Discussion Paper 8: Indigenous Engagement and Consultation

about 3 years ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

This is the 8th of 12 discussion papers. For the full list, click here.

This discussion paper talks about Indigenous engagement and consultation.

We look forward to reading your answers to the questions below and any comments you may have after reading the discussion paper below. The deadline to submit comments is March 31, 2017.

Download Download Discussion Paper 8: Indigenous Engagement and Consultation

Discussion Questions:

  1. What are your views on the approach the Government of Canada has taken in recent years to engage and consult Indigenous groups on projects regulated by the NEB? Specifically:
    1. Early engagement of Indigenous groups prior to a formal environmental assessment and regulatory review process by the NEB;
    2. Consultations with Indigenous groups on matters that fall both within and outside the NEB’s mandate;
    3. Adequacy of participant funding to support Indigenous groups’ participation in the overall engagement and consultation process;
    4. The roles of the NEB and the Crown in considering and addressing potential impacts to Aboriginal or treaty rights on NEB-regulated projects, and how these respective roles are carried out; and
    5. Ongoing consultation and engagement of Indigenous groups during the construction,operations, and abandonment phases of projects that are approved.
  2. How can Indigenous traditional knowledge (including Traditional Ecological Knowledge) and information be further integrated into the NEB application and hearing process? What are the potential benefits and constraints to this integration?
  3. How can Canada enhance its approach to Indigenous engagement and consultation to inform decision-making on NEB-regulated projects?
    1. What should be the role of the NEB? The Government of Canada? Project proponents?Indigenous peoples (e.g., specific groups or communities?)
  4. How should the Government of Canada’s approach to engaging and consulting Indigenous groups on NEB regulated projects support the Government of Canada’s goal of renewing the nation-to nation relationship with Indigenous Peoples and moving towards reconciliation?
  5. How can the Government of Canada best consider and address the principles outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples when undertaking efforts to modernize the NEB and when making decisions on whether NEB-regulated projects are in the public interest?
  6. What could be done to enhance the involvement of Indigenous peoples in the full life cycle of NEB-regulated projects (e.g., ongoing monitoring of the operation of existing projects, economic development opportunities/participation, or other roles)?
  7. What are your views regarding how federal departments and agencies can and should balance and respect the interests and rights of Indigenous peoples with varied societal interests to inform decision-making on NEB-regulated projects?
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link
  • EP about 3 years ago
    A properly staffed independent agency should exist to conduct Consultation with Indigenous groups not only on resource projects, but its link with reconciliation. This agency should be staffed with experienced staff, and should work in tandem with other departments to implement all the recommendations of the truth and reconciliation report. It should also have an active role in engaging with provincial regulatory bodies to look at the bigger picture. Right now, because of provincial and federal split of oversight, there is no one body overseeing the cumulative impacts. It is all the same to the earth and the land, regardless of if its the province or the government of canada in charge of regulating.
  • PeterR about 3 years ago
    We think that the Government of Canada/NEB is so afraid to be politically correct, that affected non-indigenous groups are discriminated. We believe we are all Canadians and there should be no bias whatsoever. Funding was one glaring example for helping affected groups. Indigenous groups were funded in some examples 250 x more while having only a fraction of the pipeline on their property, or none at all.
  • Simon Fox about 3 years ago
    Governmrnt shoild create an agency with a clear mandate for indigenous consultation. Properly resourced and staffed with experts. What happens now is that government tries to piggy back on NEB process. This only confuses matters. Critical to successfuk consultation are clear and open lines of communication. Right now MPMO shows up (sometimes) to NEB hearings. When and how they use what they hear is unclear. This is probably the absolute worst way to fulfill a duty to consult. Pull this function from neb , create new sgency with clear mandate to consukt on all projects on behalf of federal government
  • Robert Kryszko about 3 years ago
    As a Mi'gmag from New Brunswick, I suggest incorporating principle 18, 19, 25, 26.1, 26.2, 26.3, 27, 29.1, 29.2, and 29.3 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) directly into section 11(1), 11(2), 12(1), and 119.07(1) of the National Energy Board Act. This "inclusion" will strengthen regulatory process and decision-making process; also, it will move the Indigenous people and government closer to reaching reconciliation goals. The Indigenous people want INCLUSION towards the duty to make decisions.
  • Robert Kryszko over 3 years ago
    Discussion Paper # 8 answers to questions in: Indigenous Engagement and Consultation: First of all, the federal document called, "Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation - Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Duty to Consult - March 2011" should have had Aboriginal/Indian consultation sessions in the early stages of its drafting , right up to the final stage and implementation of this federal document. In other words, the federal government states in the document that, "The Interim Guidelines have been updated with the collaboration of federal departments and agencies"; however, the Aboriginals/Indians were left out again; Aboriginal/Indians had absolutely no say in the Federal updated guidelines and the fed's did not approach any Aboriginals/Indians on this very important matter. Although, within the "2011- Updated Guidelines document" it is stated: " A meaningful consultation process is one which is founded in the principles of good faith, respect and reciprocal responsibility." The federal government ignored the reciprocal responsibility from Aboriginals/Indians Nations when creating and implementing the March 2011 updated guidelines. Therefore, it is very hard to believe or trust the government's actions or seriousness in future consultation activities towards regulatory change to benefit Aboriginals/Indians and grant decision-making powers when modernizing the NEBA or CEAA; among other federal acts. Just to give an example of how the federal government tailored the guidelines to suit their own needs: Under Consultation Directive #1 it clearly states: "Government actions that may adversely impact Aboriginal and Treaty rights can include decisions with respect to a pipeline that may affect wildlife movement, supply and access; decisions with respect to pollution from construction or use that may affect flora or animal populations; change in regulation or policy that may restrict land use; federal life cycle of land management that may affect legal obligations and relationships with Aboriginal groups; or decisions with respect to use of natural resources that may limit supply and use by Aboriginal groups." Aboriginal/Indian Nations and Aboriginal/Indian people definitely will not agree to this consultation directive # 1 clause, and if consulted in the making of the updated guidelines prior to 2011, I am absolutely positive that the consultation directive clause #1 will be worded differently to ensure Aboriginal/Indian Nations, groups, organizations e.t.c., will be included in the decision-making process at a federal level as well. Therefore, it is recommended that Aboriginal/Indian Nations, groups, and organizations work with the federal government to updated the updated federal guidelines, 2011. Which can be called the, " Consultation and Accommodation- Indian & Federal Government Updated Guidelines 2017". The change must occur within the federal consultation updated guidelines in order to have real change within the NEBA or the CEAA. Otherwise, our comments, suggestions, concerns, will not be seriously considered , or reflected in regulatory change or in policy development. On November 12, 2010, the federal government signed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP), and this is an perfect opportunity for the federal government to show action in their commitment to the principle in Article 18, 26.2, 26.3, 27, and 29(1) of UNDRIP; these principles have nothing to do with the "free, prior and informed consent", which the federal government placed on record its concerns towards the "free, prior and informed consent" principle.