Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 10th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Yes, Ms. Crowder. If the committee is in agreement with this direction, then we'll have to consider where we go from there. We'll listen to speakers on this particular point and then decide from there.

Mr. Duncan.

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

Mr. Lemay is before me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Oh, pardon me. Yes, you're right.

Monsieur Lemay.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to say that I'm having a bit of a hard time with this. Obviously, I agree with my colleagues Mr. Russell and Ms. Crowder. When the committee meets, it has an obligation to respect the wishes of First Nations. The Stoney Nakoda First Nation has asked to meet with us. Members of this First Nation have sent us some fairly technical draft amendments in English only. We informed them that these amendments could not be tabled unless they were translated.

Could we possibly ask officials with the Indian Oil and Gas Commission to examine the draft amendments? If we receive these amendments and they are tabled in both official languages—something they intend to do—then we'll need to delay the clause-by-clause study phase. There are 12 pages of amendments in all, a not insignificant number. Their lawyer contacted us in the past several hours. Since we know they plan to table these draft amendments, can we at least prepare ourselves in advance for this moment? Can we ask Mr. Crowfoot, Mr. Jacques and Mr. Dempsey to take a look at these amendments and get back to us with some answers on Thursday?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That certainly seems reasonable, Mr. Lemay. I don't want to jump the gun here. If we go forward with this, we'll have to wait to hear the testimony of the witness, and the committee will determine from there if further work is needed.

Were you suggesting that we hear from officials today on that question?

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

Mr. Chair, it's no simple matter asking officials to come and give testimony. I don't know what they will tell us. Judging from what the lawyer for Rae and Company has told us, these individuals plan to come and table some amendments. I think we need to prepare ourselves for that day. I don't know if any of you have read the questions from members of the Stoney Nakoda reserves, but I personally don't know what answer to give them as far as the amendments are concerned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay.

We're going to go to Mr. Duncan and then Monsieur Bélanger.

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

If we had to summarize our position, I guess it would be that we're okay with Thursday for the Stoney Nakoda chiefs. I believe we should hear from them before we hear from the department officials. For the rest of this meeting, I think we should talk about future business. Assuming that we're successful Thursday, we'll need a subject for next week and ongoing meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Monsieur Bélanger.

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify something. I agree with the idea of hearing from the witnesses on Thursday. I'm wondering if it might not be wise to postpone our clause-by-clause study of the bill until the following meeting. I'm not saying that amendments should be suggested, but if that's the case, we'll have some time to address them.

Furthermore, it would give the department and the council time to react to the testimony. That way, on the Tuesday after the break week, we would have everything we need—whether from the department, the council or our own research offices—to proceed with the clause-by-clause study of the bill, including consideration of the amendments, if necessary. We would have time to prepare ourselves and to give notice of the proposed amendments. By allowing us this wiggle room, we would have ample time to prepare properly for this phase of our work and we would thus be able, in my estimation, to dispense fairly quickly with our study of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That was going to be my next question.

We may want to consider what the second hour could be used for on Thursday if it would be advisable at that point. If, under your suggestion, we move clause-by-clause to the Tuesday after the break, we may want to use that session to dispose of outstanding questions and then be prepared to go to clause-by-clause on the following Tuesday.

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

Or perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could use more than an hour with the witnesses, depending on the nature of the discussions we have at that time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I'm sort of following up on that.

First of all, I agree with what Mr. Duncan said. Hopefully, we can talk about future business today when we finish this. It would follow what Mr. Lemay and Mr. Bélanger said if we spent the first hour on Thursday hearing the witnesses and asking questions. In the second hour we could get the officials' response to those issues, as Mr. Lemay was saying. We already have it in writing, and I'm sure the department has it in writing. As Mr. Lemay said, some of it is pretty technical. Maybe the officials could give us some technical ramifications of the amendments that have been proposed for us to think about over the constituency week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We're talking in terms of having officials available in the latter part of that two hours on Thursday. To Mr. Lemay's point, would you also wish to have representatives of the IOGC, the regulator, in attendance for that?

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

The answer is yes, Mr. Chair. I would even go a little further. The document in question has been made public, in that these individuals sent it to us. Admittedly, it has not been translated into French and therefore cannot be tabled to the committee, but the fact remains that all committee members have received it. I suggest that departmental officials familiarize themselves with it, so that they are ready on Thursday to answer questions. I'm a lawyer, but I admit that I'm finding it very difficult to understand all of the ramifications of the proposed amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Monsieur Lemay.

Mr. Albrecht.

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

Mr. Chair, it appears the committee has pretty well decided which direction to go, but I want to be on record as being disappointed that we're heading in this direction.

Our minister indicated this morning that the process has been ongoing for eight to ten years. This bill is identical to the one that was introduced in the last session. The Indian Resource Council has done significant consultation with all 130 groups that are represented. My concern is that we're setting a dangerous precedent. If we're going to open this up to one community, what is going to stop another community from coming to us at the eleventh hour—and we're at the eleventh hour now, at 11:30—and asking for consideration?

I think we have to realize that the bill isn't perfect, but the Indian Resource Council and the government have come to an agreement and this is their proposal. My concern is that we run the risk of delaying this further and, as I said earlier, of setting a dangerous precedent when a group that has been charged with the consultation process has come to us indicating support for it, but now we're going back and opening up that discussion again.

So I'm prepared to go with the committee's decision, but personally I think it's the wrong direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Monsieur Lemay.

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

Most likely I would agree with Mr. Albrecht if the first nations that have asked to be heard were more or less concerned by this bill. As it happens, I've learned that the Stoney Nakoda reserve is located in close proximity to Calgary, an area with major gas and oil development potential. Therefore, I've reversed my position. These communities are indeed directly affected by this bill. Consequently, I believe they must be heard by the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Monsieur Lemay.

Ms. Crowder.

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

I think it's important to recognize that the Stoney Nakoda have done a substantial amount of work over the consultation process and can demonstrate they've consistently raised concerns with the bill, both prior to Bill C-5 and prior to Bill C-63. They have the documentation. It's not that they were consulted and were in agreement. I think it's very important that they do come before the committee. Again, they have a substantial amount of documentation to support their contention that they have continuously raised issues with this piece of legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you.

Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not going to repeat the arguments that have been made by Ms. Crowder and Mr. Lemay. It was my understanding that there is general agreement from all sides that the Stoney Nakoda will appear in the first hour on Thursday, with officials responding to some of the written and oral arguments that are going to be made for the second hour. We would have clause-by-clause on the Tuesday after the constituency break week.

I know there are probably good arguments to be made, and I appreciate where Mr. Albrecht is coming from, but is that the sense of the committee? I think we should at least dispense with this portion of how we're going to move forward.

[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.