Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 5th, 2009

[Chief Carolyn Buffalo]

Thank you.

I do realize it does appear from my remarks that they're not consistent; however, I think I was consistent. I have said that, yes, there was some consultation, there was some discussion. I don't speak for the IRC, but yes, you're right, we do have some substantive concerns with the legislation.

I'm sorry, I didn't write down all of the points you raised, but as to the main part of your question about my presentation being inconsistent--

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I didn't say that your presentation was inconsistent. I just said that what you were saying was seemingly inconsistent with what the IRC was saying.

[Chief Carolyn Buffalo]

Right. Well, I'm not here on behalf of the IRC.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Is there a way forward? If we have to make these substantive amendments we are certainly going to run into a longer timeframe than we had anticipated. And I'm not saying that we're there yet.

This legislation has been on the books for ten years; changes to the Indian Oil and Gas Act have been on there for ten years. It's been introduced in Parliament. I think this is the third time it has been tabled in Parliament. It really hasn't gotten to this particular stage for no other reason than that Parliament was prorogued or what have you. So I'm just wondering if there's a way forward here that allows us to go through it in a fairly smooth manner.

[Chief Carolyn Buffalo]

We would all like that, I think, but as I said in my remarks, there are some first nations that would have liked to have been in attendance before this committee to present more of their positions on some of the more substantive aspects of the legislation. I didn't get to touch on all the issues that other first nations, and my first nation, have concerns about.

The main thing I would suggest is that we just not rush through the legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have to keep to our timelines. We'll have to go to Mr. Seymour at this point.

Thank you, Chief.

We'll go to Mr. Seymour.

[Eugene Seymour]

No, but you have to be very, very skilful to find ways to do all that we're promoting. The reason we present this is to provide a stimulus to promote vertical integration and value activities to create opportunities that will assist economic development within Indian communities.

I'll read from my brief:

When you look at the billions of dollars of oil and gas production taken from first nations lands, and compare that with the economic realities within many first nations communities, it is easy to see that it makes more sense to encourage first nations to participate instead of focusing simply on maintaining a dependency on a welfare type of society.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay.

[Eugene Seymour]

I submit that--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All right, go ahead.

[Eugene Seymour]

--from day one to present, if you do the accounting, there has probably been more money taken from oil and gas and other resources on Indian lands than the total Department of Indian Affairs budget all put together.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Unfortunately your time has expired.

We now go to Mr. Lemay.

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

Chief Buffalo, I am very concerned by the fact that the Assembly of First Nations comes to us with specific demands concerning this bill which has been tabled one year ago. I remember that this committee—on which I was sitting as my colleagues will attest—had requested to all interested First Nations to send us information, reports, briefs, in other words, their position. We have not received anything. The bill has died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of the House. It is the same bill that we have before us today, one year later.

This morning, the Assembly of First Nations comes before us without any document, without any brief, with a substantial number of proposed amendments. As a lawyer I verified the bill. I am flabbergasted. I must say that I rather agree with my friend Mr. Russell. I don't know what to do today. It may not have been today that we were going to consider the bill clause by clause but it shouldn't take too long. This surprises me, all the more because—and I will try to pronounce their name correctly—the Indian Resource Council of Canada, the IRC—I think that some members of that group are here today—came before us and told us that it had consulted 130 nations or communities. There is something missing. I looked at subsection 4(3) of the bill. I take issue with you on this matter but without debating the issue, I would have liked the department officials to have responded to your request which I find entirely legitimate. I am quite convinced of this.

What should we do this morning, I ask you? Should we suspend our discussions? Should we defer this matter for six months or a year from now? Do not forget that after this bill, there is the bill on matrimonial property. We also want to undertake a study on education. Clarify this for me because I must admit that I don't know what we should do this morning considering the proposed amendments you are submitting to us.

[Chief Carolyn Buffalo]

I do apologize. I should have had a written text submitted to this committee prior so that you would have had an opportunity to review it in both French and in English. So I do apologize for that, and I will endeavour to get this text over to you as quickly as I possibly can.

Although the changes, I believe, would be very beneficial to the bill, they're not that cumbersome. I don't think they will take that long to consider, but I think they would improve the legislation.

As far as what the IRC has presented, they have spoken with some first nations and they have canvassed opinion from various first nations. But, as I said, many first nations are not of the view that this consultation was very meaningful. Even though there are substantive issues with respect to the legislation, for example, the incorporation, by reference, of provincial laws, which is going to lead to a patchwork of laws across the country, because provincial laws are different...those kinds of things are not insignificant, but they will affect us. The form of consultation that took place was more of a “Here it is”. From the perspective of some of the first nations I have spoken to, they didn't think it was adequate and meaningful enough.

I know that my friends on the IRC would disagree, but that is the position of some first nations I have spoken to.

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

Allow me to say this, and I speak frankly, that I have considerable respect for you. I am on the side of First Nations. Those who are here know me. I will defend them as best as I can, but as far as I know, and correct me if I am wrong, the Indian Resource Council is made up mostly of First Nations people who are directly concerned in these areas… Let me show you here: consultations have taken place in British Columbia, in Alberta, in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba, in New Brunswick, in Ontario. Let me ask you why the proposed amendments were not submitted to the Indian Resource Council where you have lawyers paid a handsome sum to study and prepare amendments and submit them to the government. You may think, and quite correctly, that these are minor amendments, but let me ask you a single question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Ten seconds, Monsieur Lemay.

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

Good. Excellent.

How can we go about amending subsection 4(3) so as to satisfy your expectations? This causes me a serious concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Maybe we'll let you think about that and perhaps incorporate that into one of your other responses, Chief Buffalo.

We do need to move on, so we'll go to Madam Crowder for seven minutes.

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

I'm going to continue in the vein of my colleagues. I'm referring to issue paper number 4, “Outreach and Communications”, which you may not have. I'm not going to read the whole thing, but I just want to go over the consultation process that was outlined for us. I have no reason to believe this isn't accurate.

It says that:

...it was recognized that there was a need to modernize the Indian Oil and Gas Act and Regulations. This decision was based on informal discussions that began in 1998 with the Co-management Board of Indian Oil and Gas Canada to ensure that Canada had a modern regulatory regime—

—and so on.

In mid-2000 a set of “guiding principles” on how the department will reach out to stakeholders was developed by the co-management board and tabled in September 2000 at the annual meeting of the oil and gas producing first nations in Regina. By 2001 discussions on the proposed changes to the act and regulations had been held with tribal chiefs associations in central Alberta as well as with over 50 first nations in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. As a result, first nations overwhelmingly supported the “guiding principles” and the process of modernizing the regime.

There's a lot more detail in here. It goes on to communication with stakeholders:

In 2002 the initiative begun to modernize the Indian Oil and Gas Act was established. A partnership between the department and the Indian Resource Council was formed to focus on the proposed changes.

A stakeholder involvement package was done and there was outreach done. In 2006 the IRC and the minister agreed to resume the work initiated. It went to the Indian Resource Council annual general meeting in 2006. A resolution was passed unanimously providing support to the process relating to the proposed changes. In 2007 it went to the AGM, and so on and so on and so on.

It seems to me that this process began in 1998, so I too am struggling with a process that has been going on for 11 years to suddenly find out, just before we're going into clause-by-clause, that there are proposed amendments. I think you've already talked about that. But we've only had one letter. And that's an option for people who want to communicate with the committee, to provide a written brief. We don't always need witnesses to appear. There has been over a year for people to start signalling their dissatisfaction with the bill and we've had one written brief—aside from Mr. Seymour's, which is a bit different, and I'm going to come to you in a minute—that expressed some concerns.

So I'm concerned that this information has been out here and at the last moment we're getting requests for amendments to the bill. I would urge anybody who's listening and paying attention to the committee, get your information in within the next 48 hours. If you've had concerns, you've obviously had time to work them up.

I want to come to Mr. Seymour for a minute.

I don't disagree at all with what you're presenting. However, there is an “and”. The notion of vertical integration in value-added I think is a very valuable aspect of economic development, capacity-building, business development for first nations. I'm not sure that this bill is where it belongs. It seems to me that part of what you're suggesting could be part of the economic development proposal the government has put forward. Despite the fact that I vehemently disagree with their Bill C-10, they have put forward initiatives in the bill around first nations economic development. My understanding of part of what you're asking for is that it could be integrated into the economic development package that has been proposed. So I'm not clear why it would need to be an amendment in this bill, and maybe you could explain that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Seymour.

[Eugene Seymour]

That list you refer to, is it going to be established in a federal statute? Or what's the government program?

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

Well, when the government speaks to you, you could actually incorporate that in your response to them. I'm not going to give them time to answer on my time.

[Eugene Seymour]

This is why we're here in the Indian Oil and Gas Act. We want it as a federal statute so when we have to deal with people in the Department of Indian Affairs, we could tell them, look, this is the law. Be assured that when I was here back in 1974, on the Indian Oil and Gas Act there was no such thing as binding consultation—

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

There still isn't binding consultation. There are court decisions—

[Eugene Seymour]

Well, in the act it says “shall”.