Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 5th, 2009

[Eugene Seymour]

No, they don't, but they're going in the right direction.

When you put together a consultative agency like a business centre, that's not going to have a cashflow from the crude oil coming out of the ground to the retail sale and retail gas station outlet right away. It's going to have people there to provide professional services and training for first nations people to learn how to run their own exploration drills.

With regard to moving in the right direction--and what we're proposing would be far too broad a range to be addressed by this committee--I submit to the committee that maybe a name change would be appropriate. Call it the Indian Energy Act, with oil and gas as part of it, vertical integration and financial incentive programs another part, and alternative energy another part. You fully involve the first nations in opportunities on their lands, as opposed to the narrow scope that was established over a century ago in 1898 to get the first nations person to surrender his mineral rights and then lease it to somebody in the oil industry. In over a century we have to start modernizing. If we're modernizing, let's modernize our whole methodology and allow the Indian to sell oil and gas directly from his land.

Dr. Lorraine Ruffing came to the Department of Indian Affairs in the 1980s recommending, after her study on leasing agreements in the Navajo reservation, that you're far better served, instead of getting this surrender leasing arrangement, to get into a sales contract agreement. I was terminated from the Department of Indian Affairs, the Indian mineral section, in 1970 for suggesting the band not surrender anything to lease, but instead sell in a sales contract. They asked how the band could do that. They don't know how to take it out by contract. In the contract it's still a mandatory employment clause and on-the-job training.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That's it, Mr. Seymour; I'm sorry. Thank you very much.

I have one speaker left. Mr. Rickford, you have five minutes.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome the witnesses.

I have a few questions. I share some of the concerns of my colleagues today about this news and the level of dissatisfaction that I'm hearing.

I'll start with you, Mr. Seymour. Would you not share the view that the role of government in this process is to provide a platform vis-à-vis legislation for the kind of economic development that you're advocating today as voluntary?

[Eugene Seymour]

Yes.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Isn't this kind of legislation, in the pith and substance, set up...? We heard witnesses on Tuesday talk about the necessary role for the government in this process vis-à-vis this legislation. Could it be said, then, that we have something here that is going to be an enabling instrument for those kinds of business opportunities in terms of both vertical integration and value added? Is that a fair statement? Does this set the table nicely for it? Isn't that the responsibility of the government?

[Eugene Seymour]

You're going in the right direction, but it's not enabling legislation enshrined in a statute. It will become a policy within the department. Like everybody who's worked in the department knows, there will be a reorganization. We were way down the road in discussions with the departmental official referred to us by Jim Prentice. We were making marvellous headway with Jim Prentice and we misconstrued the fact that we thought he was a junior--

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I'm sorry to interrupt you. I understand, Mr. Seymour, but what we're talking about is the difference between law and policy here, and the right, the flexibility, and the necessity for a government to maximize its role by shaping policy as a result of laws.

The economic development initiatives of this government are aimed, inter alia, to economic development in areas of energy and in areas of forestry, for example. We have a record in those regards. That's what I'm seeking clarification from you on.

[Eugene Seymour]

Yes. We see that policy would be able to address the matter, but it's not going to be enshrined forever. Once you pass it in law--

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Okay. We'll agree to disagree, then, on the idea of whether a government should be lawfully bound in economic development policy.

[Eugene Seymour]

Yes, absolutely.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I'll keep that one for myself.

Before my time is up, I have a couple of questions for Chief Buffalo. Is your position today the position of the AFN, or your position?

Furthermore, you mentioned “some communities”. Could you give me a sense of how many “some communities” represent, and would you be prepared to disclose for the benefit of the committee who those communities are?

[Chief Carolyn Buffalo]

Thank you for your questions.

On the specific amendments I read out, that is the position of the AFN. Those are the amendments of the Assembly of First Nations. They asked me to speak here today. They said that was their position.

As I said before, these are laudable goals, and we're thankful to the committee for all your work on this, but there are still some outstanding issues.

With respect to the second part of the question, about which communities, as far as some of our specific more technical and substantive issues are concerned, I'm speaking directly on behalf of my first nation, but I've also spoken with those who are involved with the Stoney-Nakoda nations.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I'm sorry...?

[Chief Carolyn Buffalo]

The Stoney nations: Wesley, Chiniki, and Bearspaw. I've spoken with officials from there, and they have these concerns as well. I also have been speaking with some of the legal team that worked on the Samson case.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

So “some” would be...? Could you give me a general idea of how many communities?

[Chief Carolyn Buffalo]

Five.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I have no further questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Rickford.

Members, there are no more speakers or questions at this point. I think at this stage we will suspend momentarily until members can determine which steps we take from there. This will give us an opportunity to bid our presenters adieu, and we'll proceed from there.

So we'll suspend and resume in several minutes. Thank you.

[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.

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

I think what we have agreed on is that we'll have two witnesses from the department, from legal services, so that we can ask questions about the proposed amendments and any other questions we might have. After hearing from Karl and John--I forget their last names--then we can make a decision at that time whether to move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

So we'll welcome back, at least in one case, departmental officials and we'll get your name cards in place here momentarily. This is for the express purpose of providing clarification, or for questions that members may have in respect to the testimony that we've received.

We'll proceed then. Are there questions?

Mr. Regan has the first question.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much for showing up so quickly. It's amazing. No, I know you obviously were here watching anyway and waiting for the clause-by-clause process, which we may be coming to at some point. We'll see.

The main question I'm left with is about the suggestion from Chief Buffalo about clause 2 of the proposed bill, which talks about section 6 of the act and amends section 6 of the act. She suggested that “may” should be changed to “shall” and that the “or” down in proposed paragraph (a) be changed to “and”. What I'd like to ask you is what are the implications of that, and what difficulties would it create, if any?

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

Proposed subsection 6(1.1) is the Governor in Council regulation of power. What it does is give discretion to the Governor in Council to make regulations. As a drafting convention, “may” is used in respect of regulation-making authority so that the Governor in Council would not be obliged to make regulations because we don't know the content of what the regulations would be. It would force the Governor in Council to make these regulations and the effect of it would be that it would require the minister to ask to have prior consultation and prior approval in any case, which would basically slow down the whole process.

In a nutshell, this would force the Governor in Council to make regulations without knowing exactly what was intended or what kinds of approvals or actions would basically be targeted by possible regulations.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

If you put aside the question of the “or” for the moment--the “and” and the “or”--and just said “shall”, requiring that the minister not exercise his power unless he's got either prior approval of the council or prior consultation or at the very least prior notice.... It's hard for me to imagine a situation when you wouldn't have one of those in any event. At least one of those surely would be appropriate. To say that you shouldn't have to give prior notice, it seems like the least that you would have to do, and it seems to me that a government in any event would have to do that.

How do you respond to that?

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

Mr. Chair, sorry, I'm confused about exactly what section we're on. Could you just identify that?