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.