Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 24th, 2009

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

It might be worth hearing from the officials on this. The catchment of the motion is talking about consultations, proposed amendments. There may be none, in which case it would be a nil report in terms of that aspect of what's being asked for. Other than that, if the officials have some concern, I'd like to hear what they have to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We'll go to Monsieur Lemay and then we'll hear from our officials if we can.

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

Mr. Chair, we are going to support Ms. Crowder's amendment.

I will answer Mr. Duncan. Several acts of Parliament require reports every two years. That is what is intended here. But, in proposed clause 6(1.1), it says: “(1.1) The Governor in Council may, by regulation...“ Without an amendment, a report on the progress of the consultations will clearly not be mandatory. But it is interesting to see that the proposed amendment makes equal mention of proposed regulations and regulations made under this act. I recall very clearly that that was what the Assembly of First Nations was asking for, as well as the nation whose name I have forgotten again. We act as legislators, but we respect the will of the First Nations. So I think that Ms. Crowder's proposed amendment precisely reflects the will expressed by the people of the Stoney Nakoda First Nation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, let's hear from Mr. Jacques or Mr. Dempsey with regard to Mr. Duncan's inquiry.

[John Dempsey, Director, Policy, Indian Oil and Gas Canada, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Indian Oil and Gas Canada has no real concerns with the proposed amendment. The oil- and gas-producing first nations we have been working with for the past ten years have been involved throughout the process, and they will continue to be involved in the consultation process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Considering that the first paragraph in Ms. Crowder's amendment is, for all intents and purposes, the same as.... I'll leave Mr. Bélanger's amendment out of it for the moment, but does the addition of (a), (b), and (c) represent any implications you could comment on?

[John Dempsey]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Albrecht.

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

I'd like clarification, Mr. Chair. I have a concern with the wording of (b), where it refers to “proposed regulation”. Is this implying that the proposed regulations could not be implemented until it was seen by the report to Parliament? To me, that would seem to slow down the process.

Maybe I'm not understanding the spirit of the motion, but I'd like clarification on that, because the last thing we want to do is slow down the process of allowing first nations to fully develop their resources.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Are you seeking clarification from the department?

Are there any comments, Mr. Dempsey or Mr. Jacques?

[Karl Jacques, Senior Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

The concern is a valid point, but there is a process for making the regulations already, so I don't know whether that would imply they would have to be subject to any precondition. To make these proposed regulations conditional, that would have to be stated more clearly, in my opinion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Madam Crowder.

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

Certainly, if you read the motion, it doesn't say that there's any concurrence or agreement or anything else. It simply says “a summary addressing the following matters”, so it's simply that the information would come before the committee, or a report would be made to Parliament, and the committee could determine if it was going to look at it. But it can determine that now. It's just formalizing the process more in terms of a reporting. It's simply a summary of proposed regulations.

It's just a way of making sure that we've noted the concerns raised by first nations that have come before the committee in regard to the fact that there is some sort of oversight process. Certainly, again, the committee now could call the department before it to consider regulations in the works. There's nothing in this to indicate that the committee will need to approve or disapprove or whatever.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Albrecht.

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

Mr. Chair, could I just ask Ms. Crowder to clarify for me the difference between (b) and (c)? The one talks about regulations, and I agree that we're already privy to that information, but the other talks about proposed regulations, so what benefit is there to adding (b)?

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

As we know, government grinds exceedingly slow. I've been involved in another committee where the regulatory process was taking seven years to develop, so I would suggest that a report every two years to talk about regulations that are in development isn't onerous or unreasonable. Sometimes a committee has played a role in encouraging the department to move more quickly on actually developing the regulations instead of just proposing them.

Again, I think it's a way for the committee or Parliament to have oversight of whether the regulatory process is being developed in an expeditious manner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Monsieur Bélanger.

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

I'm seeing that this likely will be adopted, so I will express my wish, then, to amend Madame Crowder's motion in (c), “any regulations made under this Act”, and add to that “and describe any variations in the regulations from province to province”, which is essentially the last bit from my amendment.

I'm after any variations between jurisdictions across the country, so if that were a friendly amendment, it might simplify things, such that (c) would read: “any regulations made under this Act and describe any variations in the regulations from province to province”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay.

You'll note that this is the same wording as the last phrase of Monsieur Bélanger's initial motion.

Now we're discussing the subamendment.

Ms. Crowder.

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

I just need a point of clarification.

Are you talking about provincial regulations from province to province? Because federal regulations would apply, in my understanding, from coast to coast to coast.

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

Maybe and maybe not.

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

Okay, but are you asking specifically, Mr. Bélanger, around federal regulations that differ or provincial regulations that differ?

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

This says “made under this Act”. Therefore, it has to be regulations made by the Government of Canada. The concern I have expressed, and the reason I'm going to make sure that my concern is addressed, is that because we are saying the government can basically adopt provincial legislation and regulations in the catchment in applying this act, there may be, therefore, variations that flow from that. I want to know that. That's all.

If our regulation is to apply to provincial regulations, then there will obviously be variations, and I want to know. That's the purpose of this. There's nothing nefarious and nothing hidden. It's just to make sure that the legislator knows what the executive is doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Ms. Crowder.

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

I think that makes absolute sense.