Mr. Bevington.
Evidence of meeting #59 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was public.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #59 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was public.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move that clause 2 of Bill C-47 be amended (a) by replacing line 30 on page 21 with the following:
45. The Commission must, in exercising its....
and (b) by replacing line 6 on page 28 with the following:
67. The Commission must, in conducting its....
Can I speak to this amendment now?
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
What we're doing here is indicating a need to ensure that public hearings are not subject to the whim of the board, that they will be conducted on every matter of importance, and in review of land use plans, these rules are followed. As usual, it's simply a case of making sure the rights of the public are protected here in all matters that deal with land use planning.
Mr. Chair, and fellow members, once again, we're dealing with a culture and a society that puts land ahead of almost every other value. The land use planning commission, in its work, is going to be considered with great importance by the people of Nunavut as they are with first nations across this country.
To have a commission that may hold public hearings is not adequate. We need to ensure that this commission will perform its public duties.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Having no other speakers on amendment NDP-7, we'll now move to a vote.
(Amendment negatived)
We're on amendment NDP-8.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-47, in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 23 the following:
48.1 When the carrying out of a project is allowed by the Commission, any new or revised land use plans applicable to the project do not apply to the licences, permits or other authorizations required to be obtained by the proponent.
Mr. Chair, this was actually a recommendation brought forward by the mining industry to ensure some certainty over what they are doing. In the understanding that the development of resources is a cooperative effort between the land owner—government—and the resource owner—government—and industry, this was something that would give some certainty to the industry that this would occur in the fashion that would be useful to them, that they wouldn't be undercut by changes to land use planning processes that may impact upon the business they are doing.
It also suggests that if there are changes, there is some protection given to industry as well, that they can negotiate on those changes by the fact that they do have the ability to hold back. In the spirit that you understand, we're not opposed to development, and we're not opposed to people coming in and doing work on the land, and their interests have to be protected as well.
What we have here is an amendment that I'm sure all of us around the table can agree on in principle. Perhaps the Conservative members may not want to support it because they have a reluctance, it seems, to think that anything within this bill needs improvement.
I would leave it at that. I'm hoping we will get the support for this amendment as with all the other amendments we're putting forward in good faith.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Amendment NDP-8 will go to a vote.
(Amendment negatived)
Because amendments NDP-9 and NDP-10 are consequential, if NDP-9 is adopted, then NDP-10 is adopted as well. If it fails, then subsequently NDP-10 fails as well.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Chair, this is to do with the section that includes “existing rights and interests”. I'm going to quote from the NTI document because this is a bit of a complicated argument.
What we are arguing with this particular amendment is that the existing rights and interests be considered only in the context of the factors contained in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Part of the argument throughout this has been that it's important that there be consistency between the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and , the Nunavut piece of Bill C-47.
The argument is:
Article 11 of the NLCA contains a carefully negotiated balance of factors that must be considered in the development of a land use plan in Nunavut. It requires, for example, that plans provide for “development” as well as “conservation,” and that all types of “economic opportunities and needs” be considered. There is also specific direction that a land use plan take into account both “the natural resource base” and “existing patterns of natural resource use.” The addition of a requirement that the Planning Commission, governments and Inuit consider “existing rights and interests” when developing or accepting a land use plan undermines that careful balance.
They go on to say:
...this provision is overkill. Existing rights and interests are already given special status elsewhere in the Bill, over and above their treatment in the NLCA. The Bill’s “grandfathering” rules prevent an approved land use plan from prohibiting a land use that is already being carried out (subsection 69(3)). The inappropriateness of giving “existing rights and interests” separate status in the plan approval process is especially obvious in the case of plan acceptance by the designated Inuit organization. Inuit organizations should not be required to privilege non-NLCA considerations in their decisions.
Mr. Chair, I think it's an important note just in terms of consistency between the NLCA, the protections that are already outlined in the NLCA, and making sure that Bill C-47 is consistent with those protections that are already outlined. I'm hoping that we will have the support of all members on this particular amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Not seeing additional speakers, we'll now go to a vote on amendment NDP-9.
(Amendment negatived)
That fails, and as a result NDP-10 fails as well.
We're on amendment NDP-11.
Conservative
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Well, sometimes it can be considered a demotion as well, with all respect to our current Speaker, who's doing a fabulous job.
This particular amendment is:
conduct their activities and operations in accordance with it.
This is around clarity of language. It's just making sure that there's a consistency with the language.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Seeing no speakers on NDP-11, we'll vote.
(Amendment negatived)
We're on amendment NDP-12.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-47 in clause 2 be amended by replacing line 14 on page 28 with the following:
exercise their powers and perform their duties and functions in conformity with it.
This hardens the requirement that all government bodies at all levels comply, operate, and conform to land use plans. That is simply, once again, an amendment that strengthens the use of the land use plan. If I could, I'll speak to that briefly.
Land use plans are sometimes not all that well received by government. That's my sense of it. If you look at the government of the Northwest Territories and its attitude toward the Dehcho interim land use plan, you will see that there's a great deal of anguish that these governments have over their loss of authority over land. That's what land use plans do. They give certainty to industry, to the people, about what is going to happen there, but it also takes away the discretion of government to make different choices. I have found over the time that I have worked on land use planning issues—probably for two decades—that governments are very reluctant to give up that kind of authority. We want to strengthen this language so that people who buy into and rely on this process of land use planning as a surety, whether it's industry, whether it's the public, get that, and they understand that the land use plan will give them surety.
That's why we're concerned about the language. We're concerned that the language gives that protection to people.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
All those in favour of amendment NDP-12?
(Amendment negatived)
On amendment NDP-13.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Chair. this is, again, just about clarity:
69(1) Without restricting the generality of section 68, each regulatory authority must, to
I won't read the rest of the proposed subsection. It's simply making sure that the two proposed sections, 68 and 69, fit together.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We're voting on amendment NDP-13.
(Amendment negatived)
We're on amendment NDP-14.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
On amendment NDP-14, there is an addition after line 7 on page 30:within a reasonable time after receiving a written request from the Commission, send a copy of the licence, permit or authorization to the Commission.
Again, it clarifies roles. It's just a piece of the legislation that will make clearer where the commission has the authority to ask for this.
(Amendment negatived)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We're on amendment NDP-15.
Amendment NDP-15 is consequential to NDP-16. Again, if the first is adopted, so will amendment NDP-16 be. In the case of its being defeated, so too will amendment NDP-16 be.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Chair, the amendment would replace line 10 on page 32 with the following:
(e) the responsible Minister has decided under this Part
This is to add clarity. It also refers to other provisions for the minister's power to avoid implying incorrectly that these sections confer the powers.
You mentioned amendments NDP-15 and NDP-16.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived)
Amendment NDP-15 fails, so amendment NDP-16 does also.
We're on amendment NDP-17.
I should let you know that, again, this impacts amendments NDP-18 and NDP-39. Its success will be transferred to those. Again, if it's defeated, so will amendments NDP-18 and NDP-39 be.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
The word “judgment” is spelled differently throughout the document. It should be fixed.