Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 5th, 2009

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

Well, that is part of the problem, and I do agree with Chief Buffalo's comments about changing that particular section—

[Eugene Seymour]

Yes, it has to be properly--

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

--from “may” to “shall”. But there isn't binding consultation, generally speaking.

[Eugene Seymour]

But there's reference to it.

Now, because there's so much opportunity here, we want this whole stimulus initiative enshrined in a federal statute. Because when you deal with different departments....

If they're prepared to put their economic development stimulus into a federal statute, I say this to the Conservatives. By all means, take the federal economic development stimulus law, and add this in along with other matters, as long as it's a federal statute.

I'm part of the lobby group, not just on the Indian Oil and Gas Act, but to amend the Department of Indian Affairs Act.

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

So, Mr. Seymour--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Stay on this one.

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

If I could interrupt, I think I'm almost out of time.

Again, I completely agree with this. I'm just not clear this is the appropriate place to do it.

This bill deals with a number of aspects of how first nations can access and manage the resources on reserve. But when you're talking about this next phase, I'm not clear. The challenge we've had is that many things aren't enshrined in statute.

Monsieur Lemay has pointed out with respect to post-secondary education, for example, that the department claims it's a policy initiative rather than a legislative initiative. This applies to many, many different aspects of how the department deals with first nations. Although I have great sympathy for enshrining it in statute, I'm not clear how we could argue the case in this particular piece of legislation.

[Eugene Seymour]

I agree fully with you on that argument. When they brought forward the Indian Oil and Gas Act, in 1974, we asked why you should need another act when paragraph 57(c) under the Indian Act allows the government to make regulations to cover all this.

In our collaborations on Monday night with Roy Fox of the Indian Resource Council, he said that all this act is doing is amending the regulations or giving them force to make it obligatory on the Governor in Council in the regulations. We could have done all that. But now that it's in existence--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Seymour, unfortunately our time is up.

I think there was a question to Chief Buffalo. If there is something Chief Buffalo wants to comment on with respect to Madam Crowder's intervention, then you'll have to do that at the next opportune time.

We're going to go now to Mr. Duncan, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses this morning.

For Chief Buffalo, I have to say that the words from my colleagues in the opposition parties resonate, from the standpoint that we've had consultations that have gone on for ten years. We had witnesses before the committee earlier this week and it became very apparent that, of the 130 first nations that either are producing or are potential producers, essentially all of them would choose to opt for this piece of legislation.

This is a serious piece of business and we're trying to have some sense of urgency. We don't want the same thing happening that happened previously with this bill. It got introduced and then, for one reason or another, ended up not getting through the legislative process. There is some sense of urgency and there's a feeling that real progress, real economic development opportunities and possibilities, are missed as long as this regime is not in place. That's coming directly to us from earlier testimony.

So I guess my question is this: when does consultation end? If you put another set of amendments forward, technically and theoretically you could argue, all over again, in another round of consultations. We've had people who were actually very complimentary about the degree of consultation that has gone into this specific piece of legislation. That's where my question would lie.

For the other witness, Mr. Seymour, the question I have is that I'm having some difficulty understanding actually who you represent and understanding whether you're a registered lobbyist. Exactly what is it?

I'd also like to point out that 25% of the businesses associated with this industry that would fall under the Indian Oil and Gas Act are already first-nations-owned. As recently as yesterday, I had discussions with Indian interests that are very serious about a refinery venture. They are completely oblivious to this bill. This bill makes no real difference in what they are attempting to do.

Further, I'd like to say that every lobby group from every sector would love to have their funding envelope put under statute, but government can't operate that way. I think what you're requesting is rather extraordinary and is not a direction that governments want to go in. I'd like you to comment on that.

Those are my questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Go ahead, Chief Buffalo. Then we'll hear Mr. Seymour.

[Chief Carolyn Buffalo]

Okay.

I thank the committee members for their questions. I take very seriously the concern that you have raised. I think the issue centres around the whole issue of consultation. It's an issue that's being talked about very much these days. I think that in my first nation, we would take the position that a lot of the consultation is really not meaningful.

Did anybody come to me and ask me what I thought? I've only been chief since last October. I have not participated anywhere where I've had the opportunity to let anyone know what my particular thoughts are on this legislation.

I also have a question for the committee. I take very seriously your question about your time constraint. You want to go into clause-by-clause review, and I understand that, but I would just like some clarification. I would just like to ask this. I'm mindful now that the committee has quite eloquently pointed out that this legislation was tabled in the House a year ago. I understand it was the same text. Is the whole purpose of holding the committee meetings not another opportunity for us to come forward to state our position? Is that not what we are allowed to do? This is a public process. This is going to be federal legislation. This is going to have a direct impact on our communities. Are we not allowed to come forward? I understand the time issue, but are we not allowed to come forward and say these are some changes that we would like to see?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, we'll leave that question on the minds of members if they wish to comment on that. We only have 30 seconds left for Mr. Seymour to respond to Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Seymour.

[Eugene Seymour]

I'm an independent volunteer in this lobby. We started our whole initiative through the consultation process with the Indian Resource Council when Roy Fox reached out to involve other first nations communities, when he went downstream to talk to the independent gas stations at Akwesasne. There was a wholesaler in that meeting and then we all decided on this package. Then we brought it to the AGM of the Indian Resource Council, which unanimously approved it, and we brought it to other groups, like the Akwesasne Petroleum Co-op, which approved this initiative.

I'm just volunteering to present this, but because I've been involved in this legislation since 1974 I got tagged with keeping the file together and having to present this here to you today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much, Mr. Seymour.

Members, we're finished the first round. We'll proceed to the second round and we'll go to Mr. Bagnell for five minutes now.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Yes, and I might share my time with Mr. Regan.

Ms. Buffalo, are you an employee of AFN?

[Chief Carolyn Buffalo]

No, I'm not.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

You're representing them as their chief, okay.

I sympathize with you, but I don't think you should be too worried that you didn't have a written submission. We get lots of witnesses at committees who don't have written submissions in both languages, etc. Also, I understand how overwhelmed AFN must be with the many jobs they have to do. We have one federal government with a quarter of a million employees; AFN represents over 600 governments and with very few employees. I know as a chief you're overwhelmed with your demands, so I sympathize with you.

I'd just like to ask you this. It is a bit late coming in. Is it not your sense, representing the entire AFN and the 600-plus first nations, that a vast majority of the ones that have these resources in their territory are generally sympathetic and would like us to go ahead with this, as imperfect as it is?

[Chief Carolyn Buffalo]

You're asking about my sense of it?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Well, you're representing AFN, which represents 600 first nations. I'm just saying that my sense from the witnesses is that the vast majority of the ones who have the actual oil and gas on their territory would like us to go ahead with this, imperfect as it might be, to at least get it in place as a start. I'm wondering if that's your sense, as a representative of all the first nations.

[Chief Carolyn Buffalo]

My sense is that some first nations would like to see this proceed and are in agreement with it, but others are not. The Assembly of First Nations represents many governments, and even the ones that are oil and gas producing and have oil and gas on their lands, such as mine, are not all in favour.

We're not all of the same mind on every issue; we can't be. We're part of a democratic process as well, and we're not all going to agree. I believe that my job speaking for the AFN is to represent all of those interests, not just the ones in agreement with the legislation. The other ones have voices and positions, and they deserve to be heard as well.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

As Mr. Lemay said, we have had one letter from one who has some concerns with it.

Geoff, do you want to speak?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

To Mr. Seymour, I'm not a regular member of this committee. I'm our critic for natural resources, which of course is certainly related. But the bill is about royalties and ensuring that the ability of the government to make sure that first nations receive the royalties they should is in the regulations--calculating that, and all those kinds of things. It's not about the kind of economic development you're proposing, yet I'm not aware of anything in the present law that impedes that.

We saw the letter from Minister Strahl talking about centres of excellence. I think you're saying you'd rather have that enshrined in legislation. I don't see how this is the right place to put it.

As to Chief Buffalo, the fact that you're here indicates that you are entitled to come here and bring forward your concerns, which you're doing today. The point that members have been making is that in deciding what we're going to do about that, we each take into account the fact that this is the first we've heard of proposed amendments of this nature after this has been before Parliament--or the identical bill previously--for a year now. Those are concerns.

When I look at subsection 6(1.1), it seems to me that enabling the government to do this is a positive step. But regardless of this provision, when a government makes regulations there are at least 90 days before that comes into effect. During that time there can be consultation, you can react, you can create media about this and get reaction to it.

We have the process of the joint committee on scrutiny of regulations here in Parliament that examines regulations and can challenge them if they're problematic. So there are a number of other means to react to whatever regulations come forward. But the fact that you're putting into legislation something that at least provides another incentive, another reason to make sure there's consultation, seems to me to be a positive step.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That's it, unfortunately. We're out of time.

I don't know if you have a brief comment. No.

Mr. Albrecht.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank our witnesses for being here today.

I want to follow up on your positive overall view. You indicated these are laudable goals and the employment and economic opportunities for first nations people will be advanced and generally it was the right approach. You then went on to point out it's been in process about ten years.

My concern is that you come here and suggest it's a hurried process now and that you would like to have seen the regulations first. My position would be this would further bog down any potential progress and in effect reduce the opportunities for economic development. I just want to get that on the record.

The other thing you mentioned is that some of the first nations are not in agreement. With due respect, I think I can understand that, but my position is that today you're speaking on behalf of the AFN, and it would have been good for me to know the position of the AFN after having done all their consultations at their level. To me, it would seem it's their responsibility to bring their position here for us to grapple with. We cannot take into account every single first nation person's input in terms of giving them what they want. We listen to them, yes, the same as my constituents. They don't agree with everything I vote for, but I have to listen to them to arrive at my final position. You would have helped me today by coming here with the official position of the AFN. We heard from the IRC and we heard their position. As has been pointed out by my colleagues, virtually 100% of the 130 first nations communities that have oil and gas, or the potential, support what we're doing. I encourage you to be here, but it would have been good for me to hear the official position of the AFN, as you're the spokesperson.

Mr. Seymour, you point out the need for vertical integration and value-added activity. I would like to ask you if the proposals that Minister Strahl and Mr. Fox commented about, the centres of excellence for business development, and also proposed paragraph 4.1(1)(v), where it talks about

requiring, to the extent that it is practicable and reasonably efficient, safe and economical to do so, an operator to employ persons who are resident on reserves that include first nation lands on which the exploration or exploitation is being conducted.

It seems to me those two proposals in the overall material that we have here address many, if not all, of the concerns you're bringing to us. Can you comment on that?