From the PDAC's perspective, we encourage our members to engage early and often and effectively with aboriginal peoples and to respect their protected constitutional rights, and we urge governments to fulfill their obligations towards aboriginal people in Canada.

That's easy to say, and I think you're correct. You have good actors and bad actors out there. I don't know what percentage are bad actors, maybe 10%, who get the news bites, and then the rest are good performers who don't get any air time out there. I think Natural Resources Canada tracks all these agreements, and there are over 300 across Canada that demonstrate that things actually do work.

When it comes to the frameworks in Canada, they really are different because companies have different projects in different jurisdictions, and a lot of times, it's not clear. All the court cases provide some clarity but you still have this functional ambiguity, especially around two kinds of capacity.

Who has the duty to provide capacity for communities? There are two types of capacity when it comes to indigenous communities. One is the capacity to understand the project; what is the phenomenon in front of them? If I ask anyone in this room whether they can do a community impact assessment, I don't know your expertise, but I don't know anybody in this room who can do that. However, you're expecting communities to understand a project. That's exactly what's being asked of them. One is the capacity to understand the project.

The other capacity is the capacity to participate in a process and that process is the regulatory process and the environmental assessment process. I can tell you first-hand that I was a negotiator for one of the communities in the Ring of Fire, and when the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency was to provide resources for capacity to participate in the process, it would have taken $27,000 for two mines. Not only could Environment Canada staff not come up because they had no travel dollars to come up.... I see the challenge, going forward. You're talking about the future in any of these sectors—oil and gas, mining, and nuclear. Who is providing the capacity and also participating in the project?

Right now, if you talk to the Department of Fisheries, do they engage with communities when they're making decisions? Does Environment Canada staff go into the communities? I can tell you right now that they actually had to find rides to go up to the Ring of Fire, because there are no travel budgets.

The burden goes back onto the companies, so one issue is who has that duty to provide capacity. The other one is the duty to accommodate. That's a substantial duty and that's with the crown, but they're not the ones cutting the cheques, are they?

These two items, the capacity and the duty to accommodate, actually provide that functional ambiguity. Not only that, but the policy frameworks across Canada are all different in terms of who actually does the engagement, the consultation. In Ontario, they delegate to the industry. In Manitoba, the crown does it. Who provides capacity dollars? In Alberta, they said they'll do it and they'll decide what kind of capacity. In Quebec, they divide it but it's not clear whether what they're providing is going to meet the needs of the communities with regard to the capacity requirements.

So it's different. It's a very good question and it's a challenge for us as a national organization, which we try to keep track of in our aboriginal affairs program.

Transcript

Discussions (0)