introduction that as a senator from Alberta, over the last couple of days, I don’t think I’ve been prouder of the contribution that Albertans are making. We are showing this committee that we deal with problems. We roll up our sleeves and we try and find solutions. And that’s what we’ve heard again today.
What I would like to hear from you is in the event that we are unable to move forward with meaningful amendments to the legislation, or if the House of Commons won’t approve the meaningful amendments that come from the Senate, what does it look like for your communities and your company if Bill C-69 advances unamended in a meaningful way? What does the environment look like?
Mr. Scott: What I think you could foresee is the trend that’s already in place right now, and it’s exemplified by the Trans Mountain situation. You’re going to see more foreclosures, a population not having as many job opportunities as there should be and more economic anxiety across Canada, because the wealth that’s created in this region not only benefits this region, it benefits all Canadians. So when we impede major projects, when investors from across the world do not look at Canada as an attractive place to invest, it’s going to affect every Canadian. I leave no doubt that is going to be the case.
We are already seeing more people go towards social service agencies such as food banks. I also anticipate that suicides will go up. When people don’t have jobs and opportunities, there are a lot of negative consequences. We need to make sure that the rules we put in place attract investment to Canada, and that we have rules that are competitive across the world. I really want to see rules that achieve that end.
Mr. Sobolewski: As Ms. Flynn has pointed out, a lot of municipalities and contractors rely on work for major projects in the resource industry. In a municipality, one of the things that would happen by enacting a bill like this is the creation of massive amount of uncertainty in terms of being able to advance local projects. Projects that are necessary to expand, to grow our communities. That will be an impediment as a result of this act.
But, again, with the resource industry and the uncertainty, we’ve already seen it. We’ve seen the lack of return of investment as a major decision factor as to why companies are pulling out. Why service industries are not able to continue to function and are basically going broke and abandoning their buildings, abandoning wells, and things of this nature.
We need to make sure that there is a careful reset because if the bill goes forward as presented, there will be court challengers, uncertainty, and the number of requests to the federal government from municipalities for more funding to assist us in our infrastructure growth are not going to stop. Advancements in aging infrastructure are not going to be retarded by this bill in any way, shape, or form.
We’re going to continue to need to draw upon more assistance, but, again, without the value of the resource industries contributing to the revenues of provincial and federal governments, there is not going to be enough money to go around. We’re still going to see our infrastructure deteriorate and that will be a nuisance for municipalities across Canada.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Neufeld.
Senator D. Black: Excuse me, Madam Chair, but I believe Ms. Flynn has an answer to the question.
Ms. Flynn: Thank you, Senator Black.
Senator, Bill C-69 does not fix issues with the current process around policy being brought into project adjudication, and that creates an awful lot of uncertainty in the current regulatory process. We saw that even within the provincial process we just went through. And it adds an extraordinary amount of time and an uncertainty to the clarity that companies need for regulatory process. We’re not looking for clarity of decision. We’re looking for clarity in what rules need to be followed and what process needs to be followed to submit a thorough regulatory application. It also doesn’t provide enough clarity around the scope of Indigenous consultation and what it looks like in that.
To answer your question, more needs to be done to provide more clarity in this bill to address those issues because those are fundamental underlying issues that affect investor confidence in our industry.
The Chair: Senator Neufeld.
Senator Neufeld: Thank all of you for being here. I appreciated your presentations. My first question is to Ms. Flynn. You say you support all amendments put forward by CAPP and others. They’re major amendments which I seriously believe we need to do.
One of the things that has been out there for a while is that even if we have to accept this is project list, so you know what’s covered, this bill, as it stands, covers whatever the environment minister actually decides they want to review. So what’s your thought process with Syncrude on a project list? There are a lot of issues, but that’s just one.
Ms. Flynn: Certainly for Syncrude, because all of our leases are mineable oil sands leases, we don’t have the breadth of concern relative to the project list that some of our other oil and gas colleagues have as it relates to offshore or in situ oil sands development. But we share their concern that the clarity around what should be on the project list is important and that projects that fall fully within provincial jurisdiction, such as in situ oil sands projects, should not be on the project list.
Senator Neufeld: And, secondly, standing. This bill opens it up. The prior bill actually had wording that unless you were directly affected or experts, those were the ones that the NEB would consider first. But now it says, “We invite the world.” How do you feel about that?
Ms. Flynn: Thank you, senator. As I mentioned in my comments, we feel quite strongly that prominence needs to be given to directly and adversely affected stakeholders, as well as Indigenous communities that are closest to experiencing the impacts and the benefits of any project as it may occur. We respect the desire to have a fully transparent public process, but that needs to come along with recognition that those who are most directly affected by a project have a stronger and louder voice and ability to participate through the proceedings.
Senator Neufeld: Okay.
And to the mayors, you say you want local municipalities included in the jurisdiction. Can you give me an example, of how that would help the process? Maybe an example of coming from before where you had trouble until now, if we were classified as a jurisdiction.
Mr. Scott: From my perspective we want to be explicitly included and this would give us an opportunity to talk to the proponent in advance and make arrangements that are good for the municipality and good for the proponent. What I’ve always said to industry in this region is I want industry to be successful. At the same time, I really need this community to be successful. So it really gives an incentive to proponents to talk to us and I hope that we could make agreements, generally, with what’s proposed.
Having municipalities specifically listed as a proponent — or specifically listed as a jurisdiction — will give incentive to everyone to come together and try to make an agreement, where possible. It’s in the best interest of everybody, and it keeps communities strong.
Senator Neufeld: Does that not happen now? Are you saying that around you no one is consulted?
Mr. Scott: We are not mandated to come before any tribunal or group. We can apply and say that we’d like to appear, but that doesn’t always happen automatically. What we would like to see is an automatic way to appear, especially for large projects. Make no doubt about it; we want large projects in this region. We need large projects, Canada needs large projects. We want them to be successful. I also need this community and this region to be successful and other communities throughout Alberta to be successful at the same time.
The Chair: Do you have something very short, please.
Mr. Sobolewski: Inserting language that ensures that municipalities are recognized, rather than municipalities having to make an application, is just a better environment to be able to work under. If proponents recognized municipalities, a more collaborative and proactive approach would be created by bringing proponents and municipalities to the table to work out the partnerships and make the agreements that we need.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Carignan.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I’m going to keep the same ball rolling. As a former mayor, I agree that municipalities should be consulted. I would even call municipalities the first responders. When a project has an adverse impact on the environment, such as an oil spill, municipal authorities are the first on the scene, so it’s extremely important that they be consulted and that they know the potential risks. Since they are the first responders, will municipalities be financially equipped to respond with the resources they have? That’s an important question.
You would like the definition of “jurisdiction” to include municipalities to ensure they are consulted. So far, so good. However, changing the definition of “jurisdiction” — “instance” in French — also means something else. The definition lists entities that can carry out an assessment of the environmental effects of a project, entities to which the assessment can be delegated or entities with which an agreement can be concluded. You’re proposing that the definition be amended to include you, so would you be looking to do those same things? Large municipalities may be able to assume part of the environmental assessment, but that isn’t the case for most municipalities in the country. I’m just trying to get some clarity on your suggestion to include municipalities in the definition of “jurisdiction.”
[English]
Mr. Sobolewski: Thank you very much, senator. I think there are a couple of issues that we need to address. The first one is inclusion in the definition of jurisdiction from the perspective of the evaluation of the proponents. However, our request is to exempt municipalities from being proponents that would be impacted or having to undertake an impact assessment nationally. So on the one hand, with respect to large projects or an expansion, say, a Syncrude or something like that, we want to be specifically defined as an entity that needs to be consulted. However, we are very clear in terms of municipal projects and triggering the unintended consequences — in the legislation as currently written —of municipalities having to undertake an impact assessment, such as this. That would be cost prohibitive.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I see. However, if the definition of “jurisdiction” were changed to include municipalities, the federal government may be able to empower a municipality to conduct the environmental assessment. That would be an additional step, if the definition were changed. Is that what you want? Very well. You don’t want to say too much about that. All you’d like is to be consulted and to have municipal projects exempted from unnecessary environmental studies. Is that correct?
[English]
Mr. Scott: We definitely want to be consulted. I believe municipalities throughout Alberta and Canada, if there’s a large project in their backyard, they need to be consulted. I think that’s important. Consultation inevitably results in a collaborative relationship later on and potentially agreements. What we’re after is a consultation process and being involved; that’s the intention with having jurisdiction expanded to include municipalities.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
So we have one last question. Senator Richards.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. All my questions have been asked being the last. But I want to thank every one of you for being here today, and I want to thank you for helping keep New Brunswick alive because half of New Brunswick has been out here at one time or another. And as Rex Murphy said — now, I know he’s controversial — Fort McMurray is one place where the democratic process of Canada and the true notion of Canadian unity works, and I believe that’s true.
You were talking about municipalities, but I want you to answer how much you think this bleeds economic security away from Canada as a whole and if that harms both our security and maybe even our sovereignty, in the long run. I know that’s a broad question, and maybe it’s not appropriate here, but I thought I would ask it. What bothers me about Bill 69 is it’s so vague that I think the amendments are a hopeless task of cutting and pasting and that the bill should be rewritten with greater clarity. I’d like you to comment on that quickly, if you could.
Mr. Scott: Speaking about Rex Murphy, we recently gave him the key to the city. So we certainly appreciate all the hard work. He’s one of our greatest ambassadors, and we certainly appreciate that. This region is the crucible of wealth creation, and it has been for a very long time. I don’t know if it’s always been recognized as such. I believe that a bill like this can affect, as I said earlier, every Canadian, and every Canadian needs to realize that their economic security is in some way affected by decisions that are made with respect to this bill. This bill impacts not only this region but large projects across Canada, as well.
We need to make sure that we are incentivizing large projects and attracting investment from all across the world. We don’t want to pull out the chair from under ourselves as Canadians. We want to make sure that Canadians have good jobs and are creating wealth. I think if we do anything to the contrary, we are undermining our sovereignty and the future of every Canadian.
It is imperative that we do the best we can to continue to create good jobs, wealth for all of Canada and prosperity for all of Canada.
Mr. Sobolewski: That was an excellent point in terms of the sovereignty and across Canada because here in Alberta we’re focused on energy. However, elsewhere in Canada, what’s going to happen with the next large hydro project or mining because we’re an export country. Municipalities are going to be relying on that. But the entirety of this bill will affect that next hydro project and will affect those major next mining projects. Say, for example, the drive to go to the electric cars, the lithium-ion batteries and things like that. When we start looking at natural resources and somebody needs to open up a mine, say in Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick or elsewhere in Canada, this bill will impact them in the exact same way. It’s going to be the same issues. It’s just that it’s going to be exacerbated by the fact that there’s going to be — if it’s passed in its current form — this vagueness. There’s going to be this ambiguity, and unfortunately, we don’t want to spend the time to go to court and have the courts resolve the issues and provide clarity. We need to fix this. We need to have the correct language in here and consultation not only with municipalities but Canadians in getting this right the first time.
Ms. Flynn: Senator, perhaps if I could just very quickly close on that, capital does not know national borders. It goes where the greatest return for the lowest amount of risk and greatest certainty are. And so in oil and gas and in mining, we and our investors look around the world at what investment opportunities are there. They look at the complexity and the certainty of regulatory regimes and process. And then they also look at the ongoing operating costs and, as a result, the return on capital that they will realize from what are multi-billion-dollar investments.
Syncrude alone spends $4.5 billion to $5 billion dollars every year just to operate our oil sands project, and that includes being part of paying into the $50 million a year federal and provincial oil sands independent monitoring program and about $130 million across our industry for compliance monitoring. So the costs associated with obtaining regulatory approval and then complying with them and then the risk associated with that process is fundamental to investment decisions in this country.
The Chair: Thank you very much to our first panel.
I would ask our second panel to mention their names and affiliations very quickly.
Dan Stuckless, Technical Expert, Mikisew Cree First Nation: Good morning, senators. My name is Dan Stuckless. I’m representing the Mikisew Cree GIR here today.
Carla Davidson, Endeavour Scientific, Fort McKay First Nation: Good morning, senators. My name is Carla Davidson, and I’m a consultant with Endeavour Scientific, and I’ll be helping both First Nations this morning.
Archie Waquan, Chief, Mikisew Cree First Nation: Good morning, everyone. My name is Archie Waquan, Chief of the Mikisew Cree. Welcome to our Treaty 8 territory.
Mel Grandjamb, Chief, Fort McKay First Nation: Good morning, senators. Mel Grandjamb, Chief of Fort McKay First Nation. Welcome to the territory as well.
Alvaro Pinto, Executive Director, Sustainability Department, Fort McKay First Nation: Good morning. I’m Alvaro Pinto with the Fort McKay First Nation.
Mike Evans, Senior Manager, Government and Industry, Fort McKay First Nation: And my name is Mike Evans. I’m also here with the Fort McKay First Nation.
The Chair: Thank you. It’s my understanding that Chief Waquan and Chief Grandjamb are going to make statements.
Mr. Grandjamb: Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Senate environmental committee. Welcome to Fort McKay’s traditional territory. It’s my duty as Chief of Fort McKay to protect and advocate for the Cree and Dene people of our First Nation to protect our cultural identity, values, traditions, and way of life. Our ancestors have lived here in this territory for nearly 15,000 years. This for us is not just a landscape that’s exploitable, nonrenewable resources, it’s our home and it’s sacred to us.
Currently 75 per cent of Fort McKay’s traditional territory is leased for oil sands development. We are surrounded on three sides by oil sands mines. Some are within 3 kilometres of our primary reserve. Fort McKay’s Moose Lake Reserves, 65 kilometres northwest of the community were set aside in 1915 and expanded in 2004 to preserve our traditional way of life.
The failure of Alberta’s regional land use plans to protect treaty rights on reserve lands means they too are now threatened by oil sands development. Five years ago, 260,000 barrels per day in situ projects on the border of those reserves were approved, and more recently, the Alberta Energy Regulator approved the first 10,000 barrel per day on another project. Another project, 43,000 per day in situ project right next door. So we have two facilities right on the lakes on one of our reserves.
Fort McKay has filed five individual court actions related to the latest project and has requested federal intervention, but Canada has done nothing to help us protect those reserves. And Canada is likely to be dragged into an infringement suit filed in December of 2018. Since Fort McKay’s appearance before the House committee a year ago, the oil and gas industry and the Alberta government has tried to frighten this committee, the Senate, the House of Commons, and Canadians at large with a doomsday scenario in which investors abandoned the Canadian energy sector for other jurisdictions.
To justify gutting elements from this bill that improve compliance with existing case law, the Alberta government, the Alberta Environment Regulator, and the premier all told this committee that Alberta’s regulatory process is second to none.
Alberta says its regulatory process is sound, efficient and responsive. It’s not. Alberta says its consultation and environmental assessment process mirror the law. We feel they’re not. The Government of Alberta’s representatives who sat before you on February 7 with the Alberta Energy Regulator testified Alberta has never had a decision overturned due to consultation issues. This is not true. In 2016, the court’s quashed two approvals for an oil sands company following action launched by the Fort McMurray and Fort Chipewyan Métis. Alberta failed to mention Fort McKay’s existing infringement, and another case filed by the Beaver Lake Cree Nation. Jackpine mine expansion is stalled because, after six years of consultation, it is still incomplete.
There are serious challenges that remain before the courts. The Alberta government has identified 125 million barrels of oil recoverable in the oil sands in the next century. Since the late 1960s, just 4.5 billion or 3.6 per cent of the total reserve has been extracted mostly through oil sands mines.
However, in situ oil sands development will account for 85 per cent, about 100 billion barrels of all future production. Unfortunately, Alberta exempts in situ pilot projects of 12,500 barrels per day from the environmental impact assessment. Alberta’s minimal internal review does not include public input, species at risk, migratory birds, or an adequate assessment of treaty rights.
Cunning companies follow Alberta’s rules and seek approval for a 10,000-barrel-per-day pilot project that subsequently increase by quote, small amounts. It’s a trend. Get it in, increase production. And so evade the responsibility to complete an environmental impact assessment, conduct adequate Indigenous consultation, or consider areas of federal jurisdiction on projects that, fully operational, may exceed 200,000 barrels per day.
We are very concerned Alberta will convince the federal government to exempt in situ development from a federal review by substituting in its place Alberta’s self-declared “robust regulatory process” and their climate change plan. All this despite the fact Alberta has approved industrial development that has resulted in $60 billion to $200 billion in unsecured liability or clean-up costs.
And Alberta’s regulatory process is neither equitable nor consistent with existing case law and will lead only to more litigation. Alberta is also the most retrograde provincial jurisdiction in the interpretation of treaty rights. We cannot believe that so many think Alberta has Indigenous consultation figured out or that they have forgotten the courts found the consultation required for our biggest national energy projects — the Northern Gateway and the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion — was inadequate. And that resulted in both pipeline approvals being overturned and Northern Gateway being cancelled outright.
The Indian Resource Council has set the stage for its argument that Bill C-69 challenges economic sovereignty with the claim that reserve-based oil revenues have fallen $200 million annually since 2012, even though oil prices have fallen 60 per cent since 2012 as well. The revenue loss is a very distressing statistic, but it has nothing to do with Bill C-69 which was introduced in 2018.
Bill C-69 applies only to projects under federal assessment. IRC’s primary interest is conventional oil and gas which is regulated by the provinces. It is absurd to equate provincially regulated conventional oil production with federally regulated oil sands production which is orders of magnitude greater and with correspondingly greater environmental impact. IRC is not a rights holder and does not represent the First Nations in this region.
Finally, by its own submission, IRC receives legal and policy advice from CAPP. So let’s us turn, then, to CAPP’s submission. CAPP has asked you to accept its amendments to the bill as a package. This is unreasonable, and several of its arguments are based on a flawed analysis. Our complete review of CAPP’s recommendation is in our written submission. We support some of CAPP’s suggestions to clarify language in the bill. On some we are neutral. But many are mistaken and must be rejected.
CAPP has asked you to streamline the EIA process so that it would more closely resemble the CEAA 2012. But CEAA 2012 deficiencies are the reasons Bill C-69 was introduced in the first place. CAPP has proposed limits to pre-assessment consultation, but Fort McKay believes it should remain as set out in Bill C-69.
Our experience shows pre-assessment consultation enables proponents to speed up the assessment process by collaborating with First Nations and reduces the risk of litigation. CAPP proposes to shorten these timelines. This ignores research from the C.D. Howe Institute that shows at least half of the previous environmental impact assessment delays were caused by proponents who pause the clock to respond to information requests.
As above, Fort McKay’s experience has shown that the pre-assessment consultation as contained in Bill C-69 reduces timelines. CAPP has proposed limiting the impact assessment process to two years. Fort McKay maintains that reducing timelines can only work if proponents are not allowed to run out the clock. If an assessment process is not completed within that timeline, then the application must be rejected.
CAPP’s recommended limitations on judicial review subvert Canadian law and inappropriately constrain the courts. Many of CAPP’s amendments will force First Nations in the Athabasca region to initiate costly and lengthy legal actions to address the very real concerns.
The most important suggestion in our submission is the recommendation for legislative triggers to ensure projects have the potential to slip through the system including the in situ oil sands projects are subject to federal impact assessment. Gutting C-69 on a flawed analysis is not acceptable to us and should not be acceptable to industry or to you. Too many of CAPP’s proposed amendments perpetrate an adversarial process that will betray reconciliation.
These are my speaking notes. And just to let you know, I’m fresh to the team. I’m third day on the job, and I really appreciate being here. But I do know development in my area. I do know the importance of this act. And Fort McKay has been in this body since 1970, and it’s getting worse, this process has to maintain the values of the community. It has to be addressed.
And at the end of the day, it’s for the betterment of Canada, not only ourselves. Canada has a fiduciary responsibility to the treaty and to the people. So I would hope that Trudeau relays that to the Senate and to his team. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Chief Grandjamb, you mentioned you have submitted a written statement. We are out of WiFi. When did you submit your statement?
Ms. Davidson: We’ll be submitting the final submission towards the end of the week.
The Chair: Can you submit that to the clerk, please?
Ms. Davidson: Absolutely.
The Chair: Chief Waquan.
Mr. Waquan: First of all, I’d like you to bear in mind that my sight is not too good. I’m reading off of a text, but it still comes from right here.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Waquan: Tansi. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the standing committee. Welcome to our territory of Treaty 8. I am Chief Waquan, and as chief, I represent the Mikisew Cree Nation. We have about 3,000 people in my First Nation. The Mikisew Cree is the largest Treaty 8 First Nation within the Athabasca oil sands region. Our office has been reviewing numerous environmental impact assessments for the last 17 years and has already participated in about eight joint regulatory hearings raising environmental concerns and concerns about impacts on our culture and way of life.
We are an Indigenous group whose homeland includes Peace-Athabasca Delta in the Wood Buffalo National Park. Our connection with the natural values of the Peace-Athabasca Delta pervades all aspects of our way of life. Our traditional territory holds a convergence of federal interests. Wood Buffalo Park is a World Heritage Site designated under UNESCO. It includes trans-boundary waters, provides North America’s most important migratory bird pathways and is home to species at risk, woodland caribou and wood bison.
Canada has recently completed the Wood Buffalo Action Plan in response to a request by the World Heritage Committee. The UN’s World Heritage Committee sent experts to review the state of Wood Buffalo National Park after we raised concerns that Canada is not doing enough to deal with some downstream effects from hydro dams and oil sands developments. Those experts found that Canada is failing the park and the Indigenous people within it. Flaws in Canada’s environmental assessment process plays a role in this embarrassing outcome for Canada.
The 2018 state of the environment assessment says that park is now of significant concern and shows a deteriorating trend.
We also note that the federal government approved Site C dam. This dam will impact flows to the Athabasca Delta, our homeland and all the way up to the Arctic Ocean, in other words, to the Beaufort Sea. This will have significantly impact on Wood Buffalo National Park, its outstanding universal value as a World Heritage Site, and our rights.
There are pulp mills that impact the Athabasca River in its watershed. The oil sands have made the largest sewage lagoon right in our own territory.
I’m just going to get off this script for now. If you were to take a look at the map and the Athabasca watershed and the Peace-Athabasca or the Peace, you would see for yourself that there is a concern for my First Nation and my community.
This means that our rights are already impacted by the cumulative effects of development from megaprojects. We are active participants in reviews on projects that affect our rights. We recently hosted Teck Frontier joint panel in Fort Chipewyan. That is because we know how important federal assessments are to creating better relationships with industry and government, building healthy communities, and protecting federal environmental interests. That’s the lens we have used to review Bill C-69. Quite simply, we believe that Bill C-69 has changes that will improve our Nation’s ability to address concerns during the project approval process.
The major flaw in the act is the lack of clarity on what projects are subject to review. We agree that regulatory certainty is best achieved when it’s clear to industry what is expected of them during the regulatory process. It’s for this reason that we recommended during the drafting of the bill and in our testimony to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development the establishment of a legislative trigger for project inclusion.
As the bill is currently drafted, federal assessments will only happen if activity is on the project list or if the minister makes a discretionary decision to require it. We agree that both have a place in the bill, but they aren’t enough for the federal government to protect its interests. First, the project list is meant to capture mega projects, and it’s useful in that regard. But it isn’t flexible enough to be responsive to key areas or federal jurisdiction such as the World Heritage Sites, species at risk, or transboundary waters.
It has been our experience that the project list excludes many of the activities that have been shown to directly and cumulatively impact species at risk and the Peace-Athabasca Delta. As it stands, the project list means that you will likely never see another federal assessment in the oil sands region. And this is where all the action is in our territory here in the oil sands in northern Alberta.
Future oil sands development will be smaller, modular projects that individually do not trigger federal or in some cases, as explained by Chief Grandjamb, even provincial environmental assessments. In an area with the intensity of development as experienced here, this is unconscionable. As explained by Chief Grandjamb, currently for in situ projects below 12,000 barrels per day, the AER doesn’t do an environmental assessment, so there is no review of issues under federal jurisdiction, migratory birds, species at risk including caribou and bison, greenhouse gases, and impacts to rights are not considered. Given that most of the future expansion of the oil sands will be in situ, by excluding these projects from federal assessment, we may see a situation where the entire expansion of the industry does not assess impacts to issues of federal jurisdiction or to our rights at all.
It has been our experience that requests to the minister to designate projects are not successful. Indeed, our recent request for the minister to designate CNRL’s Horizon Oil Sands North Pit Extension Project was denied. In the minister’s decision, she relied on Alberta’s environment assessment process. Indeed, the Alberta Energy Regulator, several Alberta government departments, and the premier herself have exalted Alberta’s process encouraging this committee to weaken Bill C-69 and make it more like Alberta’s process. And to even guarantee that in situ projects are not subject to federal review.
As a result, I must take some of my limited time before this committee to address parts of Alberta’s testimony before this committee.
Alberta has stated that its regulatory process is solid, efficient, and works. It does not. Their testimony was riddled with errors and gave blithe assurance of its ability to deal with Indigenous consultation. In reality, the system is the most retrograde in Canada. As of today we’ve asked the province to draft a consultation policy where they can deal with Indigenous groups. It hasn’t come to our table yet.
As stated by Chief Grandjamb, Alberta says that their consultation and environmental assessment processes mirror the law. They do not. This will lead to unnecessary and expensive litigation, a key issue in Alberta’s poor consultation and the extraordinary lengths to which it goes to limit participation in hearings.
Mr. Taylor of the Alberta Energy Regulator testified to you and said:
What tends to happen when we’re under a joint review panel and hence following CEAA, we end up with a much broader scope and a lot more people engaged in the hearing.
That is absolutely true. But the reason is that Alberta’s interpretation of directly and adversely affected is so limiting that it is extremely difficult for affected parties to participate.
Alberta only considers First Nations to be directly and adversely affected if they can demonstrate that they can exercise rights within the project footprint. Alberta asks for documentation of use of areas far beyond what it request of fee simple landowners, which has the potential to be discriminatory.
Mr. Taylor then went on to say that in 2019, the AER changed its rules to include municipalities or First Nations — for projects near their boundaries. In actuality, the AER is now including First Nations or municipalities within one kilometre of the project. One kilometre is shorter than the distance my children walk to school. It’s not a meaningful increase. It does not, in any way, reflect the way in which projects impact our rights, culture, and a way of life.
It is irresponsible for Alberta to suggest that its regulatory system is adequate to substitute for the federal system. It is bewildering to us that everyone seems so blithely assured that Alberta has its consultation issues figured out.
The oil industry is facing significant challenges, of this there is no doubt. However, their focus on the bill is misplaced. And if they want to improve the situation, industry should be focused on improving assessments, not limiting them.
More comprehensive reviews reduce litigation risk. That is what will ensure regulatory certainty. Everyone seems blissfully amnesiac about the reason Northern Gateway, and the Trans Mountain had trouble. It was all due to consultation.
Our recommendations, which we will provide to the committee shortly, address improvements to the bill to help ensure that consultation can be rigorous and equitable.
We are working with CEAA on regulations to improve the way federal assessments can better consider cumulative effects, impacts to the Aboriginal and treaty rights, and the methods for ensuring projects that have potential to impact these rights, including in situ, receive the review required.
We also suggest improving guidance for EIAs. This would address some of the issues around timelines because it would clarify what is expected of all parties. We have reviewed CAPP’s proposed amendments. Although there are some useful clarifications of wording, as a package, the recommended amendments will do more — actually more to impair regulatory certainty, confuse the bill, and lead to more litigation, which we don’t want. I don’t think any government wants to be put to task because we weren’t given the right of consultation.
CAPP’s proposals are sloppy and would create contradictions within the act. CAPP’s proposes adding language about consideration of economics. The expert panel report that led to Bill C-69 was clear that economics are already a major pillar of sustainability. By virtue of statutory interpretation principles, CAPP’s proposal could actually result in economic factors being excluded from the definition of sustainability. This would create confusion in the interpretation of the act and be contrary to CAPP’s goals.
CAPP’s proposal to limit how and when decisions can be subject to judicial review unconstitutionally limits the rule of law. If these clauses were to be included in Bill C-69, the result would be more costly and lengthy infringement cases instead of the relatively more expedient judicial review process. This would delay projects even further. We will provide recommendations in our accompanying written submission. These include legislative triggers for federal assessment.
In our experience, when there is a federal assessment, we have a better chance of getting the information we need to make informed decisions and getting us to the path to consent. The same cannot be said for provincial regulatory processes. The Alberta regulatory process creates a loss of trust, animosity, and in the end, legal and investment uncertainty for proponents.
This morning I’d like to thank you for giving me the time, the audience to be able to participate on your task of meeting with everyone, and I know there’s quite a controversy over Bill C-69, and you have quite a job to do. And I wish you good luck.
The Chair: Thank you.
Colleagues, so we have less than 15 minutes for questions. So the way we are going to proceed is no preamble, do the question, one minute, and one minute and a half for the answer.
Senator MacDonald.
Senator MacDonald: It is my understanding that earlier this month, the Assembly of Alberta Chiefs, treaty chiefs rescinded a 2018 resolution supporting Bill C-69. Are you members of the assembly? Do you share any of the concerns with Bill C-69 brought forward by Chief Roy Fox or other assembly members?
The Chair: Who is taking that question?
Mr. Evans: I think it’s important that this committee understand the history of that resolution. In fact, there was a unanimous resolution passed by the same assembly in December supporting this bill.
Senator MacDonald: Yes.
Mr. Evans: In particular, the request of the Athabasca region First Nations that in situ projects be included for designation for federal review. A very similar resolution was passed in December by the Assembly of First Nations in Ottawa. The chiefs who brought forward the resolution to reconsider that unfortunately attended neither of the meetings where those votes took place previously, and that resolution was amended at the last moment that it be rescinded on the condition — I don’t know which chief presented this — that additional information be brought back to the chiefs so that they might be able to make an informed decision. So I would suggest that it wasn’t that chiefs in Alberta or that First Nations in Alberta have stopped supporting this bill. What all of them have said is that they would like more information to be able to address it more thoroughly given the time limits that are present, and we’ll see whether or not that happens.
But for the Athabasca region First Nations, at the risk of speaking on behalf of my chiefs, while we don’t believe that the bill is perfect, it makes very important improvements to the engagement of First Nations and processes that are more likely to lead not just to projects being approved but to those approvals of standing.
I think something that people have been forgetting is that projects don’t fail during the approval process. The projects that we have seen that have been in trouble lately have failed after the approvals process when the decision to approve them has been challenged. So the bill will improve the assessment process which should reduce challenges post-approval.
Senator MacDonald: I was interested when you brought up the Site C dam development. You said it would affect the territory right up to the Beaufort Sea. Now, I’d like you to elaborate on that because that dam development was, in the end, approved by an NDP government supported by the Green Party in British Columbia, and I’m curious, have you spoken to them? Because they would seem to have a lot of influence on this decision.
Mr. Waquan: Can I make a comment on that?
Senator MacDonald: Yes.
Mr. Waquan: My territory, the Peace-Athabasca Delta, is pretty well the largest inland delta in the world; 3,000 square miles of water. Since both dams are actually sanctioned in the ’60s, the other one here just recently, Site C, we have lost a lot of water. A lot of governments and industry are saying it’s climate change. Yes, part of it is. When you turn off a tap or a dam — this is what BC Hydro has always been saying. We haven’t really affected anybody downstream.
If you were to take a look at an animal that creates dams, and you see the downstream effects, the downstream effects, it’s dry. And the beaver itself gathers all this water for them so they can at least survive. But in this case, when the federal government sanctioned Site C, and there’s another one that’s still in the works that actually talked about that go into the Peace River system, that’s going to hurt. In fact, I’ve been talking to people up north from Inuvik all the way down to Fort Resolution, Fort Smith, they are affected by it. And they see it very, very – how do you say? It affects the way they have access to the territory to gather, to look for their medicines, to practise their treaty and Aboriginal rights, if that answers your question.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. I’ll ask both my questions at the same time.
I want to thank you very much, chief, for you or whoever sent us the email with the video of Wood Buffalo Park.
Mr. Waquan: Yes.
Senator Cordy: Because I’m on east coast time, I got to watch it this morning. So thank you, that was very helpful to see the devastation that’s occurring.
First of all, my question is you’ve said the current consultation process is not working very well, and that it’s resulting in more litigation, and you gave examples of that. So my first question is will C-69 improve the consultation process? My second question is, and, Chief Grandjamb, you spoke about — you didn’t use the term “fear mongering,” but you said that there’s a lot of vocalization about the downturn in the economy being as a result of C-69. You actually said that in 2012 oil prices dropped significantly.
So what are some of the factors that have led to the downturn in the industry that are not as a result of C-69, but that have happened starting in 2012?
And we’ve seen this in the 1980s and the cyclical nature of the oil industry. I wonder if you can comment on both those things. Thank you.
Mr. Grandjamb: Yes, the dialogue will improve. The thing about here is I believe that having the in situ projects be part of the act is very paramount. You know, I talked about how important — the future will have less open pit mines. Well, in our area, it’s all going to be all in situ. So it’s either we develop a process where we have meaningful consultation or we’re going to end up in litigation. This is our last resort because we’re to a point where we have about a third left of our area. And that’s not acceptable. We’re to a point now where traditional lives, harvesting lives have changed drastically. There is no traditional life anymore. We’re trying to maintain what we have left.
So if we can’t have meaningful consultation, have these type of projects included in, we’re going to end up — we’re going to be fighting all the way.
Mr. Waquan: Could I expound on that very subject? In situ projects are not included right now in Bill C-69. They’ve been off to the side. When I look at the future, this is the future. You have another 20 or 30 more in situ projects being given the green light to develop.
I live downstream. My territory is 760 feet above sea level. In Fort McMurray here, it’s probably about another 150 feet higher. Now, you go further south, it’s probably about 2,000 feet.
I always look at the future in this one. Ground water flows down, down. The Peace-Athabasca Delta will receive all that eventually whether it be in 20, 30, 60 years. Looking at the future, those are things that we really have to watch.
We caution the government and their assessments, so when we come to the table and say, look at it into the future. What is it going to be left for my generation, my future generation? I want to be able for them to enjoy the very things I enjoy today.
The Chair: Senator Simons.
Senator Simons: I’m trying to think how to make this as simple as possible. Like you, we are very frustrated that we do not have a project list. And like you, we would like to see a project list sooner than later. But I wondered if you could tell me if an individual in situ project is the problem on your territories? Or is it the combination of all of them, the cumulative effect of having many in situ projects underway?
Mr. Grandjamb: Do you want to make some comments there?
Ms. Davidson: It’s a very good question, senator. Certainly cumulative effects are one of the biggest challenges of this region. The problem is with in situ projects, they are, by their nature, modular, they’re smaller. So that division between what the impact is between an individual project and what the impact is of all of those projects is very difficult to tease apart.
I think that one way that this can be addressed that Bill C-69 provides for is regional assessments. That there is some power there to do some regional assessments of this region and start to find out what would be some good guidelines for managing these cumulative effects.
Senator D. Black: Thank you very much for being here. It’s fantastic to hear different points of view because that’s the only way we learn. Now, I just want to understand, and I could easily be wrong on this, but I hear everywhere that your Nation, the Fort McKay Nation and the Cree, Chipewyan Cree are held up as examples of how conciliation through business relationships with industry are successful. Am I right in that?
Mr. Grandjamb: In regards to our relationship with industry, yes, we have very good agreements.
Senator D. Black: That’s what I thought.
Mr. Grandjamb: There are impact benefit agreements. But that’s only part of the negotiation process.
Senator D. Black: No, I understand that. But I want to understand, you do significant business as a meaningful partner with energy interests. That’s correct, isn’t it?
Mr. Waquan: Correct.
Senator D. Black: Right. And I’m really proud of that, and obviously the industry is very proud of that too. Are you not concerned when you hear the ongoing drum beat of testimony from energy companies that Bill C-69 will impair their ability to continue to make investments? Doesn’t that concern you that your business interests will be adversely affected?
Mr. Waquan: Yes.
Senator D. Black: Make sense of that for me.
Mr. Waquan: Do you want to talk about that?
Ms. Davidson: I think that part of the reason that we are concerned about this bill is that our Nations collectively do have a large economic interest in the oil sands interest.
Senator D. Black: Absolutely.
Ms. Davidson: Absolutely. Which goes to our argument that doing a better assessment actually improves the industry’s regulatory certainty.
Senator D. Black: I understand your point of view, then. That’s helpful to me.
Ms. Davidson: I would also like to point out I think it’s also important, as you mentioned, to hear from other viewpoints. It’s important to hear from the parties who are forced to go through the judicial review route as well as the ones who are responding to it. And so these are the factors that we see that lead us to having to make these decisions.
Senator D. Black: And I am so happy to hear that we are all in violent agreement that litigation solves nothing except make lawyers richer, and that’s not a goal that we want to achieve except for the lawyers that are up there. So thank you very much. Thanks, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Senator Carignan.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I’m going to be speaking in French. I’m not sure whether you’ll need the interpretation, given that Cree communities in Quebec are fluent in French. I’m not from here, so, like Senator Black, I’m trying to understand the different points of view. You just signed a deal with Syncrude in January. I believe you withdrew as a stakeholder in the study that was supposed to involve the Alberta Energy Regulator. What should I make of your withdrawal given what you’re saying today about how important the environmental assessment is?
[English]
Mr. Stuckless: Good question. I’ll be careful how I answer, because my friends are in the room.
When you look at the entirety of an environmental assessment, this application that just went through public hearing in January of this year was originally applied for in 2013. A lot of people would argue timelines are really sensitive around this bill. So that’s six years ago. And not a lot of movement on the impact assessment itself on trying to get at resolving concerns and those kinds of things.
Just like on that front, this wasn’t a project that was applied for last year. This was a project that was applied for many years ago. Actually the communities that are here asked for federal intervention on that project shortly after it was filed, and that request was denied by the Minister of Environment of the day.
That being said, it went through the full engagement consultation process which wasn’t super fruitful, but at the end of the day, we always try to control our own destiny and try and work out progressive IBAs, agreements, or considerations for environmental or social conditions with the company first because we have direct control of that with them.
When you’re looking at approaching a regulatory hearing and making the decision to participate or not, you have to consider things the way that the AER would consider the information before it. And part of it around what you heard the chief say today, the consultation process is very lacking in this province. It’s a two-tier consultation system for everywhere else in Canada and this province. That’s an unfortunate situation to be in.
So when you’re considering how those rights are going to play out and come into a decision-making process in Alberta, you’re at a disadvantage because you’re only limited to what the proponent will provide given the rules that the province give them. And so a consideration of culture, for instance, is devoid of the rights argument. Consideration of fulsome land use activities is not considered as part of a rights conversation. It really is limited to this provincial — I can’t even think of the right word to say, but it’s a really unfortunate situation where you’re limited to these very site-specific interpretations of rights use. And they don’t favour us.
So if you’re going to spend a million dollars or $2 million going into a hearing, you weigh that versus what it is going to achieve. At the end of the day, if we can work out our differences with the company, we’re in a better position to manage how consultation will go forward with the company. Rather than relying on a third party regulator who doesn’t really set the stage for a fair or meaningful consultation process to have our concerns addressed.
Senator Carignan: Thank you. I understand.
The Chair: Senator Mockler.
Senator Mockler: Thank you. I will use a quote, and then I will direct a question to the chiefs.
The Council of Atlantic Premiers, the four premiers in Atlantic Canada — New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador — sent a letter to the Prime Minister. In the letter they say:
A particular concern to be addressed is that the Bill as drafted places final decision-making power in the hands of the Minister or Governor-in-Council and provides the opportunity to veto the results of thorough scientific assessment and review of evidence.
My question to you, chiefs, is do you think that this particular concern, they have many, but this particular concern by the Atlantic premiers on Bill C-69 giving a veto to the federal ministers, is that of concern to you and your communities?
Mr. Waquan: By all means it would. The four provinces from the east, there are probably quite a few people right now working in the oil sands that are actually from there.
Senator Mockler: Absolutely.
Mr. Waquan: In fact, probably the majority.
Senator Mockler: Absolutely.
Mr. Waquan: I’d be remiss to say that a veto goes against a scientific study. I got problems with that. I really have a problem. Vetoes are only for the presidents. We’ll leave that up to Trump. Okay. For myself, I’d have a problem. That will probably be a legal matter. For myself, I couldn’t say how the four premiers were actually thinking. They’re probably trying to introduce a veto. I hope not. Anyway, these are my thoughts because I have problems with that. This is from my perspective and that of my First Nation.
The Chair: Do you have anything to add, Chief Grandjamb?
Mr. Grandjamb: Yes. I echo Chief Waquan’s comments. At the end of the day, there are responsibilities at your assessment level. It would be very wrong of Canada to proceed with approvals based on not addressing scientific concerns or environment, health, and even more. You know, we’ve touched on economics and we’ve touched on time. But at the end of the day, human health and lives are at stake here.
If they want to proceed like that, it’s definitely wrong. They got to take a moment and look at what they’re approving because there’s people’s lives at stake here, not just a process or time or money.
The Chair: I thank you for your testimony and your answers. It’s a very important debate we are having here.
We now welcome our third panel. From the Indian Resource Council, we have Stephen Buffalo, President and Chief Executive Officer; Wallace Fox, Chairman of the Board; and Delbert Wapass, Vice-Chairman of the Board. And from the Bonnyville Chamber of Commerce, we have Robyn Ducharme, Chair; and Serina Parsons, Executive Director.
Each one of the groups will have five minutes to make an opening statement, which will be followed by a question period.
Wallace Fox, Chairman of the Board, Indian Resource Council: Good morning, senators. We are very honoured to be here on Treaty 8 territory.
As mentioned, my name is Wallace Fox. I’ve been in leadership for over 30 years in Onion Lake Cree Nation, Treaty 6 territory. I retired from local politics last summer. I did not seek reelection as chief. I have chosen to pursue other interests. I’m here as the chairman of the Indian Resource Council that represents about 150 First Nations that are producing oil and gas on their lands. Our mandate is to improve and increase economic development opportunities for First Nation members through responsible energy development. Onion Lake is 6,500 people. It is one of the biggest oil producers on Indian land, heavy oil, the biggest producer.
Bill C-69 is of great interest to Onion Lake Cree Nation. There are specific amendments that we want to see with Bill C-69, which is the main purpose of your work.
We have been working closely with industry, and I say that as a point of pride, not as something that should be kept hidden because we treat each other as equals and we both bring value to the table. We are in favour of industry amendments that promote a strong, responsible energy sector, and that is what we want to see, a strong energy sector.
But there are a few specific points that really affect First Nations. We want to reinstate a test for standing to ensure that only those of us directly affected by a project can participate in its assessment. We want to clarify that proponents of affected committees can indeed consult and negotiate with one another before regulatory approval is granted. That is when First Nations have the most leverage. Right now the wording is vague and can be interpreted as restricting preapproval engagements.
We want to restrict the excessive scope of political interference in the legislation by ensuring independence of regulatory bodies and abiding by due process. We have 150 years of being on the short end of the stick. When politicians in Ottawa make unilateral decisions affecting us, needless to say, we want to avoid that. We don’t need another federal politician telling us what to do, what’s good or bad for us. This aspect of the bill is very patronizing.
As I said, I’ve been in leadership. I’ve seen a lot of archaic politicians and policies in federal government. And if you could sit on our side of the table, you would understand exactly what I’m saying.
How would you like it if I went to Ottawa and told you what to do for the next 150 years? Would you allow that? Well, we’ve had no recourse. But the government has done that to our people, time and time again. And all the years that I’ve been chief, I have not once stood by abiding by what the federal government tells us what to do.
I work for my people for 30 years, not the federal government. It does not matter who is in power. It does not matter which Senate body I’ve appeared for in the past. The issue is our people.
And this legislation process — earlier the previous speakers talk about non-rights holders. Well, then, why is it that the non-rights holders of AFN are continued to be listened to by the federal government when it does not effect and impact our people?
There’s a sovereign relationship of treaty between Onion Lake Cree Nation and the Crown, which all of you represent. AFN is not a treaty rights holder, neither is IRC. However, the individual autonomous sovereign relationship of the Crown with the First Nation is what is paramount to the Crown relationship. But continuously, legislation is being imposed upon our people. I appreciate the fact that in the past decade there is more consultation, but how did we get there? We had to go through courts, again. It was mentioned earlier that the legal system, and who benefits at the end of the day? We are constantly being forced and backed into the corner to come out swinging in legal positions once people understand that there is a relationship of treaty and Crown responsibility, an obligation.
The 1930 Natural Resource Transfer Agreement was arbitrarily given to the provinces without consultation or consent by our people. And this is what we’re talking about. Resource development.
I may not be one of those people that read from the script and never have. I’m speaking from here. Our people should not be dictated to anymore from federal government and Ottawa on what to do. We were not even considered human beings until 1951. So how could we afford legal counsel to represent us? We did not even have access to voting in this next coming election here in a couple weeks or in the fall. So we’ve been behind the 8-ball for many, many years. It’s high time. I’m not one for rallies and demonstrations. I’m one of those people that would rather sit at the table and have a solid working relationship based on mutual respect and understanding.
I just wanted to clarify that IRC is not a rights holder. Neither is AFN. But national office of AFN, the National Chief and the federal government are always making decisions on behalf of First Nations. In Onion Lake Cree Nation, I have always said, “Nobody represents Onion Lake but us.” I wanted to make that point because it upset me, listening in the back that once again I have to stand and appear before another committee when we have poverty in our communities.
With our own resources, we’ve had to expend 60 per cent more of what the federal government provides for us. We took that initiative with our heavy oil, Cree language, that residential school trauma and era, the government never gave a dime to our community. We want to preserve our culture, our language, and our ceremonies. So we invest our resources.
And now with these bills that are being imposed and considered to be passed, we’re going to be taking 150-year step backwards as far as we’re concerned in our community. So please consider that in your deliberations going forward.
Because we have a working relationship with CAPP, they do not provide advice and legal guidance to us. We have our own resources to do our own policy and analysis work on certain matters. We are a representative body to advocate for the best economic resources we can have and develop for our people. Economic sovereignty — we wouldn’t be in the situation where we’re at today, and 634 First Nations in Canada, the have-nots and the haves, if we were treated as decent human beings from the get-go.
I can only speak from Treaty 6 in 1876. If we sit at the table as we did that time and continue to go forward, we would not be sitting where we’re sitting today, if we were allowed to continue to actively.
When I look at this bill, for example, C-69, when I looked at it, there’s a veto section, a possibility that somebody down in Nova Scotia or Quebec can object to what we’re doing in our community. Well, come hell or high water, nobody is ever going to do that. How would you like it? Turn the tables around. If I went and said, Oh, you can’t build a garage in your backyard. I’m from Saskatchewan, and I’m not saying you can in Ottawa or Newfoundland. Would you allow that to happen? Of course not. So why should we allow that to happen in our territories?
I’m not reading from script. This is from experience.
This has to stop. You need to see us from where we are on our end of the table. We have the ability to do the economic sovereignty and independence of what we’re asking, always wanting to do. That’s my perspective. As a former leader in our community, that’s what I strive to do.
Looking at that bill, it reminds me of my grandfather telling me we yielded the best crops on the Prairie provinces with the implements that were negotiated under the treaty for us to become farmers. But what did the surrounding farmers do? They instituted the system and lobbied the past system. They took away our agriculture implements because our crops were better. And this is the history coming from my grandfather. So we couldn’t be farmers anymore because they were complaining outside the reserve parameters back home. Now we’re going back in that direction. I hope not.
Thank you to the Senate. I know you have a very challenging, challenging role to play. But we have minds of our own. And we can take care of our own people. We don’t need legislation to tell us what or what not to do. The time is 2019. Not 1900s when we were told what to do. I will not stand for that, personally. I will do what is right for our people. If protecting the environment is number one, that will be the key issue. Economic independence is number two. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
From the Chamber of Commerce.
Serina Parsons, Executive Director, Bonnyville Chamber of Commerce: Thank you, Madam Chair and senators, for having us today. We are very honoured to be here. My name is Serina Parsons, Executive Director of the Bonnyville and District Chamber of Commerce, and with me is Robyn Ducharme, chair of our organization.
Our chamber represents over 260 members in our area which accounts for 5,853 full-time and 85 part-time positions in our district. Today, I present on their behalf and all businesses in the Lakeland Region.
I wanted to start by stating that later today you will hear from Chris Dugan, Past Chair of the Alberta Chamber of Commerce. We wholeheartedly agree with their policy recommendations and proposed amendments to Bill C-69, so I won’t rehash all of that. But I am honoured to be here to represent the rural community chambers today.
Northeast Alberta has been one of the hardest hit regions by an already ailing economy, one that is currently threatened further by Bill C-69 and its potential impacts. We have continuously seen stakeholders, foreign investors, and businesses cease their investment in Alberta’s oil industry due to failing confidence in our ability to get our product to market.
Since 2015, we have been on a downward spiral. Our community and region have not seen the economic recovery experienced in other parts of the province, for example, Grande Prairie due to their gas production. The number of business licences issued by the Town of Bonnyville is one such indicator. In 2015, 748 licences were issued. In 2018, that number dropped to 633. That’s more than a 15 per cent decline. In your handouts today, I have put all the statistics for you on one sheet so that you can see those in an obvious manner.
Our nation’s ability to build trade-enabling infrastructure is already in question. Without amendments, Bill C-69 further threatens our future economic development. We stand with CAPP’s recommendations on the necessary adjustments required to the current draft of the bill, and, again, CAPP’s impact assessment is included in your package. If Bill C-69 is passed as is, not only will it affect the construction of new pipelines further impacting the state of the Alberta economy negatively, it will also hinder many other forms of infrastructure across our country.
I cannot speak effectively to the impact this bill will have, if passed, without describing what our region has been experiencing. The current state of energy regulation has led to our province implementing a curtailment on oil production. Our region has some of the largest producers including CNRL, a major employer, which indicated in January a possibility of over a thousand layoffs that may result as a direct result of that curtailment. Due to the easing of the curtailment formula, those layoffs did not occur. But you can imagine the uncertainty that resulted in the businesses, communities, and people who call our region home.
I want to share some more human statistics with you about what all this uncertainty and ineptitude at building infrastructure has meant for our region. Please keep in mind that statistics are mere numbers and behind them are people, real working-class people who have dedicated much of their lives to being productive citizens.
I will start with the housing market in Cold Lake, Bonnyville, and the MD of Bonnyville. The average home price in 2014 was $452,000. And in 2018, it was $323,800. A 28 per cent drop. In 2015, there were 4 foreclosures, and in 2018, there were 31. A 675 per cent increase.
From the local crisis centre, in over the last year alone, from 2017 to 2018, helpline calls were up 53 per cent. Crisis intervention calls, that’s suicide-related as well, were up 51 per cent, and male callers were up a staggering 81 per cent. We cannot effectively talk about our economy in numbers without realizing the impacts that it’s having on people. Stays in their emergency shelter were up 25 per cent with clients staying 30 per cent longer from 10 days versus 7 days in the previous year.
These numbers represent people who worked in our area, lost their jobs, their businesses, or their homes. For some it’s all of the above. Many have left our region for other opportunities, taking skilled labour with them and in many cases skilled spouses whether they be teachers or nurses. Our mayor, Gene Sobolewski, did mention today about our decline in population.
Alberta’s prosperity depends on a healthy, competitive business community and regulation informed by data and science. Moreover, the story of our region should prove that the loss of economic benefits from a project not being approved deserves equal attention to any other measure of public interest.
If Bill C-69 is passed as it stands, global investor confidence in Alberta and Canada will keep decreasing, and we will continue to get less and less foreign investment. We won’t be able to tell our kids that we did the best setting them up for success by getting full value for our resources because we can’t get our product to market.
The statistics I shared with you today will continue to get worse, not better. We need to ensure the best interests of Canadians are upheld and our federal government is focused on that first and foremost. We need a regulatory system that works for the people of this country. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We are going to proceed to our question period, beginning with Senator MacDonald.
Senator MacDonald: Mr. Fox, I was going to call you Chief Fox, but you’re no longer chief, you tell me. You may no longer be chief, but you sound like a leader to me. I want you to know you’re not alone when it comes to the weariness with Ottawa telling people how to live their lives. A lot of Canadians share the same sentiment.
Could you elaborate on the relationship between the Onion Lake Cree Nation and the industry and how it has affected your community, either good or bad?
Mr. Fox: I’ll answer it, and then I’ll ask my colleague here of the relationship between Thunderchild and Husky.
We have done something different that has not been done. The status quo federal government through Indian Oil and Gas Canada negotiates oil and gas agreements on behalf of First Nation. Well, in the ’80s we said no. We will do that for ourselves. We set up a company called Onion Lake Energy, a wholly incorporated entity, which caught all exploration rights on our people, on the land, and development permit. They went and formed that. Called on the coffee row in Calgary. At the end of the day, BlackPearl is the one producing. CNRL was producing on our land also. And we have a working agreement. We have 51 per cent working interest in all — we have all rights and role for agreements. Everything built in that anything that industry wants and requires in our territory while producing, if we can provide that, then we can.
We have 31 per cent interest in revenue, a 12 per cent working interest in our company. All the AFEs are prepaid by the industry. So by negotiating, working, we’ve established that relationship instead of going to court, instead of going the legal route. And at the end of the day, we told them, IOGC, now you can come in, here’s our agreement.
See, we took a stand, and we built that relationship. And ongoing. I always have been, I’m not going to go to anybody like this. We have something that we can contribute, put on the table, so can you. So why don’t we go forward like this. At this time, I’ll ask Chief Wapass.
Delbert Wapass, Vice-Chairman of the Board, Indian Resource Council: Good morning, and thank you for this opportunity.
We have a relationship with the Husky Oil, Husky Energy. The July 2016 oil spill required communities coming together, First Nations and community. The attitude of industry a few years back was, basically, “we have the money, you listen to us.” They are very racist. There is a lot of prejudice there.
They excluded us from the opportunity in 2010 because we blockaded them for the money that they owed us. Well, 2016, the oil spill happened. They didn’t know how to approach us because of what they had done to us. We had a decision to make. Our elders got involved. We had a ceremony. And our elders said, “Look, invite them.” So we sat down at the river. We had a feast. We had a pipe ceremony. The elders said, “You guys got to work together. You got to create this relationship, this partnership, and if it’s based on trust, things will work out.” And that’s what we did.
The surrounding First Nations talked about legal action, a lawsuit, and a class action suit. We didn’t take that approach. We were called everything from a sellout to everything. At the end of the day, we believed that we’ve developed a model of what every industry out there in the oil and gas industry should be following when dealing with First Nations people.
Not once did Husky look in their back pocket and say, “Well, how much is this going to cost now? What else are we going to pay for?” But we were also reasonable on our end and respected and appreciated that relationship. At the end of the day, the oil spill was cleaned up. There’s still some residue, but they’ve never shut the door and said, “Okay, we’re done.” They said, “Are you satisfied? We’re going to do this until you’re satisfied, no matter what the cost is.”
Today, $20 million later, without a formal agreement, Husky has paid Thunderchild in contracts, in relationship, in building and so on. Our membership — many don’t understand that in our community. Chief Wapass, you’re on the payroll with Husky. Well, I mean, we all are, right, when you look at it. But the bottom line is that they said, “We want to see the agreement.” I can’t show it to you. You’re hiding something. I’m not. What was the agreement? The spiritual agreement which Husky honoured. Which industry would give $20 million without having an agreement in front of them?
Then we signed an MOU. Then they gave additional dollars to help us build our community, our surrounding community on how our towns can be part of Thunderchild and how Thunderchild can be part of that. That’s relationship. That’s partnership. That’s not economy versus environment. Economy and environment don’t have to be at opposing ends. They can work together. And we’ve demonstrated that since time immemorial as First Nations people. Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for being here. You’re showing how your people and industry can work together, and I think your comment that the economy and the environment can and should be complementary to one other. So thank you for that.
Chief Fox, both you and Ms. Parsons spoke about standing, public participation. I wonder if you could expand on that a little bit. This is not the first time we’ve heard it. We’ve heard it from a number of witnesses about the challenges. On the one hand, you want to have openness and participation, public participation, but on the other hand, you’re adhering to pretty strict timelines. So I wonder if you could comment on why you both think it’s important that we look at that as a committee.
Ms. Parsons: Thank you. If I understand your question correctly, we believe people need to be heard, but the right people need to be heard. And that’s the issue that we’re seeing. It’s really scary to know, as Chief Fox spoke about, that somebody from the east coast can cross our borders, interprovincially, and make a difference to a project here. We understand that there are different perceptions across Canada. And those perceptions, whether they be educated in nature or simply an opinion, change the face of our oil and gas industry.
To have somebody from New Brunswick come forward to say, “This project should be stalled or stopped,” when we’re the ones living the reality. The statistics I spoke about today are our reality. Somebody from the east coast or B.C. cannot effectively speak to what’s happening in our area because they’re not living this reality. I think that’s the main thing.
Of course there has to be a public consultation for those who are involved. From the east coast, B.C., there’s a really large perception that Alberta’s oil is dirty or that environmentally a lot of things are dirty. We don’t see that. You know, it’s very green on a lot of these sites. There’s a lot of environmental regulation as it stands now. To proceed with those areas of grey, allowing other people can have a say in what we’re doing here, will decrease investor confidence further, and challenge the ability of our projects to move forward.
Senator Cordy: Before Chief Fox answers, maybe you could also consider this: Who would make that decision about who could actually have standing? Or have you thought about that?
Ms. Parsons: That I haven’t thought about. I would say, though, that you would need to look at and consult with our municipalities various Indigenous groups. But certainly people in our region that are directly affected.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
Mr. Fox: Rephrase that again, sorry.
Senator Cordy: Who would make the decision about who has standing?
Mr. Fox: It would be the people impacted in the geographic region. But in my opinion, that’s what it would be. The one envelope fits all doesn’t work anymore. It never worked to begin with. But as a First Nation’s people, we never had the opportunity to be able to voice and to stand up. Way back in the 1900s until the ’50s and ’60s.
Like I said, we’re in the century today that we need to be mindful and respectful of one another. We need to have the mutual dialogue. I understand you can’t be sitting here with everybody; right. It would be a very cumbersome process. So I would narrow it down with the people that are impacted in that whole collective region or geographic sector.
Mr. Wapass: I’d like to add just quickly to the answers to your question. It seems to me that this committee has been very strategic in regards to who presents or who has standing to present. I don’t know who selects that, who determines that, but we fight like heck to get in here, to try to have standing so we can at least hear different voices. Not only hear from people who are for it, but to hear from people who are against it or people who are trying to find the middle ground and make something work. Instead, it’s being influenced; right?
There’s so much history out there that proves how the American influence has brought us to our knees here in Canada on the economy. Vivian Krause documents it and other people have documented. We continue to allow those type of lobbyists, tree huggers — that they call themselves — wearing lululemon and mink coats to determine if we’re going to have another house in Thunderchild or not, determining if we’re going to have more graduates in Thunderchild or not, and determining how we’re going to deal with diabetes in our community. Those people don’t give a hoot about what happens to our people back, and then we get the finger pointed at us that First Nations want handouts. We don’t want handouts.
But when CMHC determines that you can’t have a carport yet, you’re the one making the payment, paying the mortgage on First Nations land. How would you feel about going for a mortgage and being told that you can build this kind of house, but you can’t have a carport? That’s reality in Indian country. This is 2020. This is what it is.
The Chair: Senator Simons.
Senator Simons: I met Stephen Buffalo and Delbert Wapass and Serina Parsons in previous meetings. I think when I saw Serina, she was considerably less pregnant. I had a question that I wanted to direct to the members of the Indian Resource Council. All through our hearings on C-69 we’ve heard very different points of view from Indigenous people, some who are adamantly opposed to the bill as you are, and others who see it as a brand new chapter in reconciliation.
It occurs to me that part of the problem is that we are dealing with pipelines through British Columbia, a lot of which is unceded territory where people don’t have treaty rights and treaty status. Do you think there is there a way that the Indian Resource Council could work with First Nations in British Columbia, whether that’s through profit sharing or some other kind of benefits agreement? I can see their perspective. You’re the ones reaping the benefit, but they’re the ones who have to put up with the risk and the egress on their land. Is there a way that, amongst yourselves, you could come to a solution?
Mr. Buffalo: Thank you, senator. I am Stephen Buffalo, President and CEO of the Indian Resource Council, representing the 150 title holders. We always strive to make sure that the communities are well informed, and the issue of consultation is addressed. The Northern Gateway was a prime example of First Nations being onside with the agreements that they’ve created. And, again, there was some influence coming from the United States on some of the people in B.C. That’s the challenge.
After the Bill C-69 support resolution was rescinded, the Indian Resource Council offered to hold a symposium to help further educate our leaders in regards to what this bill really means.
You’re not going to get much argument about the environmental concerns. We all want a safe environment. But in the same sense, as you heard from our leaders, we’re still trying to strive for economic development. I can’t see a community that would not want better housing, better water systems, better infrastructure, better schooling. Some of these communities in British Columbia, which are unceded, they can be addressed as well. Again, it comes to the haves and the have-nots.
A prime example here in Treaty 8, we see a very prosperous community in Fort McKay. You go to my friend’s community in Kawacatoose, Saskatchewan, near Raymore and you see the poverty at the highest level. Same in British Columbia. Some of the communities do not have that type of infrastructure, so, of course, we would like to strive. But the key is and the decision makers have to put forth and consider First Nation-led policy because we’re striving for balance.
We can’t get everything we want, and most definitely we don’t like being dictated to as you heard from our leaders.
Senator Simons: But you were here in the room when you heard Chief Waquan and Chief Grandjamb. They come from communities that are benefitting in economic ways from resource development. They’re also coming from communities that feel stressed by the degree of resource development. So I’m wondering how you would respond to some of the concerns that your fellow Indigenous leaders raised earlier.
Mr. Buffalo: You know, when I heard their testimony this morning, it comes back to the same policy that we deal with Indian Oil and Gas Canada. The Alberta Energy Regulator seems to be somewhat of a problem. As with the oil and gas-producing nations, Indian Oil and Gas Canada, the federal arm, is a problem for First Nations. That’s where it all begins and I think that needs to be addressed.
Mr. Wapass: Going back to your question, I think everybody in Canada is benefitting from oil. To say that B.C. is not benefitting from oil or how they can benefit more, who is looking at Alberta? Who is looking at Saskatchewan when it comes to equalizations? Who is getting the most money out there on the backs of whom? When we talk about payment, we need to understand the treaty relationship. You have to understand the Aboriginal title, what B.C. talks about.
Indian Resource Council is there trying to find a way to move people forward, bring people together on how to do that. What happened at the Assembly of First Nations when the resolution was passed, what was talked about earlier by the earlier panel? A resolution that is passed normally would be talked about and debated, would probably go back to the drawing board, brought back to the floor, and say, “Will this work?” For whatever reason, suspect or not, it was brought to the floor. It was passed, just like that. That’s controlled by the chair who is chairing that meeting there.
First Nations are coming back now and saying, “Whoa, wait a sec. What happened here?” They may not have been against the total resolution, but there would have been a way forward on navigating how you bring First Nations together on a resolution, rather than creating the split that it’s causing because that’s not who we are as First Nations. But we started adopting different systems that created this split, and now you have — and you’ll continue to have — the haves and the have-nots.
You’ll have First Nations that are doing well. Some who will have no problem stepping on other First Nations who aren’t. Let’s be honest about that. And you’ll have those that will continue to advocate on behalf of everybody. I believe everybody needs to have a share of the pie. And how that happens, more or less, at least somebody is getting something.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We are going to continue. Senator Carignan.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Being from Quebec, I’d like to clarify something since we are in Fort McMurray. Many people are under the impression that Quebecers still rely heavily on oil from Saudi Arabia or the Middle East, so you should know something. Ever since the Enbridge Line 9B reversal, Quebec has derived more than 45 per cent of its oil from here, Alberta, importing just 11 per cent from Europe, mainly the U.K. I just wanted to make that clear because I think it’s important.
Mr. Buffalo, you sent the Macdonald-Laurier Institute a letter in which you said you wanted the federal government to put Bill C-69 on hold so the industry had time to get back on track.
[English]
You said that pushing forward at a time when the energy sector is being battered from all sides would be most unfortunate.
[Translation]
You’d like the government to delay passage of Bill C-69, but with the election coming up in the fall, that would mean killing the bill. Do you still maintain that the bill’s passage should be delayed, even if it means the bill’s demise?
[English]
Mr. Buffalo: Thank you, senator, for the question. Yes, we did state something to that effect that some of the amendments are hurtful. As you heard in testimony from our leadership, the issue is economic development. When you see some of the wordage and the four key points that Chief Wapass has brought forward, those are the issues that are threatening to our communities. So, yes, delay the bill because you do not have all First Nations as part of this.
From what I’ve been told, only selective groups have been part of putting this policy together. When you look at the Indian Resource Council and its communities, the title rights holders, they did not have a say in what was being done here. So without saying the timelines and without saying the agenda of the federal government and this panel for that matter, it’s important that we say that we need to contribute. We do have some wordage to put forth in regards to four particular points that you’ve heard today. If it’s wordsmithing, if it’s amendments, that’s a start. I understand there are timelines of the federal election, and to have presence here was a challenge.
To come here with the feeble budget that we have at the Indian Resource Council, we have to do our best to ensure our voices are heard. When we see something that threatens our communities, their livelihoods and their strive for sovereignty through economic development, we have to say something, to put something forward. Thank you.
Mr. Wapass: Just adding to the question, it almost sounds like a movie, “Kill Bill.” I respect and appreciate the work that you are doing, but it needs to be as inclusive as it can be. Sometimes it’s beyond your control. It’s who is invited. I understand and appreciate that. But even within the Assembly of First Nations, they’re going around, and they’re doing a travelling show as well. Strategically they’re leaving out First Nations that have resources in the oil and gas industry.
We walked right into a meeting, to a session in Calgary on Tsuut’ina, where everybody that was invited there was everybody but industry or those that were in support of it. This is our own organization, supposed to be our own organization, and it’s doing that to us as well. Right.
How are we supposed to have comfort as First Nations people knowing that the process that is happening is fair and just. At the end of the day, you can sit back and appreciate the decision that comes out of it. You can’t because of what’s happening.
So when it comes to the legislation itself, it does affect. It does need to be halted. And if it has to be stalled and defeated and brought back at a later time, whatever it has to be, it has to be just. And that’s what we’re asking for. It’s not because of some hidden agenda, something that happened here by somebody introducing that, later finding out how that person is connected to this organization, to that organization, and here we are spending a lot of taxpayers’ money trying to resolve a situation that we should have been involved in at the beginning. I want to go back, just quickly if I can, Madam, to comments made by Minister Garneau. We had the opportunity to speak on transport and communication in Ottawa on March 20, on C-48, which our membership is also very concerned about.
In that session Minister Garneau referred to us as private commercial interests and not in the same category as coastal First Nations. That comment has been bothering me because it’s not true.
The IRC represents communities across B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, and elsewhere. Our stakeholders are chiefs and councillors, the rightful representatives of those First Nations. But the real problem with that perspective is that it makes First Nations people who are involved in business, who are trying to promote economic development and address poverty, not as credible as the environmentalists who are opposed to any kind of resource development even as they use gas, minerals, non-renewable resources in their daily lives. It was concerning. It weighed on me, and I had to bring it out. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Neufeld —
Mr. Fox: Last comment, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Very short because we still have a senator who wishes to ask questions.
Mr. Fox: For those people, and I say this respectfully, who are opposed to any kind of resource development, pipeline development, do you burn wood in your home? Turn off the gas line at your house. Walk. Ride a horse. Don’t drive. Don’t fly. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
We need to continue. We need to move. Senator Neufeld.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you. I couldn’t agree with you more.
Mr. Fox: Thank you for clarifying in Quebec that the oil comes from our territory. That’s about education and awareness.
Senator Neufeld: I come from British Columbia, Fort St. John in northern B.C. Oil and gas is particularly important to us because it’s our main industry in northeastern B.C. I don’t disagree with the standing issue. You should be talking to those people that are directly affected or experts in whatever field you’re in. I don’t have a problem with that. But on linear projects like the pipeline, quite a few First Nations organizations in British Columbia are totally in favour. Kinder Morgan spent years. Ian Anderson, he actually went grey spending time going up and down the linear right of the way to talk to people. Not all First Nations agree. And they don’t agree today. How do you solve that? Nobody wants to just ride rough shot over anyone. But somehow we have to get your oil to the coast, in tankers and to Asia or wherever the market happens to be because you will get a better price. You will get better returns. So all of that has to happen.
I am at a loss as to how you get that through to all of those First Nations that are opposed. There are quite a few of them, and I think all of them have standing because they live there, they’ve been there, that’s where their reserves are, that’s where their traditional territory is. I’m at a loss how you get that through. I was a Minister of Energy and Mines in British Columbia for eight years. I’ve had a bit of an experience with trying to get things done. If you could help me a bit, I’d really appreciate that.
Mr. Wapass: Well, let me attempt to help you find your way.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you.
Mr. Wapass: As you stated, there are those that are against. But there are also those that aren’t; right.
Senator Neufeld: Yes, I know.
Mr. Wapass: It’s the approach, how it all came to be, how you’re consulting and how you’re engaging. First Nations people, if they feel that something is being slammed on them and they’re not being engaged the way they want to be engaged, you’re going to get push back. If you go in there, understand and appreciate that it takes time to reach out to have and articulate inclusion. It’s not about money.
Nine times out of ten, it’s not about money when it comes to First Nations. It’s about the relationship, the environment, the water and the salmon. That’s what it’s about. If we’re going to go there and think that, yes, we’ll negotiate impact benefit agreements but who should be entitled to impact benefit agreements? Well, some industries think that it should be those on a line, and others feel that it should be everybody because everybody is affected. But because of money, because of time, because of strategy, because of the approach, because of the board of governors, what they agreed to, this is what’s being promoted; this is what’s sold. Well, you have push back from First Nations.
What does money mean to the Squamish? What does money mean to the Musqueam? To the Tsleil-Waututh? They have billions of dollars. What does money mean to them? They’re businesspeople, but it’s the approach. And I respect that. I understand that. And I acknowledge that. It’s about the environment. It’s about the water.
And so it’s how you engage. And to ensure that they have a seat at the table, determining what environmental standards they can develop rather than negotiate, and the types of marine safety to the highest standards and what inclusion means. You get them at the table and you promise them that they’re going to help write this to the standards that they understand that they appreciate that they know. I don’t think you’re going to have a problem with First Nations. I really believe that. Because right now, yes, they’re concerned. Tanker safety and the list goes on. So those are my thoughts, senator. Hopefully I answered your question. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I think you have defined what consultation should be. Thank you for that.
Last question, Senator Mockler.
Senator Mockler: Merci beaucoup, Madame la Présidente. And to the leadership sitting at this table from First Nation, you’re to be applauded from coast to coast to coast. However, we are basically consulting with you for you to tell us how we can improve the Bill, taking into consideration your concerns. There are some politicians who believe that it’s their way or it’s no way.
You’ve heard me quoting from the Council of Atlantic Premiers, and there’s no doubt that the leadership I’m seeing at this table, Madame la Présidente, your leadership was certainly needed for Energy East.
Mr. Fox: We will get there.
Senator Mockler: Thank you. I’ll tell my people. I’d like to benefit from your collective experience and opinions on the bill, that as drafted, places final decision-making power in the hands of the minister or Government-in-Council, as per the letter that was sent to the Prime Minister of Canada February 14, 2019, about the veto side of Bill C-69. And the last question, what do they mean by “social licence,” when we talk about developing our natural resources? Thank you, Chiefs.
Mr. Fox: Government saying social licence? What do they mean?
Senator Mockler: Yes, how do you define that?
Mr. Fox: If they were to be sitting where I’m sitting today since the day I was born. If they were able to see, as Madam Chair said, the consultation. To understand, to know what it means. I just got a text, one of my grandsons just passed away because of this sickness of the drugs in our community. And I apologize for that.
The Chair: No, you don’t need to apologize. You don’t need to apologize.
Mr. Fox: If they knew what I have to go through every time I’m at a funeral because of meth because of drugs, because of no employment, no training, no education is that what they determine? Is that what they call it? Excuse me. Sorry.
Mr. Wapass: Carry on. When we go back and you talk about this is what the politicians are saying, well, I’m sick and tired of listening to politicians. I’d like to listen to leaders. Because politicians will BS you. Leaders will tell you straight up what it is. In First Nations country, we view business as a responsibility. We don’t view business as interest. There’s a lot that goes into a decision and engaging in business. And nobody should dictate what should happen in somebody else’s territory.
I was a chief in my community since 1989. As Chief Fox said earlier, nobody speaks for Thunderchild except the leadership of Thunderchild. We’re not part of a Tribal Council. We’re an independent band in Saskatchewan. Onion Lake is an independent band in Saskatchewan. We’re independent because we don’t want other First Nations dictating to us in regards to what should happen in our territory on our land.
We determine what happens. I don’t want to keep looking over my shoulder and finding out that I had to compromise a situation that we felt strongly about in our community.
So in regards to veto, we’ve been vetoed to death as First Nations people. Every decision that has been made in Ottawa, we are the recipient of it. We make money for ourselves on economic development. Our money goes to the revenue trust and a capital trust, but it goes to Ottawa. It doesn’t go into a bank account like it would with a normal business. Guess what happens then? We have to fill out a band council resolution and then put together a proposal and explain why and how we’re going to use our money. We didn’t use government’s money to buy our business in the first place. This is how we’ve been treated. This is how we’re still treated today.
So veto — no First Nations will take lightly to being vetoed because you control our future because of the legislation. And the more money we make, the more sovereign we are. We’re sovereign to begin with. What happens to industry that has money? They dictate. Well, First Nations are starting to have money, and we’re going to start dictating, and the government will start listening.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have learned a lot in this panel.
We have one last panel. From the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, we have Chief Allan Adam; and Carla Davidson, Owner of Endeavour Scientific; and Lisa Tssessaze, Dene Lands and Resource Management. You have five minutes to make your opening statement, and we will follow with questions.
Allan Adam, Chief, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation: Welcome to our territory. I share we are in Treaty 8 territory, territory of the Athabasca Dene and the Cree. I am President of the ATC, so welcome here today.
When I left my house this morning, I couldn’t understand why am I leaving my house to come and speak about how important Bill C-69 is. While I was leaving, I looked at my wife and said, “Remember when I was young.” I said that I had these two idols. They were really great about how they played hockey. One was Wayne Gretzky; the other one Mario Lemieux. I adored them so much that when I played hockey, the number on my back was 69. Ironically, one day had the “C” written in the front. So I was the captain of the team “C 69.”
I guess my job here today is to stick handle through all these great players in the back that went before me so I could at least score some kind of points here to go forward. So with that in mind, I’m going to come to the table and give my expression.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that ice breaking. Thank you very much.
Mr. Adam: Bear with me. I forgot my reading glasses this morning. It’s going to be tough for me to read. But we’ll give it a chance here.
Hello, my name is Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. Welcome to Treaty 8 territory. We appreciate you coming here today to our homeland to see the beauty of its nature, but also the impacts from the oil sands development. I stand before you to tell you that ACFN is a protector and a supporter of both business when it’s done right. ACFN is a pro-development First Nation with 17 community-owned companies that serve the oil sands. A large number of our members either work directly for the oil sands operators or for subcontractors. I also want to mention that ACFN is heading up a coalition of First Nations and Metis communities in Alberta to seek a purchase and an equity stake in the TMX pipeline. So make no mistake, the success of our nation and our people are inextricably linked to a prosperous oil sands region. But that must not come through the expense of the health of our members and the wildlife of our landscape. It is for both these reasons that we support Bill C-69.
We feel that it will strike the right balance between protecting our environment and providing more economic certainty. I want to take some time to comment on some of the testimonies that you have heard so far from Alberta and demonstrate how their claims are over blown and exaggerated.
Alberta had told you that its regular process is a world class, It is not and their testimony was misleading. In reality, Alberta’s interpretation of this obligation to uphold the honour of the Crown is the weakest in Canada.
Alberta will not address our issues in a typical statement of concern. The Alberta consultation office will say 50 per cent of our issues, including navigation, water, air quality and cumulative effects, are out of scope. They say that these are regional issues best dealt with through other processes, but there are no other processes in place capable of addressing our issues.
In 2015, statutory review found that the Alberta regional planning process directly and adversely affects our nations because it does not address impacts to rights. Alberta has refused to deal with these issues with us. The lack of meaningful consultation on issues puts projects at risk of litigation. Alberta has not demonstrated its ability to protect its environment. Its own EIA process is too narrow and it fails inadequate consideration for a full range of project specific and cumulative impact of applications.
Mark Taylor, the Executive Vice President of Operations, told your committee that Alberta is headed in a situation where the Orphan Well Association is fully funded by industry. This is not completely true.
I’m just stuck with that one because I just read a column on orphan wells last night from Alberta that’s outside of this. The column stated the fact that Alberta taxpayers are going to be paying $70 billion for abandoned in Alberta.
The Chair: Yeah, we read the news yesterday.
Mr. Adam: That’s reclamation. $70 billion in oil wells abandoned. I could feel for the rural Albertans about how they feel when they have these abandoned wells all over the place. That’s what the Orphan Well Association was set up to do, and they’re failing to do so. Just another thing that caught my mind.
In 2017, the Alberta government provided a $235 million in loans to the Orphan Well Association to beef up a $30 million a year budget. That’s almost a tenfold increase in funding. Industry is supposed to pay that back over the next ten years, but the interest will be paid by the federal grant of $30 million announced last year.
We are also concerned that the taxpayers will end up paying for the reclamation of the oil sand mines. There have been reports of internal documents that show that the cost of reclamation of the oil sands is much higher than the AER publicly admitted. The AER does not hold significant security to cover these costs. Moreover, ACFN has firsthand knowledge that the regulatory system is inadequate despite the process in place over the past 40 years of oil sands development.
We have watched a steady degradation of the environment and our ability to practise our Treaty 8 rights. We commend the federal government for taking steps to improve the federal EIA process and note that Alberta needs to do the same provincially.
In short, it is irresponsible for Alberta to suggest that its regulatory system is adequate and a substitute for a federal system. As highlighted by Chief Grandjamb and Chief Waquan, Alberta makes this claim because they do not want an in situ development to be subject to federal review. As my colleagues discussed, there is no federal oversight on in situ development for the future growth of the industry. It would not be adequately assessed, and when you do not assess you cannot identify all of the risks. We are seriously concerned about GHG emissions and the impacts to water quality and quantity from the in situ projects.
Adequate assessment is the only way to understand the risks, mitigate impacts, design appropriate monitoring and ensure protection through responsive management. We certainly appreciate that the oil industry is facing challenges because we feel them too. We want the healthy industry for projects to be approved that benefit our community and minimizes the harm to the environment. For that to happen, you need a fulsome review process, and if the industry wants certainty, they should support Bill C-69.
CAPP has provided recommendations to the Senate committee, which it recommended must be taken in their entirety. The package is based on flawed legal analysis. CAPP is advising you to streamline the EIA process which is what got us here today. To be clear, their proposals will lead to more litigation. I know this because it would be Indigenous communities doing it. You can’t rely on CAPP to tell you how we feel or what we do.
As my colleagues discussed, CAPP’s proposal to limit the pre-planning phases will cause unnecessary confusion and delay. Their recommendations to limit judicial reviews would impair the rule of law and result in lengthy infringement cases with more uncertainty for industry. Also, CAPP’s proposed limit of ministerial discretion may have merit, but let’s not forget that it was industry who lobbied for the greater ministerial discretion under CEAA 2012, when there was a Conservative government.
We also note that the interest of CAPP’s proposal regarding a navigational act and must point out their analysis is illegally incorrect. For example, they have suggested removing language from the Navigational Protection Act that would allow the minister to protect the right of navigation. The act included this power for many years. Removing it would erode one of Canada’s oldest legal rights and further risk ACFN’s ability to navigate its territories.
Navigation of the Athabasca River and the Peace-Athabasca Delta is a primary concern for Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation because of how we travel in our territories to exercise our treaty rights. Low water levels already impair our navigational to these waterways. ACFN supports responsible development, and we support the new oil movement, one that is socially and environmentally responsible, innovative, and full of partnership with our community.
We are stewards of the land. We are fully aware of our rights and responsibilities as signatories to Treaty 8. We have demonstrated our experience or our leadership in oil sands development, forming partnerships with industry, government and other Indigenous communities, participating in regulatory processes and advocating for our rights in a system where they are not, otherwise, protected.
We understand a healthy industry requires more meaningful assessments. Bill C-69 is not perfect, but it has significant improvements in its consideration of impacts to rights. We have provided recommendations to amend Bill C-69 that outlines a method of ensuring that further expansions of oil sands is considered by the federal regulatory authorities. We encourage the Senate to adopt our recommendations and to ensure a comprehensive and fair assessment of the oil sands projects here and into the future.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator MacDonald, do you have a question?
Senator MacDonald: Thank you, chief, for your comments today. I just want some clarification because I’m a little confused. I understand you are, in principle, supportive of development, but you have some trouble with the Alberta regulators. I just want some clarification on CAPP’s recommendations in terms of amendments. Are you supportive of some of them, or all of them? How do they coexist with the amendment you would like to put forward? How do they work?
Mr. Adam: I have a hard time hearing. I can hardly hear on my left side. That’s why I have her sitting on this side.
Carla Davidson, Owner, Endeavour Scientific, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation: I can help out if you like. There are some clarifications in wording that CAPP has recommended that we think that with some tweaking could be useful. In general, though, many of their substantive comments are designed to streamline the process and limit the factors to be considered. We do appreciate their concerns about regulatory certainty, but what we tend to forget is that projects get approved. The problem is what happens next. The problem with what happens next is if these projects are approved without fully considering what needs to consider under Canadian law, then they become subject to litigation. That is the lens we’ve brought to reviewing a lot of their amendments. In our submission to you, we’ll be going through them in detail.
Senator MacDonald: Okay.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: Thank you. That is what I was going to ask. One of my questions is, will you provide us a copy of what you believe should be amended so that we can look through CAPP’s amendments or suggested amendments we can see where they coincide?
I’m interested in your comments about the in situ products. That they are not on the list for impact assessment because they’re small. You spoke about what I’ll refer to as the cumulative effect; that a lot of small projects together actually a pretty big project. Can you expand on that for me.
Mr. Adam: I could speak on that because we were — Lisa and I have been at this game now for 15 and a half years. When Alberta developed a policy for the in situ, they made it in regards to where it will go past a regulatory system of 10,000 barrels or less. Anything under 10,000 barrels doesn’t have to go through a rigorous EIA. With that process enacted, they go through this whole environmental review, bypass everything, and get their application. Once they get their application, then it starts to expand. It’s no longer a 10,000-barrel operation anymore because some of them are up to 120,000 barrels a day.
How you could call this an environmental review policy when you give them the bypass of 10,000 barrels and yet some of them are up to 220,000 barrels per day. There is no proper environmental assessment about the impacts that are going to happen in the future.
I’ll give you a prime example that’s going to hurt, and it’s going to hit home. If you neglect your teeth, you’re going to develop a cavity over time. You’re not going to know when it’s coming. But when it comes, there is a cavity and it has to be filled. If not, it’s going to get pulled. I’ve always asked, when you are extracting oil from the ground, what are you going to put back as a replacement, so a cavity won’t form in the future? How many in situ plants to we have in this region?
Nobody’s talked about the possibility of sink holes occurring in the future because nobody has done an analysis of the ground water run offs. We know they exist. How do we know that? Because they feed our water system when the water tables are low in the winter months. Significant amounts of ground water come up from all over feeding our sources. If the in situ regulations don’t account for the ground water that is coming to our traditional territories, and if it’s pumping a bunch of uncertainty into our system, then what kind of regulatory system do we have to protect ourselves?
I’ve said this in the past. If we do not fix the regulatory system the way it is today, our people will be environmental refugees in the future because that’s where we’re headed. You hear the government saying that “everything is good in Fort Chipewyan, the water is good.” But our own community-based monitoring program tells us different. That our water is becoming more unstable for consumption and it continues to deteriorate.
I’m supposed to be pro-development. When I first ran for chief, it was all about pro-development. That I was going to enact and implement our side of the treaty when it comes to development.
You heard comments this morning that we don’t want anybody from the east making decisions for us here in Alberta. Well, we as First Nations have been taking directions from people from the east since 1899. I don’t think anyone could contest about that. So we value everybody’s position.
Canada was formed based on sharing. That’s what the treaty was meant to be. If you want to extract our resources, you’d better have a fair regulatory system in place where First Nations are going to be comfortable enough to share those resources with others because our livelihood and way of life are supposed to be there as long as the sun shines, the grass grows, and the river flows. Today we still have that.
I believe that with some of our recommendations, Bill C-69 can and will be the catalyst of coming together to develop a second to none world-class regulatory system that’s going to be fit for Aboriginal people, Alberta, and Canada. It will also allow world investors to come in and invest into this community again.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for that answer. As you said, industry asked for more ministerial oversight in CEAA 2012, and in this bill, it allows the minister to extend timelines for up to 90 days. In this case, however, the bill says that if the minister is going to extend the timeline, then the minister has to provide the rationale, the reasons behind it. So unlike 2012, where no reasons had to be given, now at least the minister has to give a reason.
We did hear from some witnesses that when we’re talking about the minister, that we should, in fact, be talking about not just the Minister of Environment, but that we should also be looking at the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Finance because of the financial implications for these projects. Would you agree that perhaps we should look at more than just one minister, just one minister, or does it matter? Have you not thought about it?
Ms. Davidson: That is a very good question. In general the research that we have seen has shown that most timeline extensions for the types of projects we deal with, come from the proponent. Those are usually time needed to respond to supplementary information requests. I think a lot of the timeline issues can be addressed by proper scoping during the early engagement phase and further clarifications to proponents on what’s expected under an EIA.
As to ministerial discretion, this is not necessarily our most favourite aspect of the act. But having said that, it is not new. Some of the rhetoric around this being a sudden danger to the industry is different this time around than it was CEAA 2012. I think that’s fair to say.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.
The Chair: It’s very interesting what you’re talking about. The in situ wells, how they are all interrelated and how this system could potentially influence the quality of the ground water through downstream effects. There have been so many questions about what community effects are and how you would define community effects, and this is a very interesting situation that illustrates that. You said you have some data showing the degradation of your water quality. Can you please submit that to the clerk of the committee?
Mr. Adam: When we did our community-based monitoring in 2011, when the Obed Mine’s tailings pond breached, where’s the world-class monitoring system that we said we had? Where’s the world-class protection agency that Alberta’s got? Where is the world-class agency from Fisheries and Oceans Canada? When all this occurred, where are all the right people coming to our community in Fort Chipewyan? Today, 2019, eight years after the spill, no one, not even the provincial or federal government has taken the responsibility of the Obed Mine breach. Yet you say you have a world-class regulatory system.
I am totally devastated and appalled by the way we carry out business here today. If this is going to carry on and continue on, then why are we here? We are here to put something in place so that Obed Mine would not happen again. Until today, not one government has come to us and said, chief, what are your concerns about the Obed Mine spill?
Ms. Davidson: Just to follow up on your question about ground water. Earlier today we met with Mandy Olsgard, a toxicologist who works with the First Nations, who we were hoping could address this very issue. I just have some notes from her. Independent research has shown that 14 per cent of all wells at operational SAGD facilities have reported failures. This is a major pathway of contamination into ground water and a major risk that is not currently assessed by the AER as part of their reviews, particularly when solvent injection is being used.
Furthermore, of the 25 annual reports that she reviewed — and these are EPEA-approved SAGD operations — we found that there’s contamination of ground water from at least one chemical perimeter, from at one least monitoring well, at all 25 of those facilities.
The Chair: Thank you.
Lisa Tssessaze, Director, Dene Lands and Resource Management, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation: If I can just answer your question on the data sharing. We have collected about 10 years of data in our community-based monitoring program. We are willing to share our information and data, if we can just follow up with some proper sharing agreement. We’ve done this already with other groups and foundations such as the Gordon Foundation. They have an online system called the Mackenzie Delta, and information is shared right online to show you the effects of change in the water quality and water quantity in our region.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Simons.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much. I’m very glad, Chief Adam, you mentioned the Obed Mine disaster, which most people here might not know, but I covered it as a journalist at the time. It was a coal slurry. It wasn’t tailings ponds from Fort McMurray. It was in Hinton, and it was a big coal mine that had their coal tailings. The slurry leaked because they had bad maintenance, and it went right into the Athabasca River and made it all the way up here. It’s probably not a project that would ever have been covered under this kind of impact assessment review, but it just demonstrates how one thing a great distance from here has an influence further on.
That’s not my question. My question has to do with navigable waters. It’s the third part of the bill, and it doesn’t get a lot of attention. I think you’re one of the first witnesses who actually referenced it. I wanted to ask you and your team what you think of the recommendations in Bill C-69 for the way navigable waters are regulated in terms of keeping them navigable.
Mr. Adam: We come from an isolated community in northeastern Alberta and are surrounded by water. The only access to our community in the summer months is through navigable waters or by flying in. We still harvest food for consumption to continue our way of life. Over the years, when our annual harvesting done, regardless of what year it is, we always talk with each other about how it was to get to where we were supposed to go to. The majority of the times, hunters and gathers have to go to different areas that are still accessible with outboard motors. Why is that? Because the water table continues to drop — an ever-declining drop — throughout our whole area.
I always laughed about this when I was a kid sitting at Big Point with my brother. I said, “One day we’re going to walk across this Athabasca River,” and we probably could walk to Goose Island. He laughed at me and said, “I don’t think so.” Well, today, we can now walk to Goose Island from the mainland, and that is no word of a lie. I probably could walk right from Big Point all the way to the island right across to Fort Chipewyan because that’s how low the water is in the fall time. I can’t drive my outboard motor, which is a 150 horse Mercury, and every time I go out in the bush, I always get stuck on a sand bar going into the river tributaries. And these are coming out to the lake. They should have a channel coming out. But there’s nothing.
Our people feel these effects. Now we can only go to certain areas. When you’re going to only certain areas, you start to that you are cleaning out the only animals in those areas. We are harvesters, we know how to harvest and we know how to take good care of our animal population. We know that if it’s dwindling here to move elsewhere. That’s the way we conserve and do our hunting. We have always practised that.
Right now, because of the low water table and the number of people that are going hunting in certain areas — maybe only two or three areas — our animals are rapidly declining in those areas. Yet, in other areas where it is getting harder for us to access, there is a difference in the population of wildlife.
Senator Simons: And is there a project that you can point to that’s affecting water flow, or is it more an overall climate change thing? Do you have any sense of what is causing this?
Ms. Tssessaze: It’s both. It’s a combination of both. We’ve been through enough hearings and done enough analysis on these EIA projects to know what is affecting the navigation of that Athabasca River and the delta. There are numerous water withdrawals in this region. How are those water withdrawals managed and regulated by Alberta? Behind the door. Nobody is sharing information about how the water withdrawals are managed. Nobody is being up front with us. About five years back our land users were out there harvesting and they called me and said, “Lisa, the water is so low, I can’t get to where I need to go. This is really bad.” It was so bad, there were accidents. There were deaths. People were getting stitches in their head because they were hitting sand bars, getting hurt. It was that bad. It was a really low year.
I did what I thought I should do. I contacted our industry partners and I said, “Hey, we got really low water this year. Is there anything you can do? Can you shut your water off?” No, they told me. It’s approved. It’s in a system. It amounted to a minuscule amount of the overall flow, and they gave me big reasons why they couldn’t shut it off. But I think it needs to be addressed. Perhaps by this panel, perhaps the Senate committee, and looking at navigational amendments in navigation. We do rely on that river, and we will keep bringing up the importance of the river no matter where we can, no matter what hearing, and any project approval process.
Mr. Adam: Keep in mind too that when the Harper government was in power, the Athabasca River was supposed to be protected as one of the seven major rivers in Canada. If they’re going to make changes to the Navigational Waters Act, they better make it better than what it is now. There is no sense in taking a step back. We have now opened a grocery store in Fort Chipewyan. We have to ship our freight to Fort Chipewyan by plane, which is very costly. We need the river because boats can bring our freight to the community at a lower cost. That was the intentions of the water act navigational bill. To make sure that there is a secure passage of dry goods to the community for it to survive. That’s all we want to do is to survive. And we will work for it. But not at the cost of the environment. Thank you.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have exhausted our questions. With that, we will adjourn the meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)