Bill C-5 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act

This enactment amends the Indian Oil and Gas Act to clarify and expand the existing regulation-making powers and to add new ones, particularly with respect to licences, permits and leases for the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas on reserve lands and the determination and payment of oil and gas royalties. It also puts in place sanctions for contraventions of the Act as well as provisions for its enforcement.

[Chief Delbert Wapass, Thunderchild First Nation]

Thank you very much.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

I want to say good afternoon to members of the esteemed standing committee. Thank you for inviting the Indian Resource Council to testify on Bill C-262. I have made this trip on behalf of the Indian Resource Council, and not on behalf of Thunderchild.

My name is Delbert Wapass. I'm the Chief of Thunderchild First Nation from Saskatchewan. We are located in the heart of oil and gas country, Lloydminster, on the Alberta-Saskatchewan border.

The Indian Resource Council is a national advocacy organization of chiefs. Our mandate is to represent resource-based first nations by ensuring that their oil and gas resources are managed in their best interests. We work with Canada through Indian Oil and Gas Canada, IOGC, and with industry to ensure that our people participate fully in the energy sector and that we derive maximum benefit from these resources.

On behalf of IRC, we are pleased to share our perspectives as you study Bill C-262.

First, we note and recognize that we are making our submission on unceded Anishinaabe lands.

We acknowledge the Honourable Romeo Saganash, member of Parliament, who is championing Bill C-262, which requires the laws of Canada to be in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The IRC is pleased to support Mr. Saganash's private member's bill and his recommendation for the adoption and implementation of UNDRIP into Canadian law.

We also acknowledge the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, the recommendations of which, among those of many others, have placed UNDRIP in the spotlight of our discussion today.

We also appreciate the best efforts of the Government of Canada, especially those of the Prime Minister, to make UNDRIP a priority in the context of Canada's reconciliation with the indigenous peoples. The Prime Minister, on many occasions, has reiterated this commitment, and especially with his concise statement that “the Government of Canada is committed to a renewed relationship with Indigenous Peoples, based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.” We take these words to heart and believe that Bill C-262 embodies and gives life to these words.

When the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, the Hon. Carolyn Bennett, delivered a speech at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on April 25, 2017, she too made that statement.

In direct response to the declaration, the Prime Minister has mandated the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to chair a working group to review all federal laws and policies related to indigenous peoples to reverse the colonial paternalistic approaches. This is about breathing life into section 35 of Canada's Constitution, which formally entrenches the rights of indigenous peoples in Canadian law, and yet which, for far too long, has not been lived up to.

IRC is here today to support these proposals and sentiments and to formally express our support for Bill C-262 and the Prime Minister's responses to UNDRIP, including an internal legal review, and the adoption and implementation of Bill C-262 with its main goal of developing and implementing a national action plan.

Bill C-262 is a new approach to first nations issues. When enacted into law it will advance the process of Canada's framework for reconciliation. IRC recognizes that this federal legislation is needed to reject the colonial structures that continue to oppress the indigenous peoples of this land and to replace these structures with new frameworks that are based on reconciliation.

Further, IRC wants to state clearly that any new legislation must be consistent with Canada's duties and roles, which include fiduciary duties and the historical trust obligations of the crown with respect to first nations lands and resources.

The metaphor of braiding international, domestic, and indigenous laws is relevant to many indigenous traditions in Canada, as stated by some indigenous academics and professionals. The braiding of sweetgrass indicates strength and the drawing together of power and healing. A braid is a single object consisting of many fibres and separate strands. It does not gain its strength from any single fibre that runs its entire length, but from the many fibres woven together. Imagining a process of braiding together strands of constitutional, international, and indigenous law allows one to see the possibilities of reconciliation from different angles and perspectives, and thereby to begin to reimagine what a nation-to-nation relationship, justly encompassing these different legal traditions, might mean.

This is a fitting metaphor for what is contemplated by Bill C-262. It has been 10 years since UNDRIP was adopted by the United Nations on September 13, 2007. It is the right time for Canada to end the debate. Pass and enact Bill C-262.

As highlighted in the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues document, the UNDRIP confirms the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination and recognizes subsistence rights to lands, territories, and resources. The IRC submits that first nation oil and gas producers and other first nations with the potential to produce oil and gas want to achieve self-determination by asserting their jurisdiction, and want their subsistence rights to lands, territories, and resources recognized in Canadian law.

Bill C-262 purports to provide such assurance. Our organization has been an active participant in developing oil and gas legislation that impacts first nations across Canada. It is our intention to develop our own institutional structures that will shift control of oil and gas from Canada and IOGC. This would be a true exercise of sovereignty and self-determination, as contemplated by UNDRIP and Bill C-262.

In 2005, IRC appeared as a witness before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Northern Development for its study of Bill C-54, FNOGMMA. In 2009, we appeared again at the standing committee for its study of Bill C-5, An Act to Amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act. In 2009, IRC appeared as a witness before the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples for its study on that same bill, Bill C-5. Presently, in 2018, IRC continues to do joint work with INAC and IOGC.

If this committee decides to proceed with Bill C-262, IRC is willing to share our experience and offer to work jointly with INAC to develop a national action plan to achieve the objectives of UNDRIP, and ensure that the fiduciary and historical trust obligations for first nation lands and resources are protected. Self-determination and indigenous sovereignty can be implemented in practice by UNDRIP through the implementation of free, prior, and informed consent. Critics of free, prior, and informed consent are concerned about the definition of this concept. Some have equated it to a veto. We at IRC have no such apprehensions. We know that we have rights and title to our land. Canadians courts, including the Supreme Court, did not create these rights; they merely confirmed the existence of these rights. UNDRIP did the same thing by confirming our rights, which existed long before we were colonized.

Free, prior, and informed consent is a tool that can be used to ensure respectful and meaningful consultation with indigenous people whenever and wherever their rights are being impacted. It is another tool for reconciliation.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

Thank you.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. In a way, it also gives us an opportunity to take stock of the past session. I would say that in our opinion, the whole legislative agenda in recent weeks and months has been very thin, and it is still very thin and in no way warrants extended sitting hours, as the government and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons are requesting.

As you know and as the leader mentioned, this is the second year that the government and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons have introduced this motion to extend sitting hours in June. Unfortunately, for the second year, we are going to have to say no. It is not because we feel compelled to say no every time. Moreover, the leader pointed out that in the past, even when there was a minority government, the opposition had agreed to support such a motion. But given the current legislative context, what the government is asking us is to give it a blank cheque from now until June 23. I will explain what I mean by that.

At the last two meetings of the House leaders and whips, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons handed out proposed schedules up to June 23. Currently, four or five bills are being studied by parliamentary committees, and those studies should be completed shortly. We could see from the proposed schedules that before the end of the session, the government intends to debate new government bills when the House is not dealing with the bills coming back from committees.

What are these new bills the government intends to debate during the extended hours that are not taken up with the work already in progress in committees? This is extremely disturbing and that is where the government wants us to give it a blank cheque, which is unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois and, in fact, to all three opposition parties.

I will give an example. I am my party's democratic reform critic. What guarantee do I have that, during the extended hours, when the committee work draws to a close at its own pace—and it will go fairly quickly for most of these bills—the government will not decide to introduce a bill like Bill C-22, which was introduced in the past and was designed to increase the number of members from Ontario and western Canada and reduce Quebec's relative political weight? We would be very much opposed to such a bill. I would also remind hon. members, with respect to the potential reduction of Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons, that the National Assembly had unanimously passed a motion at the time, calling on the federal government to withdraw its bill. So I will certainly not agree to extended sitting hours so that the government can come back again with that idea.

I would also like to point out that we feel it is extremely important that the relative weight of Quebec's members in this House be maintained. Given the recognition of the Quebec nation by this House in November 2006, it is only natural that that nation's weight within an institution like this one should remain the same. It is often argued that the Constitution guarantees the 75 members from Quebec, but that argument is not enough. If we currently make up roughly 24% of this House, then that relative weight must be maintained.

The formula for doing so is still debatable. The number of members from Quebec could be increased proportionally. The remaining members could be distributed differently throughout Canada to ensure that this House will always have 308 members representing the entire country. But the fact remains that this is the sort of bill the government could introduce, taking advantage of the thin legislative agenda and the fact that we will have to fill time.

Consequently, the Bloc Québécois and I are not at all willing to give the government this blank cheque.

In practical terms, as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said, House committees are currently studying five bills. Of those, committees may report on three or four before the House adjourns for the summer. None of the bills is likely to be the subject of much debate or dissent from the opposition as a whole or even any one of the opposition parties. It is not hard to see that they will be passed quickly.

As I said, I am completely open to discussion, if ever the government thinks that a few extra hours would help wrap up a debate on a particular bill on a particular day. That is why, when I asked the official opposition whip a question earlier, I said that the government should approach things from the other direction rather than ask us to give it a blank cheque to extend sitting hours until 10 p.m. every day. The leader suggested that if we were to finish a debate at 8 p.m., we could see the clock as 10 p.m., but I think that it would be more logical to do things the other way around on a case-by-case basis. If the government needs more time to study a bill, it should ask the opposition to extend the sitting hours to debate a specific bill on a specific night.

As I said, unless the government is planning to introduce new bills that have not yet been announced, the fact that there is so little on the legislative agenda makes me worry that the government will have a hard time filling the 11 days we have left, let alone any extended hours. I have a hard time seeing how we will fill the schedule between now and June 23, and thus, once again, I cannot give the government a blank cheque to create an opportunity to debate bills that I am not currently aware of.

The official opposition whip and I have indicated that not only is the legislative agenda extremely thin, but it also fails to address the most critical issue at this time, which is the serious economic crisis we are facing. Consider the following example. Since May 15, when I held a press conference to denounce this thin legislative agenda, by the way, only five bills have been introduced. Three relate to justice, but none propose any solutions to address the economic crisis. We, however, have proposed some solutions.

I would like to show the people watching us here today the reality as it stands in the manufacturing sector in the regions of Quebec. Today I learned that in my riding, Graymont, a company that produces quicklime at its Joliette plant, is suspending production indefinitely.

I would like to quickly read the comments of Mr. Chassat, Graymont's director of operations for eastern Canada:

The very serious economic downturn in eastern North America is affecting many of our major clients in the steel, metal, and pulp and paper sectors. This has led to a significant decrease in demand...

Naturally, since Graymont is a company that must generate profits or at least break even—we are not talking about a not-for-profit organization—the company will close that plant until demand rebounds.

Not only is it clear that the crisis is worsening, but certain sectors that had previously been spared are going to be affected. Graymont hires workers. Those workers will be unemployed and eventually, their consumer behaviour will slow down. Fewer services will be needed in the Joliette region. Graymont also uses subcontractors who will also lose business. They might eventually be forced to close their doors. Accordingly, it would have been crucial, and it remains crucial, to have a real plan for economic recovery.

It was not just the Bloc Québécois' expectation, but also that of the Conférence régionale des élus du Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, which lamented the fact that none of the programs met the needs of the forestry sector. When programs in theory targeted this sector, they were not accessible because it was difficult to meet the bureaucratic criteria established by this government. We are not the only ones who believe that the federal government should have and must come up with a second stimulus plan.

We have made suggestions twice before: the first time in November, before the ideological statement by the Minister of Finance, and the second in April. Our proposals deal with both employment insurance, or assistance for workers affected by the crisis, as well as the companies affected. I would like to mention a few of these proposals. First, there was the elimination of the two week waiting period. The Bloc Québécois is very pleased to be able to say that we introduced a bill in this regard, which is currently being studied in committee.

We also proposed an eligibility threshold of 360 hours for all claimants, an increase in benefits from 50% to 60% of earnings and an income support program for older workers. This program existed in 1998 and was cut by the Liberals. Since that time, successive governments, Liberal as well as Conservative, have said they will reinstate it. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development said that she established a training pilot project but it is not an income support program for older workers that would allow older workers, over the fairly long term—from a few months to a few years—to bridge the gap between employment and retirement.

We did make several suggestions, but as I said, the government ignored them all. The Bloc Québécois would not be at all offended if the government decided to act on one or more of those suggestions. With respect to businesses, I want to add that we made a suggestion that would apply to all manufacturing sector businesses. A Corvée investissement program would enable the government to finance up to one-fifth of the cost of introducing new technologies. In the 1980s, Quebec's Corvée habitation program produced very good results for housing, and we took that as our inspiration. We suggested putting $4 billion into such a fund, which could generate investments worth about $16 billion if the total amount were used. The government wanted nothing to do with the idea.

I will raise a few other points and then get back to the issue of extending hours. The government has heard from us about loan guarantees and will continue to do so in question period. It is totally unacceptable for the forestry sector not to have access to loan guarantees. I will not get into the rhetoric spouted by the ministers from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. There are programs, but people are telling us that they do not qualify for those programs. So that means that we have ineffective, non-existent programs for people who are going through hard times.

As to refundable research and development tax credits, the whole industry wants this measure, which would enable businesses that are not making a profit to continue investing so they can be ready to compete when the economy begins to recover, which we hope will be as soon as possible.

I will conclude with two other examples of measures, such as the use of wood in the renovation and construction of federal buildings. I would remind the House of a very important figure. The assistance given to the auto sector is equivalent to $650,000 per job. No one is questioning the relevance of that assistance, although we would have liked to see more conditions attached. In comparison, the assistance given to the forestry sector amounts to $1,000 per job. In other words, the auto sector received 650 times more assistance than the forestry sector. We think this is completely unfair. Solutions must therefore be found for the forestry sector. We also suggested support for the communities affected by this very serious crisis.

Thus, we have seen some ideas concerning how the government should respond to the number one concern of Quebeckers and Canadians, namely, the economic crisis, as well as the insecurity they feel about their employment, their income and their families' futures.

As I said, nothing has been done, and the five bills that have been introduced since May 15, 2009, related to justice and public safety. In that regard, I must admit, the Conservatives have been very productive and I imagine the Minister of Justice is proud of that.

The problem is that, more often than not, the measures proposed have been populist measures that might interest a certain conservative following ideologically, but that are ineffective when it comes to maintaining a high level of security and well-being in Canadian and Quebec society. We are not questioning the importance of improving the justice system, but what the government is proposing has been more or less akin to aggressive therapy, rather than true modernization of the system.

Since Bill C-5 was introduced on May 8, 2009, no other bills have been introduced to help the thousands of workers who have lost their jobs. No bills have been introduced to help businesses in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, which have been so seriously affected by this crisis. None of those bills contained any measures to help regional economies and communities diversify. In fact, none of those bills would suggest that the government is aware of the magnitude of this economic crisis. Of course it is extremely difficult to understand the government's indifference.

However, now that we have heard the Minister of Natural Resources' comments, we perhaps have a better understanding of the Conservatives' political culture. We also see that the main concern of this minister is to boost her career and that the concerns of patients who do not have access to the isotopes or who are worried about the shortage are secondary. We also know that she finds the issue to be sexy. It is not the first time we hear such talk. Members will recall that, during the listeriosis crisis, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food made some comments that were quite shocking.

This lack of empathy and the government's indifference, reflected in its legislative agenda, make it impossible to accept the motion tabled by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons because—and this is the crux of the matter—they are asking the opposition to give them a blank cheque. By extending sitting hours we would have absolutely no idea of what we would be debating. It certainly would not be the legislation before us, which can be announced.

For example, this morning they announced a bill regarding a park, which does not pose a problem. In my opinion, after reading the bill, the opposition parties will quickly agree to passing the bill in the shortest possible timeframe. This type of bill does not pose a problem and does not require the extension of sitting hours.

As was the case last year, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons did not convince us of the usefulness of extending sitting hours and that is why we are refusing. The opposition or the Bloc Québécois do not oppose extending sitting hours when the time is to be used productively, but they do not see the purpose of extending sitting hours just to pass the time or, even worse, to study surprise bills.

As I mentioned, there is also no guarantee that new bills will not be introduced, perhaps with the complicity of the Liberals, to ram things down Quebec's throat. We cannot run the risk, by extending the hours, of granting time for bills about which we know nothing.

Unfortunately, we have seen no evidence to suggest that the government would use extended sitting hours to deal with the economic crisis and help people who have lost their jobs and do not qualify for employment insurance because the criteria are too restrictive. Nor have we seen anything to suggest that these bills would help the forestry and manufacturing sectors. Not only do we have no guarantees, but we have not heard even the faintest suggestion that the government is interested in helping.

In closing, if the government makes specific requests to extend sitting hours to study specific bills at specific times, the Bloc Québécois will be open to talking about it. I will be open to talking about it. But right now, with the legislative agenda before us, I think that adopting the motion put forward by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons would amount to giving the Conservative government carte blanche, and that is the last thing that the Bloc Québécois and Quebec want to give this government.

Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech of the NDP aboriginal affairs critic with interest.

During questions and comments we heard the member talk about the process that was used for Bill C-28, the Cree-Naskapi act, in terms of consultation and so on. We also heard very similar comments from the opposition parties in terms of how Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act was developed. That Act received royal assent in the last two weeks.

I would like to point out that Bill C-8, which is the bill dealing with matrimonial property issues, was also developed in a very consultative approach. The drafting of the bill was done with two major national aboriginal organizations very much participating; that would be the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada. Therefore, it is not a case of black and white on consultation or no consultation. This is a very difficult area when we have 630 first nations across the country.

I would like to invite the member to comment on this.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back again speaking about nuclear safety.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-20, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident. Members may be familiar with this bill. It was introduced in the last Parliament as Bill C-5. It is a bill that has had a long history of consultation. It also has a history of good support in the House.

The last time we brought the bill forward both the official opposition and the Bloc supported the bill. We were able to bring it through committee and into third reading without amendment. We look forward to working with the members on the other side of the House to get this bill through as quickly as possible.

Later, I think we will hear the member for Mississauga—Brampton South speak for the official opposition and the member for Trois-Rivières speak for the Bloc. We look forward to working with them at committee to bring this bill through to conclusion as quickly as possible.

The history of nuclear energy in Canada goes back some 75 years. For the past 30 years, it has been a part of Canada's energy mix. It has benefited this country and the citizens of this country in numerous ways.

As members know, a strong nuclear industry brings great economic and environmental benefits. However in order to encourage investments in nuclear facilities, liability rules are needed to provide legal and insurance certainty for suppliers and operators. Without the certainty of the rules concerning liability, insurers would not provide coverage to nuclear facilities, and no one would participate in nuclear development.

At the same time, it is important to ensure that Canadians have access to reasonable compensation in the unlikely event there is a nuclear incident. The health and safety of Canadians is a top priority of the Government of Canada. Canada's nuclear safety record is second to none in the world. We have a robust technology, a well-trained workforce and stringent regulatory requirements.

There are two pieces of legislation that provide a solid framework for regulating the industry. They are the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act. Nevertheless, we must be prepared for the possibility of a nuclear incident, which could result in civil damages.

The responsibility for providing an insurance framework to protect Canadians and provide stability to this important industry falls under federal jurisdiction. The Government of Canada has a duty to assume its responsibilities in this area, and we are doing that.

Traditional insurance is not appropriate for dealing with this kind of liability. It is difficult to determine levels of risk. Canada, like virtually all other nuclear countries, has addressed this void with the enactment of special legislation.

In Canada we put in place the Nuclear Liability Act. This legislation established a comprehensive liability framework in case of a nuclear incident. It is the framework that is in existence today. Both this earlier legislation and Bill C-20 apply to things like nuclear power plants, nuclear research reactors, fuel fabrication facilities and facilities for managing used nuclear fuel.

The framework established under the initial Nuclear Liability Act is based on several principles. Those principles include the absolute and exclusive liability of the operator, mandatory insurance, and limitations in time and amount. These principles are common to nuclear legislation in most other countries, such as the United States, France and the United Kingdom. The principles that were put in place years ago are just as relevant today.

Let me quickly explain these principles. Absolute liability means the injured party does not have to prove that a nuclear reactor was at fault in an incident, only that injury or damages were caused by that incident. As well, the Nuclear Liability Act holds the operator of a nuclear facility to be exclusively liable for civil damages caused by a nuclear incident. In other words, no other business, organization, supplier or contractor can be sued for these damages. The operator is responsible.

This has two advantages. First, it makes it very easy for individuals to make a claim. They know who is liable and they do not need to prove fault or negligence. The other advantage is that exclusive liability allows the insurance industry to direct all of its insurance capacity to the operators.

The principle of mandatory insurance is straightforward. All nuclear operators must carry a prescribed amount of liability insurance in order to be licensed to operate the facility. This is a widely accepted practice in countries generating nuclear power.

The Canadian regime also places limitations on liability in time and amount. In terms of amount, the maximum that has been payable under the Nuclear Liability Act is currently $75 million. As well, injury claims must be made within 10 years of the incident.

These underlying principles of Canada's existing nuclear liability framework address the needs of Canadians while permitting our country to develop nuclear capabilities.

The Nuclear Liability Act made it easier for injured parties to make claims. It guaranteed that funds would be made available to compensate individuals in the unlikely event that there is an incident.

It is a tribute to Canada's nuclear industry that there have been no claims paid out under the act. Still it has served as an important safety net for Canadians and it has provided stability and security that is needed to support the continued development of Canada's nuclear power industry.

Although the basic principles underlining Canada's nuclear liability legislation remain valid, this act is over 30 years old and it needs updating. If we consider the possibility of new investments in nuclear reactors in Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick or Ontario, we can see why this legislation must be made as robust as we can make it. We also have to keep pace with international developments in the field over the years.

As a result of this, the Government of Canada has conducted a comprehensive review of the Nuclear Liability Act and is proposing the new legislation that is before the House today. This has been done with extensive consultation across the country with the industry and with Canadians.

The bill is intended to strengthen and modernize Canada's nuclear liability regime through an all-encompassing package of amendments. Bill C-20 is a major step forward in modernizing the act. It puts Canada in line with internationally accepted compensation levels. It clarifies definitions for compensation and what is covered in the process for claiming compensation.

The bill is a culmination of many years of consultation, involving extensive discussions with major stakeholders, including nuclear utilities, the governments of nuclear power generating provinces and the Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada.

I would like to talk a little about the key changes in this legislation. The main change proposed in Bill C-20 is an increase in the amount of operator's liability from $75 million to $650 million. This balances the need for operators to provide compensation, without imposing high costs for unrealistic insurance amounts, amounts for events highly unlikely to occur in this country. This increase will put Canada on a par with most western nuclear countries.

It is important also that Canada's legislation is consistent with international conventions, not only on financial issues but also with regard to what constitutes a nuclear incident, what qualifies for compensation, and so on. Accordingly, the bill makes Canada's legislation more consistent with international conventions. These enhancements will establish a level playing field for Canadian nuclear companies, who will welcome the certainty of operating in a country that acknowledges these international conventions.

Both the current liability framework and Bill C-20 contain limitation periods restricting the time period for making claims. Under the current act, claims must be brought within 10 years of the incident. However, since we know today that some radiation-related injuries have long latency periods, this limitation period has been extended under Bill C-20 to 30 years for injury claims, while maintaining the 10 year limit for other claims.

Both the current legislation and Bill C-20 provide for an administrative process to replace the courts in the adjudication of claims arising from a large nuclear incident. The new legislation clarifies the arrangements for a quasi-judicial tribunal to hear claims. The new claims process will ensure that claims are handled equitably and efficiently. I think that is an important amendment that people need to pay attention to.

The challenge for the government in developing this legislation was to be fair to all stakeholders and to strike an effective balance in the public interest. I firmly believe the proposed legislation fully meets that challenge. This is supported by the initial reactions that we received with Bill C-5, as well as the reactions we have received with Bill C-20.

We have consulted with nuclear operators, suppliers, insurance and provinces with nuclear installations, and they generally support the changes I have described. I know that some nuclear operators may be concerned about the cost implications of higher insurance premiums, but they also recognize that they have been sheltered from these costs for quite some time.

Suppliers welcome the changes, as they would provide more certainty for the industry. Nuclear insurers appreciate the clarity that would be provided in the new legislation and the resolution of some of their long-standing concerns.

Provinces with nuclear facilities have been supportive of the proposed revisions to the current legislation. Municipalities that host nuclear facilities have been advocating revisions to the Nuclear Liability Act. They are supportive of the increased levels of operator liability and the improved approaches to victims' compensation.

In short, Bill C-20 was not developed in isolation. The evolution of policy was guided by consultation with key stakeholders over several years and by the experience that has been gained in other countries.

Let me now turn to another aspect of our involvement with nuclear technology. There are three other aspects that I would like to point out quickly today.

The first is the safety record of our nuclear industry. Our CANDU reactor is arguably the safest reactor in the world and has all kinds of built-in systems to protect workers and the public.

I would also like to point out Canada's involvement in the nuclear industry and in research and development that has been exclusively for peaceful purposes.

Third, I would like to highlight the fact that Canada's nuclear industry is among the highest tech industries. It spurs innovation, which is the cornerstone of a competitive economy, generating more than $5 billion a year in economic activity. Canada's nuclear industry employs more than 30,000 people. Many Canadians probably do not realize that. Many of those are highly skilled people in well-paying jobs.

It must be recognized that the development of Canada's nuclear industry has been made possible by the civil liability rules provided by the initial Nuclear Liability Act. The improvements by Bill C-20 are now necessary for Canada to remain a leading player in the nuclear industry.

There is an additional aspect to Canada's involvement with nuclear energy. Much of our work in the nuclear industry has been to produce electricity, electricity to provide home comforts and to drive industry and promote jobs across the country. Electricity has contributed to a healthy environment through cheap and clean energy.

In this country we have made a commitment to achieve an absolute reduction of 20% in greenhouse gas emissions from 2006 levels by 2020. We are also committed to meeting 90% of our electricity demand from low-emitting sources by that same year.

As part of reaching these targets, our government is making substantial investments in measures to increase our supply of renewable energy, including wind, solar, small hydro and tidal energy. We also see nuclear energy as part of the clean energy mix that will advance Canada as a clean energy superpower. However, in order for us to advance in clean energy production, we need the certainty provided by an appropriate and up-to-date nuclear liability framework in order to protect Canadians and provide stability to this important industry.

In conclusion, Canada's nuclear safety record is second to none in the world. The Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the Nuclear Liability Act provide a solid legislative framework for regulating the industry and have done so since Canada's industry emerged as a world player. The former seeks to prevent and minimize nuclear incidents, while the latter applies should an incident occur. However unlikely as it may be, we must be prepared for the possibility of a nuclear incident that could result in significant costs.

For these and other sound reasons, I would ask members to support this legislation.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I was suggesting is that instead of referring the bill to committee after second reading, where the committee is limited in the scope of what it can do, I had hoped the government would consider referring the bill to committee before second reading where we could then engage, in a constructive manner, in crafting legislation that would reflect the will of all parliamentarians and of the interested parties, the aboriginal community of Canada.

The member for Simcoe North agreed with me when I pointed out that the committee we currently have is functioning very well. We have already dealt with two bills, Bill C-5 and C-28, expeditiously after listening to witnesses, but in both cases there was exemplary co-operation between the government side and the opposition parties. Also, in both cases, the aboriginal communities that were interested in the legislation supported the legislation.

We have a situation now with Bill C-8 where the aboriginal communities do not support the legislation and have expressed great reservations. If we approve this legislation at second reading and then send it to committee, it will tie the hands of the committee in its ability to improve the legislation. The amendments that could be introduced at that stage are rather limited and must be narrower in scope than what the legislation says.

When I hear the members of the NDP and my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois say that they want to improve the legislation by passing it at second reading and sending it to committee, I think they and the government forgot that we could have gone another route, which would have made for a situation that would have been much more constructive and more in keeping with the spirit of co-operation that is supposed to exist between the Crown and aboriginal communities ever since we had an incredible ceremony in this House, as people will remember, and ever since we had a royal commission look into the matter. We have all agreed that we need to start dealing with the aboriginal communities in a much more respectful manner and in a manner that engages them, gives them a voice and we listen to their voice. It is a matter of the honour of the Crown that we must respect that.

That is essentially what I was saying in my comments yesterday. I would hope that the members from the Bloc Québécois and the members from the NDP would support this motion, would give an occasion to the government to go back and consult properly and then bring forward a bill that we could refer to committee before second reading in order to give the committee the chance to do good work, as it has.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say right off the bat that I will support the motion, but I want to explain why. In doing so, I hope to convince my colleagues in the NDP and the Bloc to seriously consider that the avenue we are suggesting might be the better course.

I want first to demonstrate that, under the able stewardship of the member for Simcoe North as chair of the aboriginal affairs committee, the committee has been demonstrating exemplary cooperation. I see him nodding his head in agreement. We have had the opportunity to deal with two bills already.

Those bills were Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act, and Bill C-28, this very day.

In both cases, the government bills were supported by representatives of the aboriginal communities and the responsible bodies concerned with the issues involved. They appeared before us. In one of the two cases, the bill was tweaked slightly with government consent. That was done unanimously. Today, a minor amendment was made to Bill C-28, and the bill was passed without much discussion.

I raise this point for two reasons. First, to demonstrate that, as far as the official opposition is concerned—and I dare say in this instance also of the two other parties in opposition —there is a desire for cooperation and for doing things properly. The other reason is also very important. In both cases, the bills passed in committee after being passed here at second reading had the unconditional support of the aboriginal communities. That is not the case for Bill C-8, and I feel that needs to be said.

I want to talk about the process for awhile. Parliament is a wonderful thing. It shows flexibility, ingenuity and a way sometimes of dealing with things in different ways, to improve our ways, to make sure that people are heard, to make sure people have an opportunity to express themselves in respect of an overall democratic will.

This is the 40th Parliament. In the 39th Parliament what I am going to talk about happened three times and in the 38th Parliament, which is where it started in earnest, it happened quite often. I am talking about referral of a government bill to committee before second reading. This is something we must consider very carefully.

In a minority Parliament in particular, that means that before a bill is adopted at second reading, it is referred to a committee. The government can do that on its own. It can determine that a bill will go to committee after five hours of debate whether the opposition parties want it to or not. The difference between referring a bill to committee before second reading or after second reading is very important. After second reading the House has stated its approval in principle of what is contained in the bill. Amendments are very restricted in nature. They can constrain, or they can orient a little more precisely certain things, but they cannot expand. Therefore, the capacity of a committee to change a bill is very different if the bill is adopted and referred to committee after second reading as opposed to being referred to committee before second reading. That is crucial for a number of reasons.

That was done over 30 times in the 38th Parliament. I thought that demonstrated a willingness to engage parliamentarians of all parties in shaping legislation. Beyond that, it involved the witnesses and those interested in the legislation as they came to committee because it gave a wider range to parliamentarians in effect to give shape to the legislation.

In the 39th Parliament, it happened three times. In this Parliament it has not happened yet. In the 39th Parliament and this Parliament, even though at times opposition members recommended and the House approved the notion that bills be referred to committee before second reading in order to have that flexibility, that capacity to engage the witnesses, to really engage the expertise in the country to shape legislation as a better expression of the common will, it has not been happening. It has not happened a single time in this Parliament.

I know my colleague from Simcoe North knows what I am talking about because I brought this up at committee. It is an act of respect of Parliament for a minority government to ask that legislation be referred to committee before second reading. It gives the ability of all members on that committee to bring a constructiveness to it. It gives an opportunity to all witnesses to be taken seriously, and perhaps to suggest amendments. It engages all kinds of NGOs. It engages academia. It engages the private sector. In this case it certainly would have engaged the aboriginal communities across the land, the same aboriginal communities that have said they are not supportive of Bill C-8.

I was listening very closely to my colleague from Toronto Centre and my colleague from Ottawa Centre and they were not contradicting each other. My colleague from Ottawa Centre said we should send it to committee where we could amend it and I totally agree with him. Let us send it to committee where the committee can do some real work and shape this legislation and have the witnesses engage in shaping it so that it becomes a constructive exercise and not a confrontation exercise as it might turn out to be if we do it this way.

That is why the motion to defer the matter for six months would give the government an opportunity to consider seriously consulting widely.

Honestly, I would have preferred if the government had chosen to send the bill to committee before second reading. I do not think we would be having this debate. The committee is working very well. It could have demonstrated to Canadians its capacity to do so. It could have engaged the aboriginal community in a very thorough manner, taking whatever time was needed, having as many meetings as were needed in order to listen to proposals and suggestions. The committee has demonstrated that ability and it could have demonstrated it even more so.

Because the government chose not to do that, we are now caught in the situation where our party, I think very legitimately, is saying that because the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada are saying they do not like the bill, we should hoist it. The hoist motion calls for a delay of six months.

If the government would step back and consider that perhaps the bill should have been referred to committee before second reading, this would all be over. The committee has demonstrated its capacity to work, to fully engage in a very serious matter. It could engage all the witnesses that want to be engaged in a constructive legislative exercise. Unfortunately, because the government chose not to refer the bill to committee before second reading, we are into the current situation.

Once again, I would ask my Bloc Québécois and NDP colleagues to consider one point very seriously. We are not opposed to sending this bill to committee. However, we would like the committee responsible for studying it to have the kind of freedom that it cannot have if the bill goes to committee after second reading. That is crucial.

From what I can tell, today and for some time now, we have been getting very clear signals from aboriginals, from the Assembly of First Nations, from the Native Women's Association of Canada and other stakeholders. Personally, as a member of the committee, I have heard from a lot of people. They are very concerned about this bill, about how it was written, about what it contains, and about what it does not contain. If we have to restrict ourselves to a more limited range of amendments because the House has passed this bill at second reading, we will end up limiting Parliament's ability to do good work. I suggest that my colleagues give that some serious thought.

If—all together—we do tell the government that we want to do this work, that is fine, but let us do it with the latitude, flexibility and desire to be constructive that this committee has demonstrated so far. All of the committee members, whether they represent the NDP, the Bloc, the Liberals or the Conservatives, have demonstrated good will and the ability to work well together.

I had hoped that the government would seize this opportunity to try to resolve, once and for all, a problem that has been around for years, even decades, to resolve it constructively, which a minority government or Parliament can do if it so chooses. That would have been a strong indication of the government's respect for Parliament and for aboriginal communities in Canada. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. We believe that we should not proceed with the bill as written. Aboriginal communities are not happy with it.

I also think that there is another reason this bill is a step in the wrong direction.

It is another topic that we broached at committee time and again and I hope we explore even further. I see my colleague from Simcoe North nodding again. It is the concept of honour of the Crown. I readily admit that I am not yet grounded enough in the concept to fully comprehend all of its ramifications, but I know that it is rather far-reaching.

The honour of the Crown concept is one that has been invoked by the Supreme Court in matters dealing with aboriginal communities to strike down legislation. The last time I heard it was used was by the aboriginal communities in British Columbia to basically tell the government that it cannot sell properties, as it was planning to. The department had this plan to sell nine properties, two of which were in B.C. and two of which were subject to land claims by aboriginal communities. Because the government had not consulted these communities, the Supreme Court essentially said that the honour of the Crown concept applied and it could not sell those two buildings. They were withdrawn from the package of assets of buildings that the Crown was selling.

The honour of the Crown concept is a concept that applies to all things aboriginal and beyond that. In this case, I would think that if we were to proceed with this bill in the manner we are proposing, which is to force it through the House at second reading so that the committee is restricted in its ability to give it shape, listen to the witnesses and give voice to their concerns in a constructive way, the bill would be subject to court challenges quite readily if it were to become law.

As legislators, we have a duty to try to prevent that. We have a duty to construct good law according to principles that were established in our Constitution. If we were to proceed this way, when we have heard that the consultation might not have been as thorough or as listened to as the aboriginal communities would have hoped, perhaps we would then be creating faulty legislation that would be subject to fairly serious challenges on this notion of honour of the Crown. This must permeate what we do as agents of the Crown. We are Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The government is her agent. Together, we have responsibilities toward the Crown.

I am not sure that proceeding this way is the best way to fulfill these obligations or fiduciary responsibilities. We can call them what we will. As we continue the work in committee, I would hope that this concept becomes much more well understood by members of the committee and beyond. I think it is a concept that we will see coming much more to the fore as we try to honour the new spirit of working with aboriginal communities throughout this land.

I will sum up briefly because I only have a few minutes left.

My colleagues must understand that we are not trying to avoid taking action or to reject everything. We are telling the government that there is a more constructive way to approach a very delicate problem. I believe all parties agree that the bill attempts to resolve a very complex and delicate situation.

To draft a law that will be accepted by everyone, we must all put a little water in our wine and we must be prepared to hear from those most affected. Those people have been telling us for weeks that they cannot support this bill and they have asked the government to not proceed with it. That places us in a difficult situation.

I will come back to my basic premise: had the government truly wanted to give parliamentarians the latitude to work together and create a bill to reflect the collective will of all political parties and all aboriginal communities, it could have referred this bill to committee before second reading. It chose not to do so.

Earlier, I asked the parliamentary secretary why the government did not do so and chose instead to force a vote at second reading.

The government is therefore asking for approval in principle. It has chosen to limit the committee's power, after having listened to witnesses, to propose constructive amendments and—together—the government and the members of the three opposition parties—to develop a bill that we could all have been proud of. It could have taken another approach.

The members of the official opposition take their duty seriously. By proposing this motion, we are telling the government that it is not taking the right approach.

I will make a last appeal to the good will of my Bloc and NDP colleagues. What we are proposing today could be avoided altogether if we all told the government to refer the bill to committee before second reading. We must give the committee, which has already demonstrated its competence, the tools to do the work that is needed. We have a great deal of listening to do. We must listen to all those who wish to participate. We must take their grievances into account. When we find contradictions and disagreements, we must look for common ground.

As responsible parliamentarians, we must find a way to produce a bill that really reflects the government's responsibilities and our responsibilities as parliamentarians, our responsibilities under the Canadian Constitution and our responsibilities that arise from Supreme Court of Canada rulings.

This all could have been moved ahead by referring the bill to committee before second reading. I do not know why the government, a minority government, stubbornly refuses to refer any bills to committee. Many committees, such as the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, which I mentioned earlier, have a proven record.

The chair of that committee, a government member, is nodding his head in agreement with my assertion that the members of that committee have proven that they work well together.

Both bills we studied were fully supported by aboriginal communities. However, aboriginal communities are not in favour of the bill we are being asked to support here today, and that is a serious problem.

I implore the government to reconsider its approach and do its homework over again in order to come up with a solution that will be better for everyone.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

May 14, 2009

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the schedule to this letter on the 14th day of May, 2009 at 2:33 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila-Marie Cook

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act--Chapter 7; Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Energy Efficiency Act--Chapter 8; and Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992--Chapter 9.

Indian Oil and Gas Act

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this legislation before the House today.

I want to give some context around the bill. One of the reasons this bill has come before the House is the fact that the original act has had little change since 1974. We know that, in many cases, the provincial legislation has changed but the federal legislation has simply failed to keep pace.

As other members have pointed out, when changes to the Indian Oil and Gas Act were contemplated, consultations were held with the first nations players who were involved in the oil and gas sector. One of the things we the committee heard was that most of the first nations that were involved did support the process but that there were a couple of first nations that raised significant concerns. In my speech today, I will touch on some of those concerns.

What we learned about the consultation process was that although it was inclusive in terms of providing information, taking it out to tribal councils and getting feedback, one of the challenges with the consultation process was that the scope of the bill was limited to begin with, which prevented some of the changes that some of the first nations were proposing.

Despite those shortcomings, the NDP is supporting the bill because it is a good first step in amending the legislation. I am hopeful that some of the concerns that were raised by some of the first nations do get taken into consideration, both in the regulatory process and perhaps in some further amendments to the bill down the road.

I will now touch on some of the concerns. One of the concerns raised by the Stoney Nakoda Nation was around the regulations. What we see in this legislation is that most of what will be dealt will actually be dealt with in the regulatory process. Although there is a process around developing regulations, gazetting regulations and getting input, it does not require the oversight of this House or of a committee.

Some concerns have been raised about that. I want to quote from the Stoney Nakoda response around the regulation because these words say it far better than I could. The Stoney Nakoda state:

In a comparison of Bill C-5 to either of the federal government's Canada Petroleum Resources Act or Alberta's Mines and Minerals Act one will immediately notice that Bill C-5 has left for the discretion of the Governor in Council the ability to prescribe by Regulation many of the specific rights and powers that are specifically provided for with the aforementioned legislation. While a specific example is the right to cancel a lease, which is found at section 105 of the Canada Petroleum Resources Act or at section 45 of the Mines and Minerals Act, other examples include the right to take royalties in kind, the sale of the royalty interest, continuations of leases, etc. All of these are enumerated rights or powers within other legislative schemes while in Bill C-5 these are discretionary matters.

It goes on to state:

Additional powers that are typically within the body of the Act and not just matters to be dealt with by Regulations include the power of the Minister to assess, reassess and recalculate royalties that are due from the lessor; appeal provisions, etc. While Bill C-5 has numerous provisions respecting fines and penalties, these basic, yet critical powers have been left to be dealt with by the Regulations.

That is a fairly serious concern that has been raised because for non-first nations, we have a complex, detailed act that outlines many of the things that are being left to the regulatory process for first nations. I wonder why we would say that non-first nation Canadians will have legislation that is comprehensive and has the oversight of the House versus first nations that must deal with the regulatory process.

In light of the concerns raised by the Stoney Nakoda and others, the NDP proposed an amendment that was accepted by the committee and subsequently put into the bill. It called for more oversight. I will not read the whole amendment that was accepted but it states in part, “...prepare a report on the administration of this Act during the two preceding years and shall table a copy of the report in each House of Parliament within the first fifteen days...”. It goes on to outline a couple of other things.

We felt strongly about the fact that there was not an ability to include many of the proposals that the Stoney Nakoda and others were making in the legislation and, because of the very narrow scope of the bill, that it was important that the House have oversight. With that amendment, it will allow us to take a closer look at how the act is being implemented and how regulations are being developed.

The Stoney Nakoda Nation raised a number of issues but I will only speak to two of them. It raised the issue around the obligations of having a body that has two responsibilities. It states:

The regulator acts in a quasi-judicial role and adjudicates and regulates the relationship between the various stakeholders. Since Bill C-5 does not clearly distinguish between these two roles, Canada's obligation to First Nations are effectively reduced.

In Alberta, the Department of Energy administers and manages Alberta's oil and gas interests through the Mines and Minerals Act while the Energy Resources Conservation Board adjudicates and regulates the development of the resources through the provisions of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act. Similarly, Canada's own northern and offshore oil and gas resources are administered and managed under the Canada Petroleum Resources Act while the National Energy Board adjudicates and regulates the development of the resources through the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act.

We can see in two separate levels of government that are separate bodies that have different goals and responsibilities. Bill C-5 does not address that for first nations. Again we wonder why non-first nations would have this function that is taken apart so that there is not any conflict of interest. This was simply outside the scope of the bill that was presented to us, so we were not able to amend it to include those aspects that the Stoney Nakoda raised.

Another very troubling issue was raised when the committee was hearing testimony but because it was outside of the scope of the bill we could not propose amendments.

In an article back in February, entitled “Trust policy hurts reserves”, it directly goes to the heart of the ability of a first nation to manage its own funds, to invest in economic development and to address some of the poverty issues that face many first nations communities. This court ruling that came out highlighted some of the challenges facing first nations when it comes to the management of their own funds. This article states:

Twenty years ago, the Ermineskin and Samson First Nations in Alberta began the most costly legal battle in Canadian history and now it has come to a crashing end.

They went all the way to the Supreme Court and in the end, the court sided with the government. The case, which cost the bands legal fees in excess of $100 million, was launched more than 20 years ago over the federal government's mishandling of their trust funds. The two bands alleged they had lost close to $2 billion in investment revenue because the Department of Indian Affairs had held the money in trust without any investment.

Later on in the article it states:

The money placed in trust earned Bank of Canada savings interest rate, which averaged around three to six per cent. The Government of Canada then used the money as a part of its consolidated revenue fund. Indian monies became a cheap source of revenue for Canadian governments.

But in the end, the Supreme Court sided with the government. They stated the Department of Indian Affairs had followed the Indian Act. Unfortunately the court made the decision because the Indian Act is the only piece of legislation the department has to follow when handling First Nations funds.

This issue did come before the committee. It was raised by the Stoney Nakoda and by the Montana First Nations. It is a very serious issue but, again, it was outside the scope of the bill to actually deal with that. The problem we are facing is that the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility. What happened in this case is that the government managed these royalties on behalf of first nations communities.

In the case that we are talking about, although the investments are significantly different now, we knew at the time that the federal government was investing the money at significantly higher rates of return. It paid the first nations the minimum amount it was required to and then invested the rest of the money and made far more money. The federal government benefited from the first nations royalty money, which simply unacceptable.

Although some of the responses were that first nations had an opportunity under other legislation to take over management of it, the fact was that the government had a responsibility to those communities to share that money in a much more reasonable way. Although the Supreme Court had to side with the government simply because of the Indian Act, it does not make it morally right, fair or just.

I am hopeful, because the light has now been shone on this kind of practice, we will see some changes that ensure first nations directly benefit from the resources on their own lands.

The NDP will be supporting the legislation and monitoring very closely, through the amendment proposed by the NDP, which was accepted.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say right away that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act.

Although imperfect, the bill will provide the tools needed to harmonize the laws and regulations on reserve lands with those that apply in the provinces in which the reserves are located. During study in committee, the Bloc Québécois asked for further clarification of the terms and conditions surrounding the authorization to issue replacement leases for lands added to reserves and subsequently of the permits granted by the federal government for oil and gas exploration or exploitation.

As a result of the work done in committee, the Bloc Québécois does not think that the bill needs any amendments. In addition, the bill is the result of a consultation procedure the government conducted through Indian Oil and Gas Canada and with the cooperation of the Indian Resource Council, which consulted most of the oil and gas producing first nations as well as 130 band councils in 2002 and 2003.

This bill is the product, therefore, of a consensus of the 130 members of the Indian Resource Council and any amendments to it would require another period of consultations.

That being said, the Government of Canada should not use Bill C-5 to avoid its fiduciary responsibility for first nations. It is incumbent upon the government to correct the inequalities between aboriginals and non-aboriginals.

To be sure we are talking about the right thing, I will provide a summary of the bill.

The bill amends the Indian Oil and Gas Act to clarify and expand the existing regulation-making powers and to add new ones, particularly with respect to licences, permits and leases for the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas on reserve lands and the determination and payment of oil and gas royalties. It also puts in place sanctions for contraventions of the act as well as provisions for its enforcement.

In order for us to fully grasp the scope of the bill and the need for it, I would like to provide a bit of the historical background that brought us to this point.

For more than 20 years, studies and discussions have been going on to establish a new financial relationship between the first nations and the Government of Canada.

Already in 1983, the report of the House of Commons’ Special Committee on Indian Self-Government, the Penner report, recommended that the fiscal relationship between the Government of Canada and the first nations should be redefined.

In 1996, the final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which was also known as the Erasmus-Dussault Commission, as you will recall, also recommended a full review of the fiscal relationship between the federal government and the first nations. The proposed initiative focused on redefining this relationship within a broader context based on first nations self-government. The Tlicho self-government act is an example of this.

The First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act, which came into effect on April 1, 2006, just over three years ago now, was one of the first steps in this new fiscal relationship between the first nations and the federal government.

This optional law contains two new provisions: the first makes it possible for first nations to manage and regulate oil and gas activities on reserves; the second, to manage funds held in trust for them by Canada.

A first nation can choose either option. In other words, it need not own oil or gas to become responsible for managing these monies.

This legislation will change the way oil and gas are developed, and it will allow first nations able to do so to develop these resources on their own land. Previously, first nations had to comply with the Indian Oil and Gas Act and its regulations, which did not allow them to manage these resources directly.

The First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act allows first nations that choose to do so to be excluded from the application of the Indian Oil and Gas Act and its regulations.

That act, the Indian Oil and Gas Act, is the legislation governing exploration and exploitation of oil and gas resources on reserve land. This legislation does not allow first nations to manage the oil and gas resources on their land directly, nor does it allow them to develop an appropriate regulatory framework.

As I said, the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act is a very important legislative measure. Since 2006, it has allowed first nations, if they so choose, to create regulations concerning oil and gas exploration and conservation, on the spending of moneys derived from the exploitation of these resources, and on the protection of the environment.

As for regulations to protect the environment, those established by first nations will have to at least meet the standards of Quebec or the province in which the aboriginal community is located.

In terms of managing their finances, those first nations choosing to come under this new legislative framework will be subject to different regulations regarding “Indian moneys”. This is currently defined in the Indian Act as all moneys collected, received or held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of Indians or bands.

For these first nations, the provisions of the Indian Act will no longer apply. They will therefore be able to manage the amounts collected directly, rather than letting them be managed by the federal government. As a result, they will be able to make their own choices for investment in their communities instead of letting the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development dictate priorities to them. Auditor General Sheila Fraser pointed out in her 2004 report that this department is not doing a good job of administering the billions of dollars intended for the aboriginal communities.

If a first nation does not feel it would be advantageous to come under the new legislative regime, the current standards will continue to apply to it, so it will continue to benefit from the provisions of the Indian Act, including those that apply to the administration of Indian moneys.

Bill C-5 , which is incidentally identical to Bill C-63 and Bill C-5 , which died on the order paper June 17, 2008, and December 3, 2008, respectively, amends the Indian Oil and Gas Act. It is important to point out that oil is defined in the act as “a mixture of hydrocarbons that can be recovered from a well in liquid form, with the exception of condensate”.

At present, the First Nations that have oil and gas resources but do not manage them under the 2006 act must leave the management of those resources to Indian Oil and Gas Canada (IOGC), a government agency which reports to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.

IOGC is mandated to manage and administer the exploration and exploitation of oil and natural gas resources on Indian reserve land. IOGC promotes their development and ensures that royalties are appropriately paid to the first nations. However the Indian Oil and Gas Act has not been amended since it was passed in 1974. It is true that the Indian Oil and Gas Regulations of 1995 have been passed, but those regulations are inadequate to deal with the evolution of the market since 1974.

Faced with an increasingly complex industry, the provinces have constantly modernized their oil and gas legislation. That is why the federal government is today deciding to modernize the act, so as to bring it more in line with reality and the various legislative enactments of the provinces.

This bill will apply to reserves that were not granted rights under the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act. Hence it will apply to the first nations that are subject to the Indian Oil and Gas Act. Some 200 first nations produce or could produce oil and gas. At this time over 80% of this type of activity takes place, as one might guess, in Alberta. In 2005-06, over $270 million in oil and gas revenue was collected by IOGC on behalf of about 60 first nations that are signatories of development agreements in effect.

The purpose of the bill is to level the playing field between these industries’ on-reserve and off-reserve activities with the support of provincial legislation, in order to: reduce barriers to the economic development of the first nations; guarantee environmental protection on the reserves, something that is extremely important; and allow the government to better fulfill its industry management obligations to first nations through regulatory compliance and through the collection of royalties and other forms of applicable compensation.

Under the Indian Act, oil and gas revenues are collected by the federal government for subsequent full redistribution to the peoples concerned. These revenues are defined in the act as “Indian moneys”, and from them flows the federal government’s responsibility as trustee.

This bill does not have the effect of transferring the federal government’s power of management and administration of the exploration and production of oil and gas resources on first nations reserve land. Its purpose is to update the Indian Oil and Gas Act and to harmonize the federal act with legislation in the provinces where first nations communities are located.

This incorporation of provincial laws and regulations will in no way either detract from or add to provincial jurisdiction, as for example with the harmonization of reserve environmental plans with provincial requirements.

The bill replaces almost all of the provisions of the existing six-section Indian Oil and Gas Act and includes a number of matters that are currently provided for in the Indian Oil and Gas Regulations, 1995.

Bill C-5 expands the Governor in Council's existing regulation-making powers and adds new ones, particularly with respect to licences, permits and leases for the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas on reserve lands. The bill also makes changes in respect of the limitation period for actions to collect amounts owing and the determination of royalty payments.

It puts in place sanctions for contraventions of the act as well as provisions for its enforcement comprising fines and penalties, a remedy for trespass, environmental protection clauses and authority to issue replacement leases for lands added to reserves.

It would be interesting to have more information about lands added to reserves and to know what measures are being put forward in negotiations with the provinces. For example, what is meant by expanding the Governor in Council's regulation-making powers and how will the provinces be consulted before regulations are introduced? Even though the bill states that these lands have been absolutely surrendered under the Indian Act or the First Nations Land Management Act, it would be interesting to get some clarification about the negotiation process with the provinces and obtaining a permit on these added lands.

The bill also requires the minister to undertake ongoing consultations with the first nations involved with respect to negotiations with industry. The new section 6(1.1) states that: The Governor in Council may, by regulation:

(a) require that a power of the Minister under this Act in relation to first nation lands be exercised only if prior approval of the council of the first nation is obtained, if the council is first consulted or if prior notice is given to the council, as the case may be;

(b) require that any such power of the Minister be exercised only if prior consent is given by any first nation member who is in lawful possession of the first nation lands; and

(c) require that notice be given to the council of the first nation after the Minister exercises any such power.

As far as consultations prior to introduction of the bill are concerned, we need to know that through Indian Oil and Gas Canada, and in cooperation with the Indian Resource Council, the government consulted most oil-producing first nations and 130 band councils in 2002 and 2003.

The Indian Resource Council was founded in 1987 to represent first nations' collective oil and gas interests with both government and industry. More than 130 first nations in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and the Northwest Territories are members. Six non-producing first nations in Quebec are also members: the Odanak Abenakis; the Natashquan Innus; the Kanesatake Mohawks; the Gesgapegiag Micmacs; the Kahnawake Mohawks; and the Wôlinak Abenakis.

Some Indian Resource Council members are dissatisfied with certain aspects of the bill, but on the whole, the council is happy with the bill and the consultations that took place.

Our position—

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his comments and his and his party's support for this important bill.

The member will know through the course of our discussions in committee that one of the features that was discussed about Bill C-5 was the notion that this bill in fact builds a foundation for a continuous improvement regarding the needs that first nations communities would have going forward, knowing that the landscape in the energy business is going to change in the future. This bill would, at the very least, enable a building of a foundation for that going forward.

I wonder if he could comment on the extent to which he believes this bill gives us that ability.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt there have been extensive discussions. There have been tens, if not hundreds, of meetings relative to this particular bill or the Indian Oil and Gas Act generally.

The parliamentary secretary is probably right that we can sometimes disagree on the level of consultations or what constitutes consultations.

However, I believe that we would not be here today discussing Bill C-5 at third reading if generally all of the stakeholders did not agree that we had arrived at a point where adequate talks and consultations had taken place.

It is my sense that while there is give and take in any type of consultation and negotiation, we have arrived at a bill which parties can accept. We heard in committee, for instance, that Indian Oil and Gas Canada might have sought various changes or various things to be added in or taken out. The Indian Resource Council of Canada has also testified that it may have looked for stronger language in certain areas or for a clause to be put in or a clause to be taken out. However, both parties have indicated that there was compromise.

We, in the Liberal Party, are satisfied that it is a compromise bill. It is not perfect, but it will achieve certain objectives, such as facilitating the development of oil and gas on reserve, giving first nations a hand up, and providing more clarity regarding the regulatory regime.

We will be supporting the bill as we have throughout the legislative process thus far.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today to debate Bill C-5 at third reading.

The Liberal Party has supported this particular bill and made efforts to improve it where it saw a need for improvement. Not all of them have been accepted either by the committee or the House, with the ruling by the Speaker that a particular motion relating to the fiduciary duty of the minister and the government was not accepted.

Bill C-5 has been a long time coming, as many in the House have already said. The bill was officially introduced in 1974 and has remained substantially unchanged and unamended since that particular time. Efforts have been made in the past. There have been many discussions and consultations, and certainly many hours, days and weeks of work have taken place to get us where we are today.

In fact, this is the third time the bill has been introduced in as many sessions of Parliament and only now have we reached the third reading stage. Of course, there was a prorogation of the House, which everybody is aware of, last fall.

We all have to ask ourselves a question when it comes to pieces of legislation. Has there been adequate consultation? That is not a question that I can answer. It is only a question that can be answered by the first nations people, who are directly affected. In many regards, they have satisfied the committee that in fact extensive consultations have taken place.

There are, obviously, some organizations and first nations communities which have expressed some difficulty at committee around the specifics of this particular bill. In particular, the Stoney Nakoda First Nations out of Alberta has expressed a number of concerns with the bill around the fiduciary duty of the federal government, as to whether it would be changed or altered. It has also expressed certain concerns about the lack of control and jurisdiction of first nations over their own lands and the management of them.

That being said, it is important we understand that those concerns were noted prior to the development of the bill. Some have questioned whether these types of issues should have been raised in committee because the Stoney Nakoda, for instance, was already part of the consultations that took place with the Indian Resource Council of Canada, but that is the way our legislative process works. First nations have the ability to take advantage of whatever stage of the legislation to make their views known and I acknowledge that.

The bill came to the House as a result of the consultations between the Indian Resource Council of Canada, which represents 130 oil and gas producing first nations or those who have the potential to produce oil and gas, and the Government of Canada, primarily through Indian Oil and Gas Canada.

There is a need, of course, for this particular bill. It fills a regulatory gap and modernizes the Indian Oil and Gas Act. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has already outlined some of those substantive changes.

I would like to review in broad terms some of the aspects of the clauses of this bill that deal with royalties and regulation making. There is an increase in the powers of the minister, but there is also a specific duty on the minister to consult with first nations in carrying out his powers and responsibilities. There are improvements to the inspection, audit and examination powers of the minister and Indian Oil and Gas Canada representing the minister. There are changes regarding search and seizure, delegation authorities, offences and punishment, as well as administrative monetary penalties.

One of the major discussions that took place in committee concerned the incorporation of provincial regulations. Basically, they would become federal regulations for the purposes of managing first nations lands that have oil and gas or the potential of oil and gas.

Some have argued that the government has to ensure that the rights and interests of first nations are not infringed upon by the incorporation of those provincial laws. People want to ensure that by incorporating these particular laws the fiduciary obligation is not diminished. Also raised was the issue that because this particular bill allows the government to incorporate provincial regulations and because it is a regulation-making bill, how do we really know what is going on. There was an amendment made to this bill at committee that would require the government to report to Parliament. Proposed section 28.1 reads:

At least every two years after the coming into force of the present section, the Minister shall prepare a report on the administration of this Act during the two preceding years and shall table a copy of the report in each House of Parliament within the first fifteen days that it is sitting after the completion of the report, which shall include a summary addressing the following matters:

(a) the progress of the consultations mentioned in paragraph 6(1.1)(a) and a list of concerns raised during such consultations;

(b) any proposed regulation to be made under subsection 6(1.1); and

(c) any regulations made under this Act and describe any variations in the regulations from province to province.

It is quite an in-depth report on responsibility that was not originally in Bill C-5 that is there now as it has been reprinted.

It is important from our perspective that this bill pass in Parliament. It would provide some balance, some consistency between what will happen off reserve and what will happen on reserve as first nations develop their own lands where there is oil and gas or the potential for oil and gas. Some will argue that there will not be consistency right across the country because it will vary province to province.

My party is in favour of this piece of legislation. We have done our best to see it through its various legislative stages in a timely fashion.

Our party has supported in the past, it supports today and it will support in the future the right of first nations, aboriginal peoples generally, to develop their own lands and their own resources. We will support the inherent right of first nations to make decisions for themselves and for their people.

While this bill does not go all the way, it certainly goes part of the way to fulfilling those goals and aspirations.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, at this point the committee has not been seized by that question. That could be a question that the committee might want to deal with.

The area in which Bill C-5 provides incorporation by reference of provincial legislation is actually quite limited, but it is that limited ability which allows us to incorporate many very thick provincial pieces of legislation, very meaty stuff. Those areas are determining the quantity or quality of oil or gas recovered, combining oil or gas rates for joint exploitation, abandonment of wells, establishment of administrative fees for services provided, environmental protection from the effects of oil and gas exploration, oil and gas conservation, and equitable production.

Even though it looks like it is a huge task, I think most of this has already been pre-contemplated. There has been a technical committee working on this through Indian Oil and Gas Canada. I do not think this should be a long time coming.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act, be read the third time and passed.

Speaker's Ruling

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed very gratifying to see Bill C-5 advanced to third reading. After nearly a decade of discussions and consultations, we are finally bringing this legislation into the 21st century. In the process, we will be helping to bring much needed prosperity to oil and gas producing first nations.

This long overdue bill is an important step forward in levelling the playing field for resource-rich first nations that face obstacles to achieving their full economic potential. I remind my hon. colleagues that the Indian Oil and Gas Act has remained unchanged for the past 34 years. To say that Bill C-5 is long overdue, is an understatement. That is why I am so proud to be taking part in corrective action with this legislation to set first nations on a better course for the future.

As I pointed out, the last time I spoke on Bill C-5, this is a concrete example of the Conservative government's commitment to ensure that aboriginal Canadians fully share in economic opportunities. It is an important building block that will enable first nations with oil and gas reserves to build stronger, more reliant communities that can better manage their own affairs. The oil and gas sector represents a source of promising economic development opportunities for first nations. The Government of Canada, through its special operating agency Indian Oil and Gas Canada, currently manages over 1,000 oil and gas producing wells and about 150 new wells are drilled on reserves each year.

In 2005-06 over $270 million in oil and gas revenues were collected by the Government of Canada on behalf of first nations. More than $1 billion in revenues from on reserve oil and gas activity has been collected by Indian Oil and Gas Canada on behalf of about 60 first nations over the past five years. That revenue is then passed on, in its entirety, to those first nations communities. This much needed source revenue is being used by these first nations for training, new housing, water and sewer projects, initiatives that are building stronger communities and a brighter future for their children.

Notwithstanding the current economic downturn, industry remains committed to developing partnerships with first nations. The oil and gas sector is continuing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in exploration and exploitation activities on first nations reserve lands, more than $300 million worth over the last five years alone. While there is great promise, the potential for first nations economic opportunities in the oil and gas sector is dependent upon industry investment.

Private sector interests lament that up until now federal laws governing development activity on reserves have not kept up with industry needs. They also complain that the regulations are unclear in many cases, which can cause delays, additional costs and lost investment opportunities. Industry stakeholders clearly prefer to invest in lands where the regulatory regimes are certain and where communities offer opportunities, not challenges. That is precisely what this bill would provide.

Let me review the many progressive features in Bill C-5 that would ensure first nations lands are every bit as attractive to investors as off reserve lands.

First, the act increases clarity. The amendments clarify both ministerial and judicial oversight powers in high-risk areas such as levying of fines and searches and seizures. Another way that Bill C-5 would clarify would be by harmonizing federal legislation with provincial regimes. This is important because provincial oil and gas laws related to conservation and environmental protection are amended from time to time. If the federal regime does not stay abreast of these changes, it puts first nations seeking investment at a clear disadvantage.

The incorporation by reference of these amendments would ensure the federal regime would keep pace. More to the point, it would eliminate disparities between on and off-reserve lands. Again, this would provide greater certainty for potential investors and facilitate economic development. All of this would be done while, in all circumstances, fully maintaining the federal government's fiduciary responsibilities to first nations.

The second major advantage of Bill C-5 is that it would improve Canada's ability to regulate oil and gas activities on reserve land. Bill C-5 would give the minister, through Indian Oil and Gas Canada, greater authority to audit operators and collect royalties owed to first nations. Once developed, new regulations will establish a clear set of rules to prevent companies from using certain transactions with subsidiaries or related parties to unduly reduce royalties payable to first nations.

Furthermore, the minister would have a 10-year limitation period to commence legal actions to collect unpaid royalties and other amounts owing. This is especially important. There would be no limitation period in cases of fraud or misrepresentation. Without this provision, provincial standards would apply and in some cases the limitation period would be as low as two years. This added protection would ensure that first nations were paid what they were rightfully due.

The final major area of improvement made possible by Bill C-5 concerns environmental protection and ensuring that first nation sites of cultural, spiritual or historical significance will be protected from potentially adverse effects of oil and gas activities. Because the federal regime would be harmonized with provincial environmental protection laws, new enforcement actions to protect the environment from oil and gas activities would be identical to the ones currently available to the province off reserve.

The minister would also be provided new powers to suspend operations if first nation sites of cultural, spiritual or historical significance were discovered or threatened by the oil and gas activities. Oil and gas activities would only be permitted to resume when the minister would be confident that the risk of harm would no longer exist. In addition, the regulations could require first nation concurrence before these operations are resumed.

Another important change in this legislation responds directly to the priorities of first nations. The concern was raised repeatedly that the on-reserve regime did not keep pace with the off-reserve regime. To address this need, the amendments would expand the authority of the governor in council to make regulations and to facilitate regular improvements to them. In fact, the approach taken by Bill C-5 would guarantee continuous changes and improvements to ensure that the federal oil and gas regime would remain current.

Under the act, regulations would be monitored, examined and, when required, amended on a never-ending basis. This means that first nations would never again have to wait for 30 or 35 years before amendments to modernize the act could be implemented.

This is another aspect following on the act in which first nations will play a crucial role. We will continue to work together with oil and gas first nations and their advocate, the Indian Resource Council, during the development of the regulations, just as we did during the development of this act.

I remind the House that before developing the bill, extensive consultations were carried out with first nations with oil and gas interests. Since 2003, Indian Oil and Gas Canada has held one-on-one sessions with over 85% of the oil and gas-producing first nations.

My hon. colleagues can rest assured that passage of this legislation is not the end, but merely a continuation of an ongoing consultation process with first nations. That is not rhetoric. That is a promise.

During the minister's appearance before committee, he mentioned a letter of comfort which he sent to the Indian Resource Council last year. I should explain that the Indian Resource Council is a national aboriginal organization that advocates on behalf of some 130 first nations with oil and gas production or the potential for production.

In writing, the minister outlined Canada's commitment to modernize the on-reserve oil and gas regime. He also committed to continue our partnership with the Indian Resource Council during the development of the regulations. Of concern to many, the minister reassured oil and gas first nations that there was nothing in Bill C-5 that affected first nations' jurisdiction over their resources. Nor did the act extend the jurisdiction of the provinces to those lands or resources.

The minister reiterated that it was the Government of Canada and not provincial authorities that would be responsible for managing first nation lands and resources. The letter of comfort also addressed first nation concerns related to value-added opportunities. For example, the minister pledged to establish first nation energy business centres of excellence in Alberta and in Saskatchewan.

Furthermore, the minister committed to identifying opportunities for greater first nations input and involvement in the decision-making processes at Indian Oil and Gas Canada on issues that directly affected them. As well, he signalled his willingness to explore options for greater first nations control over the management of their oil and gas resources. Of great interest to us as legislators, the minister promised to establish a continuous change or improvement process.

These assurances reinforce our government's determination to ensure first nations share equally in our country's prosperity. Members of government believe profoundly that first nations citizens must participate fully in all that Canada has to offer and be given the tools to achieve greater economic self-reliance and an ever-increasing quality of life. Bill C-5 would help to advance these goals by providing modern legislation, competitive regulations and sound practices that would create the conditions for economic success and social progress.

These goals are shared by all members of the House. The key to unleashing this potential lies in passing this modernized legislative framework into law. By endorsing Bill C-5, we will be confirming, once again, that collaboration and partnership between the federal government, the private sector and aboriginal people can lead to a better future. Indeed, it will help build a better country for us all.

I call on all parties to lend their support and ensure the speedy passage of this necessary and overdue legislation.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-5.

Motion No. 1 will not be selected by the Chair, because it requires a royal recommendation.

There being no motions at report stage the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act, as reported with amendment from the committee.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today, Bill S-3, the energy efficiency bill, was read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Just before question period, we were debating Bill C-13, the Canada Grain Act, but it appears the coalition of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc has been revived and it is supporting a motion that, if adopted, will defeat that bill. It is proposing to kill the bill before it even gets to committee. It is unfortunate that the coalition's first act is to abdicate its role as legislators by denying close scrutiny and study of a bill at a committee.

After my statement, the government will be calling Bill C-5, Indian oil and gas, followed by Bill C-18, the bill respecting RCMP pensions, which is at second reading.

Tomorrow, we will continue with the business that I just laid out for the remainder of today.

When the House returns on April 20, after two weeks of constituency work, we will continue with any unfinished business from this week, with the addition of Bill C-25, the truth in sentencing bill, Bill C-24, the Canada-Peru free trade agreement, Bill C-11, human pathogens and toxins and Bill C-6, consumer products safety. We can see we have a lot of work to do yet. All of these bills are at second reading, with the exception of Bill C-11, which will be at report stage.

During the first week the House returns from the constituency weeks, we expect that Bill C-3, the Arctic waters bill will be reported back from committee. We also anticipate that the Senate will send a message respecting Bill S-2, the customs act. If and when that happens, I will be adding those two bills to the list of business for that week.

Thursday, April 23, shall be an allotted day.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the House leader for the official opposition, for his multitude of questions.

First of all, as he indicated, today we will continue debate on Bill C-14, the organized crime bill. I would point out that it is thanks to the Minister of Justice, whose leadership this morning overcame an opposition tactic aimed at delaying Bill C-14 that we do have an agreement to move that bill forward. As a result of the minister's intervention, Bill C-14 will in fact be sent to committee at the end of today, pursuant to a special order of the House.

Tonight the House will consider a take note debate on the international conference on Afghanistan hosted by The Hague.

As I mentioned earlier, we adopted a special order for Bill C-14. Unfortunately that special order did not cover the second justice bill that is slated for debate today. In fact it is conceivable we would have already been into that debate had it not been for the delaying tactics of the opposition earlier this morning.

This is the bill that the hon. member referred to, Bill C-15, the drug offences bill. It is another key piece of our government legislation that will help curb gang violence, yet we do not see it moving quickly through the House. That said, I am hopeful we can complete the bill today or have it completed at the latest tomorrow, provided the NDP does not invoke another delaying tactic as it did this morning.

Following the drug offences bill, we have scheduled for debate Bill C-7, marine liability; Bill S-3, energy efficiency; and Bill C-13, the Canada Grain Act. All of these bills are at second reading.

On Monday, pursuant to a special order adopted yesterday, we will complete the third reading stage of Bill C-2, the Canada-EFTA free trade agreement bill. After considerable delay in this chamber, it will be nice to move that bill over to our colleagues down the hall in the Senate.

We will continue next week with any uncompleted business from this week, with the addition of Bill C-5 regarding the Indian Oil and Gas Act, which is at report stage and third reading stage, and Bill C-18 regarding RCMP pensions, which is at second reading. We will add to the list any bills that are reported back from the various committees.

Tuesday, March 31 shall be an allotted day.

In reference to the upcoming justice bills that the member might be referring to when he referred to the remand legislation, he is going to have to stay tuned. We will be bringing that forward very soon. I am sure he will be very pleased with the result and will want to move very quickly once it hits the floor of the chamber.

As he knows, the government is very transparent when it comes to government expenditures, including the upcoming expenditures of the accelerated economic stimulus contained in the $3 billion under vote 35. All of that of course will be revealed to the Canadian public and to Parliament in good time as we make those investments on behalf of Canadians from coast to coast.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

This is in relation to Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Today, we are holding the 11^th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, February 13, 2009, the committee is going to study C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act.

This morning we are in consideration of clause-by-clause for Bill C-5.

We welcome back Karl Jacques and John Dempsey, from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, for their help and assistance throughout the course of this morning. You know that we have certainly considered testimony from several witnesses and organizations to help us with consideration of this bill.

At this point we will proceed to consideration of clauses 1 and 2.

(Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to)

(On clause 3)

There has been an amendment circulated for clause 3. I think members have it. It's on a single page, and it's in respect of proposed subsection 28(1). This would be an addition to the bill. It would be after line 13, on page 21.

It should be noted that this amendment, which has been proposed by Monsieur Bélanger, is nearly identical to Ms. Crowder's amendment. Members, if we adopt the first motion by Mr. Bélanger, that would essentially negate the second motion by Ms. Crowder.

Ms. Crowder.

[John Dempsey]

The CPRA is a good piece of legislation. It was reviewed in our process to develop Bill C-5. The issues that were raised at this table were in relation to the assessment and reassessment process that's in the CPRA, which we have built into Bill C-5—but in the development of regulations as opposed to putting the process in the act itself.

The issue of cancelling a lease was also raised. In the CPRA they have a process in the legislation itself to cancel a lease. In Bill C-5, that'll be developed in the regulations. But it's all federal law; it will all be addressed in the development of regulations.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I asked the Stoney Nakoda the same question. The Government of Canada treats its own royalties differently from the way it's treating the royalties of first nations. So why wouldn't the CPRA legislation have been used as a benchmark for Bill C-5?

[John Dempsey]

On the downstream aspect of oil and gas operations, the bill is quite specific that it relates to exploration and exploitation of oil and gas only. Those downstream operations, such as refining, as you heard earlier, are important to some first nations. And there are other areas that aren't really captured by the scope of this bill.

The First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act was developed, in part, to give first nations the ability to go into those types of ventures, be they mining of crude bitumen, the establishment of a refinery, and so on. But the Indian Oil and Gas Act was never meant to have that broad a scope.

On the development of the regulations, we do have a process in place right now that has started with first nations. It's a continuation of the joint process that you've been hearing about and that has been going on for 10 years. We have several committees set up with the Indian Resource Council. We have several symposia planned for the next 12 months.

I think all parties who have been involved in this agree that the real work comes now, that the real work comes on the regulations. The act was merely an umbrella piece of legislation to set out some high-level authorities, but the details or processes—the details of some of the royalty issues you've been hearing about—will be worked out in the regulations.

I'll give you an example. In the bill itself right now, we've built in many processes related to royalties that aren't currently in the Indian Oil and Gas Act, such as powers around reserving a royalty, the assessment process of a royalty, and the clarification of pricing schemes, of royalty deductions, of royalty in-kind proposals, of the circumstances to waive a royalty, and of interest on a royalty. Those types of things aren't currently in the existing regime that we operate under, but we've put them into Bill C-5 so that we can make clear regulations on these areas with first nations in the future.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of you for being here today.

Minister Strahl, and you as well, Mr. Crowfoot, have indicated a number of times that this has been an ongoing process for roughly 10 years, and in that process the first nations that have oil-producing and gas-producing potential have been included. What we have here today is a series of agreements among the various parties to come to a resolution as to a way forward.

I wonder if you could just give me some examples as to some of the proposals that the Stoney Nakoda First Nations have made in that process over the last number of years. Can you give us some examples of some of their ideas that are incorporated into Bill C-5? I think we all understand that we never all get exactly everything we request, so I think it would be helpful for us to hear examples of how they have been accommodated.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

That would appear to me to be a really important piece of Bill C-5, to ensure the safety and, obviously, appropriate environmental protection on first nations land.

[John Dempsey]

Well abandonment is an issue right now for Indian Oil and Gas Canada. As I said, we don't have a good, strong set of laws in place under the existing regime. Under Bill C-5 we have the ability to make regulations that would give us a wide range of federal tools to ensure that companies abandon well sites properly, to ensure that they have liabilities that would go on forever just in case there are some problems with the abandonment process they've done.

[John Dempsey]

I think the environmental protection area is quite important to this bill. Right now the existing Indian Oil and Gas Act and regulations contain extremely limited requirements in the area of environmental protection, such as abandonment of wells, reclamation of wells, remediation of well sites.

We rely right now on a contractual arrangement between IOGC and oil and gas companies. The problem is that the contractual arrangement is hard to enforce, and in many cases we don't know which body is to be enforcing that, because we use a mix of provincial and federal laws in there. So what Bill C-5 does is it gives us the ability to make federal laws in the regulations that address those important areas of reclamation of well sites, remediation, the whole environmental protection side of things.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Okay.

My second question is on how Bill C-5 would enhance the environmental laws for drilling on first nations land for oil and gas.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chairman, as a legislator, what I'm hearing here is that I'll be expected to keep track of all the publications, of all the regulations in the Canada Gazette and in provincial gazettes, as opposed to asking the executive to come periodically--every year or two--and report to the legislator, to the Parliament of Canada, saying, “Here are the provincial regulations and the laws that we've incorporated in the application of Bill C-5, whatever it will be called, by virtue of the powers delegated to the executive by this law.”

Wouldn't it be appropriate to have a requirement for a periodic reporting to Parliament of the application of these provisions?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Were there any concerns, to your knowledge, raised around the provisions of Bill C-5?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the chiefs for attending this morning.

Chief Bearspaw, I have stayed at your resort, and it was very fine indeed. Thank you.

I want to go where Mr. Russell went, on this fiduciary duty, because I think it's key to what we're looking at here.

I received a letter, which was sent on February 19, talking about an amendment to Bill C-5 that would confer powers to first nations that are currently done on their behalf by IOGC. This would include applying to the cancellation of oil and gas leases due to non-payment of royalties or in cases of non-compliance with terms and conditions of a lease.

When IOGC officials appeared before the committee on March 3, the committee heard that first nations were consulted and involved in the decision-making process leading to the cancellation of a lease. As recently as November 28, they proceeded to cancel a lease. We had chiefs and councils involved in every step with IOGC before the final decision on cancellation, but the decision remained with IOGC acting as a manager or regulator--a trustee.

We heard last week from IOGC that they do not have a mandate from their membership of chiefs and councils to entertain any changes that would have the potential to alter the fiduciary relationship, duties, and responsibilities of the crown. Since that February 19 letter, we now seem to have an altered position from yours. You're now seeking an amendment that would empower the first nation to direct the minister to cancel the lease. It now appears you're suggesting the decision to cancel would belong to the first nation, yet the responsibility and consequences of that decision would remain with the minister.

I think we need some clarification. Are you suggesting that first nations be given the unilateral decision to cancel the lease with no responsibilities or consequences? That is my first question.

Second, if that is indeed what you were seeking, then why would you not pursue it under the umbrella of the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act rather than under this legislation?

[Douglas Rae]

The comparison with the Canada Petroleum Resources Act is a valid one. In that statute, Canada is dealing with its own royalties. Listed in considerable detail--in the statute itself, by the way, not in the regulations--are the powers of the minister when royalties are underpaid or when another default takes place in the lease. Bill C-5, as it currently is worded, has nothing in that regard at all. It's entirely left up to the regulation-making power.

We're simply pointing out that what is good for Canada under the Canada Petroleum Resources Act should be good for Canada on behalf of the first nations in Bill C-5.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the chiefs, Mr. Snow, and Mr. Rae for coming before the committee. I think it's important that you are here in person to talk about the issues that you think need to be raised in the context of this particular piece of legislation.

I want to touch on two things. If I have time, I'll come back to a third question.

In your proposed amendments, you talk about the differences between the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and what is included in the bill. I think it's an unfortunate statement that the Government of Canada looks at royalties for itself in one way, and then treats first nations completely differently.

This is one proposed amendment: “5.2 (1) The Minister may, at any time, assess the royalty, interest or penalties”, and so on. I wonder if you could just briefly touch on the difference between the CPRA and what is proposed in Bill C-5. I don't know, it may be technical; keep it simple for us non-lawyers.

[Chief David Bearspaw, Chief, Bearspaw First Nation]

Thank you, Chairman.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's an honour to be speaking in front of you today.

I'm going to start by saying a few words in my own language.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

I would like to address the impact of Bill C-5 in terms of economic development and employment for the members of my first nation.

We met with Minister Strahl last July, in Calgary. He told us at that time that his priority is economic development and education. That is the same priority my great-great-great-grandfather had when he signed Treaty No. 7 in 1877. However, Bill C-5 does not appear to do much to support the minister's priority.

Specifically, Bill C-5 contains a definition for “exploitation” of oil and gas. This definition reflects a crown policy that the downstream operations, such as refining and processing, are to be excluded from the Indian Oil and Gas Act. It is from these downstream operations where most of the value-added benefits to my people will come, yet these downstream possibilities have been excluded from Bill C-5.

Why is that? We would ask that you consider an amendment to the definition of “exploitation” of oil and gas. We have provided draft wording in this regard, on page 2 of our clause-by-clause review, which was previously distributed to you.

Again, we wish to thank you in our language, “ish nish”. And we would like to invite each of you to the Stoney Nakoda Resort, where you can provide an economic stimulus to our people by gambling away your hard-earned money.

[Chief Bruce Labelle, Chief, Chiniki First Nation]

[Witness speaks in his native language]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting us to appear before your committee today. We apologize that we were not able to appear before you last week. The timing was just too tight.

We do acknowledge that the Stoney Nakoda Nations have been directly involved in the consultations that Indian Oil and Gas Canada has been carrying out over the past two years with the Indian Resource Council. Mr. Snow, who is with us here today, has been our representative, and Chief Poucette, my fellow chief, is on the board of the IRC.

Those discussions, however, dealt only with the general principles behind the bill, not the details. We did not see the actual text of Bill C-5 until it was tabled in the House of Commons in February. We then immediately instructed our legal counsel to review Bill C-5 and to advise us in regard to it.

Our legal counsel then wrote to the committee on February 19, 2009. We would ask that this letter, our response to the minister—a clause-by-clause overview of the bill—be accepted as the submission of the Stoney Nakoda Nations.

We suggest that the committee request from the minister the correspondence and materials from the Indian Resource Council, and its joint technical committee, with respect to the issues that were identified and the specific amendments that were requested by the IRC at that time. Once this is reviewed, it will be clear that the issues we are raising are unresolved issues from the IRC process, not new issues, as has been suggested.

We are not proposing amendments designed to derail or to force a restarting of the process. We believe our proposed amendments to Bill C-5 are the conclusion of the consultation process started by the IOGC and the Indian Resource Council, not the beginning of a new process.

We were also disappointed to see that in the backgrounder and the speaking notes that accompanied Bill C-5, there was no mention whatsoever of the many lawsuits that have been brought by the major oil- and gas-producing first nations. We also have difficulty, from time to time, in obtaining information from Indian Oil and Gas Canada. But they should have advised you of the eight, at least, such lawsuits brought against the Government of Canada . The Supreme Court of Canada, two weeks ago, ruled in regard to only one small part of two of these lawsuits. The oil and gas royalty issues are still being litigated by the Stoney Nations and other first nations.

The amendments we are proposing would have the effect of facilitating resolutions of these issues, one way or another. And our proposed amendments would also conceivably save the Canadian taxpayer from having to pay out more money for royalty moneys that the IOGC has failed to collect .

Thank you for your time. Chief Poucette would now like to say a few words.

Ish nish. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

This is the 10^th meeting of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This morning, we have on the agenda Bill C-5, an Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act.

This morning we welcome our witnesses for consideration of Bill C-5, amendments to the Indian Oil and Gas Act.

We'll start with Chief Bruce Labelle from the Chiniki First Nation. Second will be Chief Clifford Poucette from the Wesley First Nation. Then we'll hear from Chief David Bearspaw from the Bearspaw First Nation.

Chiefs, we welcome you to our committee this morning. We're delighted that you could take the time to join us here on relatively short notice.

We normally provide 10 minutes for each presentation. With your agreement, and seeing that we only have one hour, I suggest you keep your opening remarks to about seven minutes each so we'll be through them in about 20 minutes. Then we will go to questions from members.

We'll start with Chief Labelle for seven minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That's what we're going to do. We're going to have that discussion. I think we'll have that discussion in terms of providing some scope for that work ahead of us on the Thursday following the break. We have at least three days in front of us now, with a full day on Thursday, as discussed. We have the clause-by-clause for Bill C-5 on March 24 and we will set aside March 26 for consideration of providing some clarity on our next steps in terms of study topics. There being no other speakers, I think we will proceed on that basis.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Two things, Mr. Chairman. First, I was listening to a radio report yesterday that there was apparently in Toronto a significant conference yesterday on the economic development of first nations. I'm just wondering why the committee was not made aware of that or perhaps even afforded an opportunity to participate. It's just a question I was wondering about. Perhaps we could obtain a report from that conference and its conclusions, if there are any.

Secondly, I'm just reminded of what we're doing here today, Mr. Chairman. I remember studying or being advised of a couple of principles that were important in human endeavours: one was the Peter Principle, that you'd be promoted to your level of incompetence; and the other one, whose name I forget, was that work would expand to occupy the time available. I wonder if that's what we're proving here today, the existence of that other principle.

I'd be willing to punt this to Thursday, after we've finished with Bill C-5.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We're actually starting to get into that discussion now.

I was really seeking from the committee whether you want to have that discussion now and set a study topic. We do have, by the way, and I think you've all had circulated to you, the preferences of members with respect to their priorities and ideas, including those just mentioned.

We will need to schedule some time to have that discussion. It would appear at this stage that we won't be able to do that before the break. That does leave us the option, if you wish, to continue with a briefing-type meeting. There were still a couple of briefing topics that we had not completely dispensed with prior to our taking up consideration of Bill C-5. We could go in that direction, if you wish.

Ms. Crowder.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, I had asked that we start preparing for the appearance of representatives of the Assembly of First Nations to discuss education. Once we have completed our study of Bill C-5, and before undertaking our study of Bill C-8, I think it would be a good idea to do that. The Assembly of First Nations has written to us on several occasions. The First Nations Education Steering Committee would like to meet with us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There being no other speakers, it would appear there's consensus for that schedule, if I can call it that, just as you described, Mr. Russell.

That does take us to clause-by-clause consideration on the Tuesday following the break, which would be March 24. We will set aside that meeting in its entirety at this point in time for that consideration of Bill C-5.

I take it there are no other speakers on that. We will accept that as a consensus by the committee, to proceed in that fashion. We will call witnesses in addition to the first nation--departmental officials, including those from IOGC--in the second hour. It has not been suggested that the IRC, who has been before our committee and provided testimony already, would be here, but we will hear from the department on the very specific and, I would agree, very technical suggestions on the part of first nations.

That does leave members with the question of how we proceed at the Thursday meeting. We had originally set aside this Thursday for consideration of study topics. The idea there was that we could direct our analysts and clerk's office in respect to getting witnesses for our initial study, going into the period after the break next week.

Is it the desire of the committee to consider that issue now? We have 30-odd minutes left in today's meeting. We can discuss that.

I'll take your direction on that question.

Mr. Lemay.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I think all committee members are aware that we have had some correspondence from the Stoney Nakoda First Nation with respect to the bill before us. Things seem to be a bit late coming to us in terms of some of the concerns that were raised. Notwithstanding that, the Stoney Nakoda has done some very intensive work around Bill C-5. They present some critiques we haven't heard at the committee, and I believe we should afford them the opportunity to present that to committee on Thursday. Their representatives have indicated the chiefs of the Stoney Nakoda can appear on Thursday.

So I would recommend that we suspend clause-by-clause for now, hear from the Stoney Nakoda on Thursday during the first hour, and then move on with clause-by-clause after that. That will also give us the time to review the information they have brought forward.

Having said that, I'd also like to reiterate that, as a party, we are basically supportive of Bill C-5 and we want to move this through the process. For the record, I've also indicated we are not interested in rewriting this bill. But we are interested in hearing logical arguments and critiques that may have some influence on potential amendments we might want to bring forward.

I would recommend that we go forward in this particular fashion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, members.

As you know, our orders of the day were to continue at this point with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-5. I know there have been discussions among members, and I wonder at this point whether members would be prepared to speak to a potential change in that order of the day.

Mr. Russell.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you.

Obviously, Bill C-5 was the purpose of my last visit here, and I mentioned it in my opening remarks. It's an important bill. It was a long time being developed. It's an important bill, because I think in economic times like these we have to give maximum opportunities to first nations to benefit from the oil and gas reserves and the potential on their land.

This is an important and timely bill, and again, that's why I mentioned it in my remarks. The whole consultation, of course, precedes our government by several years. The previous Liberal government set up a consultative process--it has been going on now for eight or nine years--to try to update a piece of 35-year-old legislation. So it's not a partisan bill. It's not something we initiated, even. It is something, though, that we see the value of, because it's going to give economic opportunities to first nations.

There have been really intensive consultations over the last 18 months or so with the Indian Resource Council and with the 130 first nations they represent. There has been a real effort, on all fronts, I think, to make sure that we find that path forward that modernizes the regulations but also gives voice to the concerns of the Resource Council and the first nations. I have met with the IRC. I also gave them a letter--I think you have a copy--with the promise to work with them closely on the development of regulations that flow from it.

This has been going on for years and years. There are 130 first nations. There are the interests of the federal government and others. What we have is a good package of amendments to the bill that will do everything, I think, the IRC is looking for. I think that was their testimony before you. And we have an agreement to work on some of the other things that will be necessary going forward, including development of the regulations. You know, a lot of times, the devil is in the details, and the details are regulatory, so we're going to work closely with them. Also, there are some other things on their list of issues to deal with. There's an ongoing process to deal with those, as well.

As to the bill itself, I would urge the committee to consider the testimony of the IRC. What they have done, and my hat's off to them, is find a path forward with this bill that is a good path forward for the 130 first nations. If it is changed significantly, if there are amendments that change it significantly, certainly I'll have to go back to cabinet. I don't know what the amendments might be, but I would have to go back to cabinet. And my guess is that the IRC would have to go back and start a consultative process. My worry is that it's not simply a matter of going to the IRC and saying “what do you say”, and somebody stamping it. We have to get consensus from 130 first nations. So away we go again.

My concern is that if it's away we go again, we'll be back here a year or two or eight from now saying that it was too bad we couldn't have fixed it back then. And that would be a shame. I think we have to grab this thing while the grabbing's good. It's not because we couldn't do more work on it; it's just that the process is not simple. The process will start another round of consultations that will be expensive, and worse yet, will mean that the current system is in place until such time as we get another consensus. So I would urge the committee to consider the testimony of the IRC, which I think has done yeoman's work in hammering out that consensus and getting a pretty good piece of legislation with an agreement by the government that they'll consider other options, moving forward, that address some of their other needs.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Good morning, Minister, and Mr. Wernick, Mr. Yeates, and Mr. Quinn.

Minister, the committee is scheduled to deal with Bill C-5 legislation, the Indian Oil and Gas Act amendments, clause by clause. I wonder if you could remind us of the process used in developing this piece of legislation. And could you tell us the possible ramifications if the committee proceeds with amendments that will change the bill currently before us?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to thank you and your colleagues for inviting me to appear again before this committee.

It's good to be back. I'm not sure, but if we keep up at this rate we're going to set a record for being collegial with one another, and this is good. It's good to be back.

A few days ago I was here and I did have the opportunity to discuss Bill C-5, an act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act. As I said at that meeting, Bill C-5 has been a long time coming. When the bill is adopted, and hopefully that will be soon, the 130 first nation communities in our country with petroleum production or the potential for petroleum production on their lands will finally be able to manage their oil and gas resources using the most modern regulatory audit and oversight tools available. And equipped with these valuable tools, first nation communities will be ideally positioned to fully realize their economic potential--the potential of their own resources, really--and in their own way and on their own terms.

So Bill C-5 is an important and long overdue piece of business, but it's not the only item, of course, on our collective agenda. As you and committee members well know, several weeks ago we discussed supplementary estimates B of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the fiscal year that ends March 31, 2009. That's just three weeks away.

I will tell you that I did enjoy that meeting for three reasons. First, it enabled me to share with you my thoughts on our recent achievements, our priorities, and the concrete steps we've taken to achieve those goals up until now and what we hope to achieve in the months to come. Second, it was an excellent opportunity for me to outline some of the important investments we're making through the supplementary estimates process. And third, and perhaps most importantly, all of the questions you asked--the very informed questions, I thought--following my presentation gave us all a chance to delve into a number of matters, both when I was here before the committee and afterwards with officials, and even subsequent to that in written form where we tried to answer the questions given to me. And I hope that's been useful, as I think we all are trying to find the right answers and explanations for what's going on in first nation, Métis, and Inuit communities across the country.

These are all important issues. They include everything from new homes, modern infrastructure, better education and schools, state-of-the-art water and waste water systems, an accelerated specific claims process and the tribunal that guides that, and honourable and long-lasting land claim settlements.

Following on supplementary estimates B, supplementary estimates C contain several long-term investments that will help the government and our provincial, territorial, and aboriginal partners take greater action on many of these fronts. To be more precise, this version of the supplementary estimates includes initiatives that total just over $118 million.

Before I go any further, I should point out that this $118 million does not require Parliament to appropriate new money, other than an increase to a loan vote for the preparation and negotiation of specific claims. Spending in supplementary estimates C is largely covered by funds available within existing reference levels, primarily attributed to claims reprofiling. These funds are being used temporarily to reduce the amount of new appropriation required, and they will be made available for their intended purposes next fiscal year. As a result, this investment does not increase my department's budget beyond the current $7.2 billion total for the 2008-09 fiscal year.

That being said, Mr. Chair, other specific investments listed in the Supplementary Estimates deserve mention. They are actions already taken to deal with some pressing issues, and I know this committee would want to be fully aware of them.

I know the committee wants to be fully informed or aware of these. Let's just go through them quickly.

First, we provided some $54 million to help residents of remote and isolated communities who suffered undue hardship as a result of rising fuel costs last year. Just prior to Christmas last year, I had several people from the committee approach me, as did a couple of the leaders in the House, who were quite concerned about the rising fuel costs in some of these remote communities. It was in the news. This $54 million was meant to address that hardship.

Secondly, we allocated approximately $26 million to empower first nation communities to address urgent and critical needs brought on by fires, floods, and evacuations.

Third, we invested more than $15 million to speed up even further our efforts to resolve specific claims.

And fourth, we added $10 million to the food mail program. This program reduces the cost of shipping nutritious food and other essential items to northern communities that lack year-round surface access.

These were effective responses to immediate challenges.

I should also point out, Mr. Chairman, that supplementary estimates C include a $44.5 million transfer between votes. This transfer allows the department to address critical pressures in the areas of fuel price increases for diesel generating plants on reserves; additional provincial education buildings for students from first nation communities who attend provincial schools; and the operation and maintenance of personal care homes in first nation communities.

Taken together, the investments contained in these supplementary estimates illustrate this Conservative government's focused approach to addressing the immediate concerns of northerners and members of first nation communities. Combined with the spending commitments contained in Canada's economic action plan, these investments also demonstrate that we're serious about addressing the long-term needs of men, women, and children in first nation and northern communities. In fact the government's approach can be summed up in three straightforward sentences. We're making pragmatic investments. We're working with partners. And we're getting results.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I look forward to answering your questions in the three areas: the investments we're making, the partnerships we've developed, and the results we're getting from those.

Thank you very much.

[John Dempsey]

On the Stoney Nakoda proposed amendments, I'd just like to make a couple of comments.

Since we first started this process back in 1998, Stoney Nakoda Nation has been a key part of our consultations. They've been a key part of all committees that we've put together. They are a significant oil and gas producer, so it was thought that they needed to be involved at every step of the way, which they have been. They've had members on all subcommittees. They've attended all meetings. They've received all the information about the proposed changes.

This change being talked about now isn't something that was formally raised through that process. There have been informal discussions about those types of things, but they were involved in the drafting of Bill C-5 as well. That proposal was never tabled within our committee structure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Members, we're going to proceed with consideration of Bill C-5. At this stage, as has been suggested by members, we're at a point where we need to consider, in light of the interventions that have been received thus far, how the committee would like to proceed in terms of our consideration of this bill. So I'm at the pleasure of the committee.

Mr. Duncan.

[Chief Carolyn Buffalo, Chief of the Montana Cree Nation, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, and good morning.

I want to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to make a presentation today on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations and also on behalf of my own first nation, the Montana Cree Nation, located at Hobbema, Alberta.

I don't know if this is something that's required of me to do, but I just want to make a brief comment. I thought I would just point out very briefly to the committee that I was on the legal team on the Samson and Ermineskin cases, which were heard in the Supreme Court of Canada, and on which there was a ruling on February 13. I just wanted to point that out for your information, although my role in the trial did not extend to the oil and gas part of the case.

The first thing I would like to say on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations is that we believe this bill takes important steps with regard to the sharing of royalties and resource revenues for first nations and also perhaps provides for the employment of first nation workers on projects that are taking place within their traditional territories. The position of the AFN is that these are laudable goals and that this will set an approach for work on related matters in the future.

We also believe that the federal government has taken the right approach in developing this legislation with a thorough process, which was begun over 10 years ago and involved over 130 first nations in dialogue. The bill, as I understand it, was developed jointly with first nation leaders to ensure that the interests of those affected were addressed. The AFN has said repeatedly that this is how federal legislation must be developed. We further note the ongoing responsibility of the minister to consult with affected first nations, set out specifically in proposed section 6 of the bill.

However, having said all of that, the AFN does have a concern about Bill C-5, which we believe can and should be addressed by this committee.

One of the things I also wanted to say to the committee is that in my conversations with other first nations, before I travelled here to Ottawa, I heard that the position of some other first nations was that they would have liked to come here and make presentations to the committee, but that because of the whole process we weren't given a whole lot of time. They still would like to be heard by the committee with respect to their positions on this bill. I just wanted to raise that timing as an issue.

We are also wondering why this legislation is being hurried. At least, that's the way it appears to me and to some other first nations. We're wondering what the rush is. What we would have preferred is that this legislation would have been heard together with the regulations, because as I understand it, we still haven't seen what the regulations pursuant to this legislation will look like. We would have liked the opportunity to review the regulations pursuant to the bill.

I wanted to state that for the record: that there are other first nations that would have liked to come here and make a presentation before this committee.

First of all, with respect to the more technical aspects of the bill, the AFN's position is that where federal legislation purports to speak to the management of the environment or the economy--in this case, oil and gas development and the resulting revenues--it's important to be clear about the relationship between that legislation and any related provincial or territorial laws.

Moreover, as part of fulfilling its responsibility to support self-government by first nations, the federal government must plan for and support the efforts of first nation governments to make laws governing our own communities. This is a very important point for us. The federal role may be to facilitate harmony between first nation and provincial or territorial laws; it cannot be to prevent development by first nations by asserting either its own continuing jurisdiction or importing provincial or territorial jurisdiction into application in first nation communities.

I would direct the attention of the committee to proposed sections in the bill, specifically proposed new sections 4.2 and 4.3, which read in part as follows:

4.2 (1) Regulations made under subsection 4.1(1) — other than regulations made under paragraphs 4.1(1)(a) to (d), (f) to (r), (v) and (w) — may incorporate by reference laws of a province as amended from time to time, with any adaptations that the Governor in Council considers appropriate. (2) Regulations incorporating laws of a province may confer any power or impose any duty that the Governor in Council considers necessary on any provincial official or body, to be exercised or performed on behalf of the federal government in the same circumstances and subject to the same conditions as those governing the exercise of that power or the performance of that duty under the laws of the province. (3) The Minister may enter into an agreement with the government of a province, or with a public body established by the laws of a province, respecting the administration or enforcement on first nation lands of any laws of the province that are incorporated by the regulations, including the exchange of information related to administration and enforcement of those laws. ........... 4.3 Regulations made under this Act prevail over any by-laws or other laws made by a first nation under another Act of Parliament to the extent of any inconsistency between them, unless otherwise provided by regulations made under this Act.

This is a point I have particular issue with.

I would also like to point to clause 2 of the bill, amending former section 6 of the act, by adding the following language, as you know:

(1.1) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, (a) require that a power of the Minister under this Act in relation to first nation lands be exercised only if prior approval of the council of the first nation is obtained, if the council is first consulted or if prior notice is given to the council, as the case may be; (b) require that any such power of the Minister be exercised only if prior consent is given by any first nation member who is in lawful possession of the first nation lands; and

I'm reading this really carefully because I'm mindful of the time constraints. There is also a proposed new paragraph 6(1.1)(c), the notice provision.

AFN is of the position that this bill would be stronger and would set a better example for other legislation with two small amendments: in the first line of proposed new subsection 6(1.1) by deleting the word “may” and replacing it with the word “shall”; and under proposed new paragraph 6(1.1)(a) by deleting the word “or” and replacing it with the word “and” .

I don't know that it's necessary for me to read what the text would look like with these changes, but the small changes would greatly improve the otherwise fine work done by the first nations and the federal government in crafting this piece of legislation.

That's what the Assembly of First Nations has asked me to present to the committee.

Other first nations to whom I have spoken have said that they believe there could have been more and better consultation than occurred. Some of the first nations have said that the bill was presented to them as a sort of fait accompli before they even had a chance to speak to the issue or say anything about what amendments they would like to see in the legislation. It was instead given to them already drafted, and there was not a lot of opportunity for the first nations to exercise influence over the content of the bill. I know that some of my friends would disagree, but that is the position of some first nations, and I have been asked to relay it to the committee. Despite the fact that we know there was some consultation, and we are appreciative and mindful of that, the position of some first nations is that there could have been more and better consultation done.

Another issue that some have had is that in the existing legislation and regulations the IOGC already has a number of powers and abilities available to it. The question for some of us becomes this: since these powers already exist but aren't being enforced, we wonder how effective this new legislation is going to be, given that there were powers already available to but not exercised by the IOGC.

The other thing is that Bill C-5 doesn't increase first nation control or input into the decision-making process. That's a key element that we say is missing from this bill.

Since this legislation does not address these concerns from the perspective of some first nations, there's no rush to amend the existing act. Therefore we're asking that you take your time and perhaps do more consultation to make this legislation more effective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, members, witnesses and guests. This is the meeting number eight of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. On the Orders of the day we have, pursuant to the Order of Reference dated Friday, February 13, 2007, Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act.

This morning we have two presentations, members. As the first, we'll lead off with Chief Carolyn Buffalo, chief of the Montana Cree Nation, representing the Assembly of First Nations. Second we'll hear from Mr. Eugene Seymour, the coordinator for the independent lobby to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act.

From our presenters this morning, we will have presentations of ten minutes. We will do each in succession and then we will go to questions from members.

Chief Buffalo, welcome. Please proceed. You have the floor for ten minutes.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I imagine you read the Ermineskin decision rendered by the Supreme Court on February 13. I know it's taken 20 years to settle that case. It concerns gas, oil and the Crown's trustship role that the minister must play.

I would like to know whether the Supreme Court decision of February 13 will have an impact on Bill C-5 or whether that's a thing of the past.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Minister, I've carefully studied this bill, which I find interesting.

I find it interesting that the Indian Resource Council, the IRC, still exists, but especially that it mostly consists of aboriginals who know the file.

Can we be sure that will be the case if Bill C-5 comes into force?

Indian Oil and Gas Act

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I probably will not be taking my full 20 minutes allocated to this bill. As members have heard already from both the government and the opposition parties, there is general consensus that this legislation is badly needed. It is very timely in the sense that it has been a long time that amendments have been necessary to the Indian Oil and Gas Act.

It also would appear, and we share in this sentiment, that it has widespread support from the first nations. I would signal in particular that the Indian Resource Council, which was formed in 1987 I believe, has come out very strongly endorsing the legislation. I am sure we will hear from the council that it is not absolutely perfect and maybe at committee some additional and probably minor amendments will be necessary. However, the council is quite strong in supporting the legislation and encouraging all parties to support it.

I think that has to be the controlling factor. The council is clearly identified as the group in the country among the first nations. It does have representation from a large number of the first nations, but it is the group that has been identified as dealing with this particular issue, this sector of the economy for the first nations, and it is quite supportive of the legislation.

This legislation goes back to 1974 when it was first passed in the House. It has not been amended since that time. Regulations were changed to some reasonable degree around 1995 but other than that the act has remained as it was in 1974. It is obvious that over that 35 years things have changed.

The relationship between the first nations and the Government of Canada has changed dramatically. As we finally began to recognize, we are nowhere near finishing that agenda, but we began to recognize the significance of working with them on a nation to nation basis on all sorts of issues.

That recognition in particular has taken first nations coast to coast to coast to the Supreme Court on a number of occasions, particularly around, as the Supreme Court of Canada has found now repeatedly, the requirement on the part of the federal government of the day to consult in a meaningful way with the first nations. The Supreme Court and the lower courts have as well found breaches of that responsibility repeatedly. Projects that were to move ahead had to be stopped and meaningful consultation taken up with the first nations.

It appears quite clearly that on this particular piece of legislation consultation has taken place. It actually was completed before the calling of the last election. There was a prior bill introduced by the government, Bill C-63 in the last Parliament, which basically is the same bill as we are seeing now in Bill C-5. That of course died on the order paper when the Prime Minister opted to break his promise and call a snap election in September. Otherwise, this bill probably would have been through the House and been law by this time. This was further extended by the government's dodging of its democratic responsibilities with the prorogation of Parliament last December.

We now have the bill in front of us. The opposition parties are generally supportive. It will go to committee for final review, but I expect, in listening to our critic in this area, that the review will not take very long, so we should see the bill back before the House fairly quickly, and hopefully quick passage on to the Senate and royal assent.

The intent of the bill is to modernize it, to bring it into the 21st century, and in particular there have been conflicts between the federal legislation and the provincial legislation. This goes some distance to clear that up.

The first nations feel that the relationship between the federal government and the first nations that are affected by the legislation will be enhanced by the amendments that are going through. The bottom line is that this would bring clarity.

There are a number of provisions in the bill around the responsibility of the minister to deal with environmental issues. Most often what happens is that multinational corporations come in to do the exploration and withdrawal of oil and gas from the site, including, in some cases, coal deposits, to which it extends, but in the course of doing that it can cause environmental damage. The minister has very clear authority to deal with the remedial action that would be necessary to correct that environmental damage but the minister would be given additional powers to do so, which is an important factor in the bill.

I was caught also by the responsibility of the minister to ensure historical sites, which would, almost exclusively, be for the first nations, are protected, as well as archaeological sites. Over the years, many times first nations have been rightfully indignant, angry and bitter over the treatment of their archaeological sites with no particular sensitivity to their spiritual beliefs and their historical importance. The legislation would strengthen the responsibility of the minister to ensure that sensitivity is assured and guaranteed. That would be a major improvement to the relationship between the Government of Canada and the first nations.

There are a good number of important provisions within the legislation that provide for an enhancement of the role of first nations in the governance of the oil and gas reserves that they have on their lands. That only goes to further strengthen their desire to be independent of control by the federal government. It is clear what the responsibilities are of the federal government, which will continue, but it also significantly enhances the role of the first nations, and that can only be seen as a positive development.

We will be supporting the legislation. I suppose it is always possible that evidence and witnesses at the committee may produce some concerns, but the strongly felt sense we have at this point is that, because of the substantial support from the first nations and the support from all parties, those concerns would be of a very minor nature and again it would be back here for quick passage, hopefully as early as within the next month or so.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-5 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. This bill amends the Indian Oil and Gas Act.

Allow me to summarize. The summary of this 24-page bill is worth reading.

This enactment amends the Indian Oil and Gas Act to clarify and expand the existing regulation-making powers and to add new ones, particularly with respect to licences, permits and leases for the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas on reserve lands and the determination and payment of oil and gas royalties. It also puts in place sanctions for contraventions of the Act as well as provisions for its enforcement.

The Bloc Québécois has always respected the rights of aboriginal nations. That sense of respect will inform the Bloc Québécois' participation in committee through our critic, the excellent member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who will defend the interests of both first nations representatives and the Quebec nation.

Naturally, the Bloc Québécois supports the principles underlying this bill. Despite its imperfections, the bill will provide the necessary tools to harmonize existing laws and regulations governing reserves with the laws and regulations of the provinces in which they are located. When this bill goes to committee, our party, the Bloc Québécois, will ask for more details about, among other things, the terms and conditions relating to authority to issue replacement leases for lands added to reserve and, subsequently, oil and gas exploration and exploitation permits issued by the federal government.

The Government of Canada must not use Bill C-5 to abdicate its fiduciary responsibilities toward aboriginals. We must clearly identify the oil, gas and lands that may be affected, as well as the federal government's fiduciary obligations toward aboriginal peoples.

The government is responsible for rectifying inequalities between aboriginals and non-aboriginals. We do not feel that this bill does that. This is part of a bigger picture; it addresses and resolves part of the problem, but it would be false to suggest that this bill can resolve or rectify inequalities between aboriginals and non-aboriginals.

I will reread the summary:

This enactment amends the Indian Oil and Gas Act to clarify and expand the existing regulation-making powers and to add new ones, particularly with respect to licences, permits and leases for the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas...It also puts in place sanctions for contraventions of the Act as well as provisions for its enforcement.

We can see here that Canada made a choice long ago to turn over oil and gas exploration and exploitation to the private sector.

Many countries in the world develop their own oil and gas resources. That is a choice. Canada, like the United States, simply decided to put this in the hands of private enterprise. When a country does that, it must pass legislation and provide for sanctions in the event that legislation is violated. Clearly, this is what part of this bill is intended to do.

I would remind hon. members that the development of a new fiscal relationship between the first nations and the Government of Canada has been the focus of discussions and analyses for more than 20 years. It has been talked about for over 20 years. As early as 1983, the Penner report, a report by the House of Commons Special Committee on Indian Self-Government, recommended that the fiscal relationship between the federal government and the first nations be redefined.

In 1996, the final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples—also known as the Erasmus-Dussault commission—also recommended a full review of the fiscal relationship between the federal government and the first nations. The proposed initiative focused on redefining this relationship within a broader context based on first nations self-government. The Tlicho self-government act that we passed in this House is an example of this.

The First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act, which came into effect on April 1, 2006, was one of the first steps in this new fiscal relationship between the first nations and the federal government.

This optional law contains two new provisions: the first makes it possible for first nations to manage and regulate oil and gas activities on reserves; the second, to manage funds held in trust for them by Canada. A first nation can choose either option. In other words, they need not own oil or gas to become responsible for managing these monies.

This legislation will change the way oil and gas are developed and it will allow first nations which are self-reliant to develop these resources on their own land. Previously, first nations have had to comply with the Indian Oil and Gas Act and its regulations, which has not allowed them to manage these resources directly.

The First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act allows first nations, that choose to do so, to be excluded from the application of the Indian Oil and Gas Act and its regulations.

That act, the Indian Oil and Gas Act, is the legislation governing exploration and exploitation of oil and gas resources on reserve land. This legislation does not allow first nations to manage the oil and gas resources on their land directly nor does it allow them to develop an appropriate regulatory framework.

Since 2006, the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act has allowed first nations, if they so choose, to create regulations concerning oil and gas exploration and conservation, on the spending of moneys derived from the exploitation of these resources, and on the protection of the environment.

As for regulations to protect the environment, those established by first nations will have to at least meet the standards of Quebec or the province in which the aboriginal community is located. This is important to us, the Bloc Québécois. Protecting the interests of Quebeckers is just as important as protecting the interests of first nations and aboriginal peoples. Obviously, the law that applies to first nations must be the same as the law that applies to Quebec.

In terms of managing their finances, those first nations choosing to come under this new legislative framework will be subject to different regulations regarding money. This money is currently defined in the Indian Act as all moneys collected, received or held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of Indians or bands.

For these first nations, the provisions of the Indian Act will no longer apply. They will therefore be able to manage the amounts collected directly, rather than letting them be managed by the federal government. As a result, they will be able to make their own choices for investment in their communities instead of letting the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development dictate priorities to them. Auditor General Sheila Fraser pointed out in her 2004 report that this department is not doing a good job of administering the billions of dollars intended for the aboriginal communities. The best way for aboriginal communities to do this is to negotiate with the federal government as equals.

If a first nation does not feel it would be advantageous to come under the new legislative regime, the current standards will continue to apply to it, so it will continue to benefit from the provisions of the Indian Act, including those that apply to the administration of Indian moneys.

Bill C-5, which is identical to Bill C-63 and Bill C-5, which died on the order paper June 17 and December 3, 2008, respectively, amends the Indian Oil and Gas Act.

It is important for those watching us to understand why bills die on the order paper. As we all know, this is because an election is called or the House is prorogued. In that sense, since the Conservatives have been in power, they have had the pleasure either of calling an election, even though it went against their own legislation regarding fixed election dates, or deciding to simply prorogue the House in order to stay in power. The adverse effect of that, of course, is that all the bills needed for the well-being and progress of the people, such as aboriginal communities in this case, are lost simply because the Conservatives decided either to call an election or prorogue the House.

At present, under the 2006 legislation, first nations that have oil and gas resources but are not managing them must leave the management of their resources to Indian Oil and Gas Canada, a government agency that falls under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Indian Oil and Gas Canada, or IOGC, has a mandate to manage and administer the exploration for and production of oil and natural gas resources on first nation reserve lands. This organization encourages production and ensures proper collection of royalties on behalf of first nations.

But the Indian Oil and Gas Act has not been amended since it was passed in 1974. Of course, in 1995 a regulation was passed concerning Indian oil and gas, but that is not satisfactory given how the market has evolved since 1974. As the industry has become more and more complex, provinces have constantly modernized their oil and gas legislation. And that is why the federal government is now deciding to modernize its legislation—to bring it more into line with reality and various pieces of provincial legislation.

This bill would apply to reserves that have not chosen to exercise rights under the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act. This bill would apply to first nations that are subject to the Indian Oil and Gas Act. That represents approximately 200 First Nations that produce or could be producing oil and gas.

Currently, more than 80% of these activities take place in Alberta. In 2005 and 2006, more than $270 million in oil and gas revenue was collected by the federal agency that manages Indian oil and gas resources, IOGC. This organization has signed active production agreements on behalf of 60 first nations.

This bill would give the same weight to the industry's activities both on and off reserve—based on provincial legislation—in order to decrease the number of obstacles to first nations economic development, in order to ensure environmental protection on the reserves and in order to allow the government to better fulfill its obligations to first nations in terms of managing these industries by respecting regulations and collecting royalties and other applicable types of revenue.

Under the Indian Act, oil and gas revenues are collected by the federal government and are then to be completely redistributed to native peoples. This money is referred to as “Indian moneys” in the Act and the federal government has fiduciary responsibility for it.

This bill does not transfer to first nations the federal government's power to manage and administer oil and gas exploitation and production activities on reserve lands.

Its purpose is to update the Indian Oil and Gas Act and harmonize the federal legislation with the legislation in the provinces where first nations communities are located. Incorporating the provincial acts and regulations will neither remove any jurisdiction from the provinces nor confer any jurisdiction on them. For example, reserves' environmental regimes will continue to be harmonized with provincial requirements.

The bill replaces almost all of the provisions of the existing six-section Indian Oil and Gas Act and includes a number of matters that are currently provided for in the Indian Oil and Gas Regulations, 1995.

Bill C-5 expands the Governor in Council's existing regulation-making powers and adds new ones, particularly with respect to licences, permits and leases for the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas on reserve lands.

The bill also makes changes in respect of the limitation period for actions to collect amounts owing and the determination of royalty payments. It puts in place sanctions for contraventions of the act as well as provisions for its enforcement comprising fines and penalties, a remedy for trespass, environmental protection clauses and authority to issue replacement leases for lands added to reserves.

It would be interesting to have more information about lands added to reserves and to know what measures are being put forward in negotiations with the provinces. The Bloc Québécois plans to ask some pointed questions about this in committee. We could ask what is meant by expanding the Governor in Council's regulation-making powers and how the provinces will be consulted before regulations are introduced.

For example, even though the bill states that these lands have been absolutely surrendered under the Indian Act or the First Nations Land Management Act, it would be interesting to get some clarification about the negotiation process with the provinces and obtaining a permit on these added lands.

The bill also requires the minister to undertake ongoing consultations with the first nations involved with respect to negotiations with industry. The new section 6(1.1) states that:

The Governor in Council may, by regulation,

(a) require that a power of the Minister under this Act in relation to first nation lands be exercised only if prior approval of the council of the first nation is obtained, if the council is first consulted or if prior notice is given to the council, as the case may be;

(b) require that any such power of the Minister be exercised only if prior consent is given by any first nation member who is in lawful possession of the first nation lands; and

(c) require that notice be given to the council of the first nation after the Minister exercises any such power.

Through Indian Oil and Gas Canada, and in cooperation with the Indian Resource Council, the government consulted most oil-producing first nations and 130 band councils in 2002 and 2003.

The Indian Resource Council was founded in 1987 to represent first nations' collective oil and gas interests with both government and industry. Current membership exceeds 130 first nations from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and the Northwest Territories. Six non-producing first nations in Quebec are also members: the Odanak Abenakis; the Natashquan Innus; the Kanesatake Mohawks; the Gesgapegiag Micmacs; the Kahnawake Mohawks; and the Wôlinak Abenakis.

Our aboriginal affairs critic met with Indian Resource Council delegates. Some council members are dissatisfied with certain aspects of the bill, but on the whole, the council is happy with the bill and the consultations that took place.

The Bloc Québécois will therefore support the bill in principle.

While far from perfect, this bill will provide the tools needed in order to standardize the legislation on reserves with that of the provinces where they are located. The Bloc Québécois will demand clarifications during the committee's study of this bill, for example, regarding the terms and conditions relating to authority to issue replacement leases for lands added to reserve, as well as oil and gas exploration and exploitation permits issued by the federal government.

The Bloc Québécois will ensure the Government of Canada does not use Bill C-5 as a means to slough off its financial obligations with respect to first nations. The Government of Canada has a fiduciary obligation to aboriginal peoples and it cannot shirk it.

Although passing this bill will engender improvements, the federal government must do a lot more for aboriginals. The housing conditions, education and health of aboriginals are inferior to those of the rest of population. On the reserves, most families—65%—live in substandard housing. The Bloc Québécois deplores the fact that the lack of affordable housing of adequate size and quality for aboriginals has consequences beyond simple housing standards. Various medical and social problems are linked to poor housing conditions and quality of life. The Government of Canada must make the effort needed to correct the situation without simply handing over the problems to the first nations.

Once again, although not perfect, this bill may help create an environment that we hope will be conducive to first nations obtaining resource royalties and reinvesting them in their own communities.

The Bloc Québécois is concerned about aboriginal claims for self-government. Autonomy cannot be attained unless a nation controls its economic levers.

I am the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel and my riding is adjacent to the Kanesatake Mohawk nation. It is important to try to understand others. Last year, I had a rewarding experience with young artists. The Centre de l'image et de l'estampe de Mirabel decided to sponsor aboriginal artists who are now touring Canada. For the past two years, this centre has taken under its wing young Mohawk artists from Kanesatake, our neighbours, and it has been an enriching experience with the results now touring Canada. It is an honour for a population that is often forgotten by governments and left to its own devices. When we try to help these nations to help themselves good things can happen. I hope that this bill will attain its objective.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today at second reading of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act. The Indian Oil and Gas Act was first introduced in 1974 and really has not had any major amendments. There were only some minor amendments in 1995.

This is the third time in as many sessions of Parliament that these more substantive and modernizing amendments have been brought forward. Unfortunately, between early elections and early prorogations, there has never been enough time in the parliamentary calendar for consideration of the substance of this bill. In fact, merely by getting to second reading, this version of the bill has outlasted its predecessors.

For the benefit of all who have a stake in this bill, there will hopefully be no more parliamentary hiccups keeping it from continuing through the proper legislative process here and in the other place.

Since the bill in its previous form was introduced in the last session, I have had the opportunity to read it and to study the background information explaining why these changes are needed at the present time.

In the past number of years, we have seen a massive increase in the natural resources sector in Canada, particularly in oil and gas exploration. My own riding, while not known for its onshore oil and gas, has significant offshore potential. We are also one of Canada's main mining regions, and in fact the Voisey's Bay nickel project in Labrador is an example of how resource industries and aboriginal peoples can work together.

The people of my riding are also well acquainted with the oil and gas industry in other parts of Canada, especially in Alberta and other western provinces, where many of the people I know have gone to work on petroleum industry projects. The recent economic downturn is affecting these industries, just as it is touching all industries and sectors of the economy.

We on this side of the aisle are very concerned about the economic direction of the country and the need for stimulus in the short term to get people working and get industry moving. However, in the long term we also have to look at making Canada a good place to do business and taking the steps to ensure that our resource and other industries will resume their growth and provide jobs for the future.

We also have to take steps to ensure that first nations people are brought in as true partners and participants in the development of natural resource industries.

During the latest boom, many mining and petroleum projects were crying out for employees, due to an acute labour shortage. Despite the current economic situation, the long-term trend is that Canada will require more skilled workers in all sectors of the economy, including the natural resources arena.

At the same time, there is a large and growing population of aboriginal Canadians, and far too many aboriginal communities are at an economic disadvantage. There is an incredible opportunity here to develop the industries with aboriginal people as owners, participants, partners and workers over the coming years and decades.

Modernizing the Indian Oil and Gas Act is one step that may help achieve these goals in respect of oil and gas exploration and development on first nation reserve lands. This bill contains a number of technical changes to the way oil and gas resources on reserves are administered and managed. I will describe the broad strokes of these changes.

The bill addresses the regulatory gap between on and off reserve oil and gas activities. Second, the bill would expand the powers of councils of first nations to delegate any of their powers under the act to any other person, effectively allowing first nations councils to hire experts to act on their behalf.

The law would also require a minister to exercise his or her power under the act only if the council of an affected first nation has given its permission. The bill includes a non-derogation clause, which states that nothing in this act shall be deemed to abrogate the rights of Indian people or preclude them from negotiating for oil and gas benefits in those areas in which land claims have not been settled.

A new section added to the bill governs the payment of royalties from oil and gas recovered on first nation lands, which are paid to the Crown in trust for the first nation in question. There are also greater audit capabilities.

There is a new section providing further powers to make regulation for the purposes of the act. One interesting provision, from my point of view, is the power to require petroleum operators to employ members of the first nation in question in the exploration or development of oil and gas from first nations lands.

Again, my own riding saw similar issues during the exploration, construction and development of the Voisey's Bay project.

I look forward to hearing more about how similar adjacency or hiring rules will apply under this bill to the oil and gas industry.

I will also be interested to learn from the experiences of first nations in other parts of Canada, who may have valuable lessons for people and communities in my riding.

My party's position is that we support the bill in its broad strokes and agree that a package of amendments must be brought forward for consideration. I have already had productive meetings with some of the stakeholders, like the Indian Resource Council and look forward to hearing other points of view, both one on one and in committee. It is in committee that I trust we can get down to some of the details.

The industry is generally positive towards the package of amendments contained in the bill, indicating that it will bring greater clarity, strengthen accountability and enhanced protection of first nations, environmental, cultural and island gas resource. If there are differing viewpoints, I look forward to hearing them once the bill has been referred to committee.

With the new spirit of openness and co-operation that is said to pervade in Parliament these days, I trust that all parties will be interested in hearing from a number of witnesses representing those with an interest, one way or another, in this legislation.

I also trust that the government will be willing, where appropriate and necessary, to be open to amendments if the committee's work leads us in that direction.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have the pleasure of introducing Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act.

In the recent Speech from the Throne, the government committed to take steps to ensure that aboriginal Canadians fully share in economic development opportunities and this legislation is a concrete example of that commitment.

The oil and gas sector provides a real source of promising economic development opportunities for first nations. Few other countries in the world can lay claim to the secure, abundant and diverse energy resources we enjoy in Canada. This energy wealth has fueled tremendous economic growth in many regions of the country.

The world's need for Canada's oil and gas holds significant promise for development for many years to come.

Since the government was formed, we have made clear our determination to ensure first nations share equally in our country's prosperity and that they are able to build stronger and self-reliant communities that can manage their own affairs.

Bill C-5 would help to advance these goals by enhancing Canada's capacity to assist first nations in managing their own affairs. The management and administration of oil and gas resources is governed on reserve lands by the Indian Oil and Gas Act and it is administered by Indian Oil and Gas Canada, a special operating agency within Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

The mandate of Indian Oil and Gas Canada is to assist in fulfilling the Crown's fiduciary and statutory obligations related to the management of oil and gas resources on reserve lands and to ensure first nations initiatives for greater control over the management of their resources. In practical terms, this means that the agency issues and administers agreements on first nations lands, monitors oil and gas production and collects royalties for the benefit of first nations.

I will now speak to why the existing act needs to be amended.

The legislation under which Indian Oil and Gas Canada operates has not kept up with the times. The act first came into force back in 1974 when the industry was in the midst of a global energy crisis. Since then, most provinces have overhauled their laws and updated their regulations numerous times. For example, Alberta's legislation, the Alberta mines and minerals act, which governs resource development, has been amended more than 15 times since the 1970s. In contrast, the Indian Oil and Gas Act has remained unchanged for the past 34 years. We need to change that.

Furthermore, oil and gas exploration and exploitation on reserve lands and the revenue that these activities generate are significant. Over $1 billion in revenues from on reserve oil and gas activity have been collected on behalf of about 60 first nations over the past five years alone. This revenue is credited to those communities in its entirety. The industry is continuing to invest millions of dollars in exploration and exploitation activities on first nations reserve lands, more than $300 million in the past five years for drilling alone.

I realize that these amendments are very technical in nature but they are important. The broad changes brought forth can be grouped under three themes: first, amendments that would bring clarity to the oil and gas regulatory process; second, amendments that would ensure and strengthen accountability of Indian Oil and Gas Canada; and finally, amendments that would enhance the protection of first nations environmental, cultural and natural resources.

In terms of bringing clarity, once adopted, the amendments would ensure that the role and powers of the minister and reference to the courts are clear and provide for broader regulation-making authority. They will, equally important, allow federal regulations governing oil and gas projects to be harmonized with provincial oil and gas regulatory regimes. Co-operation with provincial authorities is key.

I want to make it clear that Bill C-5 would not increase the jurisdiction of provinces. It would allow for federal regulations to be made that are consistent with provincial laws, which is important to create clarity and certainty for both first nations and industry.

Enforcement powers would be clarified, as well as modernized. The current act limits fines to $5,000. This would be increased to $100,000 per day and sometimes more could be imposed by the courts.

In areas of high risk, such as the seizure of records and equipment, this would all be governed by relevant Criminal Code provisions and overseen by provincial courts. These amendments would ensure that the government, through Indian Oil and Gas Canada, can provide certainty and consistency for first nations, for industry and for provincial stakeholders.

The amendments that strengthen accountability to act on behalf of first nations by Indian Oil and Gas Canada are examples such as clear audit powers for Indian Oil and Gas Canada and accurate reporting and paying of royalties due to first nations when companies operate on reserve lands.

As another example, rules would be put in place to address complex relationships, not only between unrelated corporations but also between an existing corporation and its subsidiaries.

Bill C-5 would authorize new regulations to prevent companies from using non-arm's length transactions to unjustifiably reduce the royalty which would otherwise be payable to first nations. A company would not be able to sell oil or gas at a reduced price to a company it already owns in order to pay less royalty.

Furthermore, the limitation period to commence legal proceedings would be extended to 10 years and there is no limitation period in cases of fraud or misrepresentation.

The final set of amendments deal with enhancing protection for first nations' environment, cultural and natural resources. These amendments would balance the development of oil and gas resources with environmental protection. This is of interest to all Canadians. The current act has limited remedies in the case of non-compliance. Under the amendments, provincial environmental laws can be incorporated by reference into the federal regulations that apply to first nations reserve lands.

It is very important, of course, that anyone doing work on a reserve respect first nations' cultural and spiritual values and their special relationship to the land. Bill C-5 would authorize the minister to suspend operations of a company if areas involving these special values are at risk.

There are some further concerns from first nations. They wish to have a remedy when companies trespass on their property. With this legislation, there would be specific offences so that Indian Oil and Gas Canada would have more options to deal with these breaches.

A key policy objective for the government is ensuring our legislative framework supports first nations. The current Indian Oil and Gas Act falls short in this area. Many first nations are concerned that they will not be fully benefiting from the increase of exploration and development taking place around them. The Indian oil and gas industry is equally frustrated.

The reason behind these changes is to provide consistency and certainty to the oil and gas regime. That is one side of the equation. For the affected first nations, the revenue generated by this activity translates into increased economic development, new jobs and improved living standards.

The money being raised is used by first nations for training, housing, water and sewer projects, building stronger communities and a brighter future for their children. This modern suite of tools will better enable first nations to seize opportunities.

The amendments, as I mentioned, are very technical in nature. The first nations have been asking for these changes, and Canada started the process to modernize the act in 1999.

The Indian Resource Council is a national aboriginal organization advocating on behalf of 130 first nations with oil and gas production or the potential for production. We had extensive consultations with first nations and with oil and gas interests. First nations have validated the principles embodied in the legislation and have made suggestions for improvements.

Most noteworthy was the need to amend and modernize the legislation, and this need was endorsed by the Indian Resource Council at annual meetings in 2006 and 2007. Thanks to this close working relationship, oil- and gas-producing first nations have had the opportunity to influence the development of the amendments and will be called upon again to participate in the development of the regulations that will flow.

This support is reassuring, but the council went even further in order to make sure all communities with oil and gas interests had the opportunity to become fully aware. It held a symposium earlier this year in Alberta. Over 100 members representing more than 60 first nations attended. Their involvement and support were encouraging, and we are on the right track. We will continue to work in partnership, and this will lead to greater first nation control and management of petroleum resources on their lands.

The key to unleashing this potential lies in modernizing the legislative framework. Strong regulatory regimes are essential for both economic and social development. That is why we are bringing the Indian Oil and Gas Act up to 21st century standards.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

moved that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome those questions from the opposition House leader.

In a few moments we will be voting on the second reading stage of Bill C-10, the budget implementation act. Also, the House will approve supplementary estimates (B).

I would like to take this time to thank all members for their cooperation in accelerating the consideration and approval of supplementary estimates (B) including and especially my cabinet colleagues who responded with little notice to invitations from the various committees to study these estimates.

After the votes, we will continue with the debate on Bill C-4, not-for-profit legislation; followed by Bill C-9, transportation of dangerous goods; Bill C-5, Indian oil and gas; Bill C-11, an act to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins; and Bill C-3, Arctic waters. All these bills are at second reading.

Next week is a constituency week when the House will be adjourned.

As the House is also aware President Barack Obama will be visiting Canada next week. Since the House will not be sitting, I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of all members of the House, to welcome the President to Canada. We hope he has a productive and enjoyable visit here in our nation's capital.

When the House returns from the break, we will continue with the list of business I mentioned earlier and in addition to these bills Tuesday, February 24 and Thursday, February 26 will be designated as opposition days.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What you've suggested in terms of moving the briefings up and hoping we'll get to Bill C-5 is fine with us. When you talk about a Statistics Canada presentation, that will have to be broad in terms of aboriginal peoples. I mean, there's an Aboriginal Peoples Survey out there as well, and it would be good to get some feedback on that.

Now, I'm open to it, but if we're talking first nations, we're talking Métis, and we're talking Inuit as well? So that's the gamut?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

If we can't address Bill C-5, I'd like to talk about post-secondary education and get briefed on the current state of affairs. There are issues. I'd not only like to hear from the representatives from the department, but also from the Assembly of First Nations. Many people have asked me to raise the issues of post-secondary education and education in general at committee, so that we have an opportunity to ask the officials what's happening. You don't just fix the problem by building or renovating schools. The amount earmarked for post-secondary education is a discretionary sum and that's something that needs to be discussed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All right, that's fine.

I think there seems to be consensus that it's okay if we stay public for the time being.

Is that okay?

As I mentioned, the subcommittee met last Thursday and briefly considered what we have in front of us. By and large, members agreed that with two potential bills in front of us in the fairly near future, we ought not to proceed into any substantive studies. Therefore, we opted, as we did today, to receive briefings and updates from relevant departments on three topics, the one we did today, of course; and on Thursday there will be an update on the TRC and the residential schools issue, and where we stand on that issue; and a third meeting will be an update from Statistics Canada and the First Nations Statistics on their work as well.

The understanding now seems to be that Bill C-5, the Indian oil and gas bill, may not get through the House this week. They're putting it off until the week after the break, perhaps. When we had our discussions on Thursday, we considered that in all likelihood we would have the oil and gas bill commencing in the week after the break. But it appears that might not happen now.

At your pleasure, I think we should consider moving the Statistics Canada meeting and update to February 24, and then consider having an additional briefing day on February 26. That will leave the first week of March open, hopefully to receive the bill on Indian oil and gas. So that's the proposal.

I have a question from Monsieur Lemay.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the opposition motion today concerning the possibility of growing trade protectionism in the United States.

Tomorrow we will carry on with the remaining legislation that the government scheduled for this week, Bill C-4, An Act respecting not-for-profit corporations and certain other corporations, and Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act.

Next week we shall begin and, hopefully, conclude debate at second reading of the budget bill. Following the budget bill, we will call Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, and any legislation that is not completed this week.

Thursday, February 12, a week from now, shall be an allotted day.

Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to take a moment to thank all the opposition House leaders, whips and leaders for their patience, flexibility and cooperation while dealing with the budget bill. Although we do not see eye to eye on all of its contents, I appreciate the cooperation when dealing with the somewhat complicated process to bring such a measure before the House.

It does not benefit anyone to get bogged down on process but there is a benefit to the public when we can get to the substantive policy debate that the budget bill will offer and, ultimately, to ensure the timely disbursements of the benefits it intends to provide Canadians during these difficult times.

Despite the daily partisanship of questions period, this is clear evidence that if all of us work with the best interests of Canadians in mind, Parliament can work the way that Canadians deserve and expect it to.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

The minister may only be here for an hour, but he will have to understand that committee members will be extremely frustrated. This is especially true in the case of the current minister, Mr. Strahl. I know that he likes to appear before the committee and I know you'll mention to him that we would like to keep him here for two hours, since we do have a number of questions for him. Of all the ministers, he is the one who has done his homework best so far. In fact, he has just tabled two bills and he will certainly need to explain them to us. So then, let's invite him initially to answer questions about the estimates, and then invite him back for one and a half, or two, hours to talk about bills C-5 and C-8.

Admittedly, ministers have not spent a lot of time testifying before the committee since 2004, but Mr. Strahlhas gotten into the good habit of regularly spending up to two hours with us, and I'd like to see that continue.

Indian Oil and Gas Act

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)