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.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
I think it's an important question, so if you want to expand on that I'd be happy to.... I like succinct answers. When I used to cross-examine, those were exactly the responses you wanted, but here perhaps we can be a little more verbose.
Senior Counsel, Negotiations, Northern Affairs and Federal Interlocuter, Department of Justice
In the language selections we made for drafting the bill and the mechanisms and structure of the bill, obviously clarity was one of the fundamental goals that we were seeking. The choices that we made in those regards, we think, it's the government's view, are the clearest way of expressing the thoughts and requirements of the land claim and the bill itself.
As I said earlier in my response, there were differences of opinion on the language and the drafting, but our view is that the language and drafting of the bill itself is the preferable language and drafting and the clearest way of expressing the concept.
Senior Counsel, Negotiations, Northern Affairs and Federal Interlocuter, Department of Justice
My colleague was mentioning that the differences in the language in the bill are not, generally speaking, differences in interpretation of the land claim agreement between NTI and Canada. They're just differences in how to express that and the language used to express that.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
The time has come to end the first part of the meeting. We will now suspend for a few minutes to set up before we go into clause-by-clause consideration.
We'll suspend and be back in five minutes.
February 7th, 2013 / 10:01 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Colleagues, we'll call this meeting back to order and begin the process of going clause by clause.
I'm hopeful that everybody has all of their amendments and is prepared to work through this with me. We do have over 50 amendments, so we will get as far as we get today and then we'll continue at the next meeting.
We are considering clause-by-clause of this bill, and we will move to clause 1 now. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is proposed at the end of the consideration of the bill.
I'll therefore call clause 2 of the proposed act.
(On clause 2)
I notice there are a number of amendments with respect to clause 2. NDP-1, I believe, is the first one.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not going to read my amendment as everybody has a copy of it, but there are a couple of comments I want to make on it.
There seems to be a difference of opinion in drafting versus substance. A number of the amendments I've presented are NTI's amendments. To reiterate NTI's position on this, they feel it's important that the legislation before us be consistent with the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. In their view, there is some substance with regard to these amendments, and these amendments will ensure consistency and transparency with the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
On this first amendment, they are suggesting that clause 2 of the bill restricts the definition of “department” or “agency” to the public service, with the result that the Governor in Council is excluded from the list of bodies responsible to implement terms and conditions of approved land claims use, plans, and project certificates.
It's the implementation piece that's important in their view. Therefore, I'm proposing amendment NDP-1.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Not seeing anybody wanting to speak to that in addition, I'll now call the vote on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment NDP-2.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
On NDP-2, it's the same argument, “regulatory authority means the minister”. It's including the minister.
Again, it's around the implementation piece and clarity.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Not seeing anybody in addition wanting to speak to that, we'll vote on amendment NDP-2.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment NDP-3.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
In amendment NDP-3, there are a couple of pieces. One of them is around the addition of “except after close consultation with the designated Inuit organization and must be published in the Canada Gazette”.
Consultation is an important part of a process and needs to be clearly outlined in the legislation. We've certainly heard concerns around the participant funding aspect of it, but I think if we at least agree that consultation needs to be included, it would be important to state that in the legislation.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We'll take a vote on that.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on amendment NDP-4.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
On amendment NDP-4, again, it's in the same light of conducting public hearings and debate throughout the land use planning process.
On conducting public hearings and debate through the land use planning process, this is about promoting public awareness and discussion. With regard to this, one of the things we've heard the government say is that the Nunavut piece of this legislation had an extensive consultation process. That's been verified by many of the witnesses; people appreciated the consultation process.
We heard the Nunavut Planning Commission talk about the importance of the work they've done. I believe they said that in 90 days they'd been to numerous communities throughout Nunavut. It is important that this aspect of being able to conduct public hearings throughout a planning process be recognized in legislation and then be appropriately funded. I won't talk about funding at this point because I'm going to get a chance to talk about that later.
This would be an important amendment so there is that clarity, that consistency, in the legislation.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I'm recognizing some people who want to intervene on this.
Go ahead, Mr. Genest-Jourdain.
NDP
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain NDP Manicouagan, QC
I cannot emphasize enough the need to put forward proactive measures to encourage popular support and citizen participation. History shows that literacy rates in remote areas are quite low, and there is very little participation in both democratic and political life. That's one reason why, given the strong Inuit presence in that area, we should make an effort to go and meet with people.
It is important to always bear in mind that these are fundamentally oral cultures and that these people need to deal with human beings. We need to go there and meet on site with the local population. These aren't substantial amounts that are involved; it's simply will. Government representatives need to go there and, first and foremost, and encourage that a position be taken. Documentation needs to be provided so that the position is very clear and that the population has everything it needs to take a position on a given issue. So, these remote communities need to be given plenty of training.
That is all I have to say.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I think this amendment is important in a couple of respects.
One of them, of course, is what my colleague, Mr. Genest-Jourdain, was talking about, which is the fact that for affected communities on these lands, it is quite different from being in a farming area in Alberta, where the land use is predictable. It's fenced. There's a very clear outline of where the land use is happening.
Here you have a situation where there's a small number of people in scattered communities over huge areas. Their understanding of land use is completely cultural and completely traditional. It needs an expression that takes on a lot of importance when you come to it. If you don't do it correctly, as I've seen so often in the Northwest Territories, if you don't conduct proper consultation, you end up in bad situations.
I can think of times when, in sitting on environmental impact assessment boards, we had the opportunity to review companies that went out and talked with people about land use. It became clear after a while that the adequacy of that process fell down because the people they were talking to didn't understand the process. They didn't understand clearly how the law applied to them and how they could use the law to put forward the issues that they considered important, such as the movement of caribou.
We saw that with the diamond mines in the Northwest Territories. The first nations knew there were going to be impacts on the caribou, but unfortunately they couldn't project that in a good fashion. They didn't understand the underlying principles of the law that was being applied there because it hadn't been given to them in a good and proper fashion. They didn't have the opportunity to stand up very strongly on these issues. We have ended up with a situation in the Northwest Territories where linear development at the three diamond mines that exist there has now impacted the caribou herds and has very strongly impacted the subsistence hunting that takes place on that land.
Without public process, you're going to have a situation where that sort of thing can happen again, so it's very important that it be identified.
The second reason it's important and that it's identified for this legislation in an amendment is the negotiations that are going to take place with the land use planning commission about the resources they need to do the work. If it's in the act as one of the things that this commission must accomplish, then it's certainly going to be important, when you enter into the negotiation process, to establish the resources required to deal with the land use issues in a good fashion. It's going to be important that the commission has the surety that this is their job, that it has been set in the legislation, and that when it comes to the negotiating table, there will be no question about the provision of the resources, in order to accomplish the work laid out within this public awareness discussion, in the public hearings, and in the debate throughout the land use process.
That's why this amendment is important. That's why I'm sure the government has some reluctance with this, too, because it's going to cost them money. I really think those things have to be taken into account when we look at this law. That's why our role here on the committee is to determine what's appropriate in the legislation, not what particularly the bureaucracy wants to initiate, what it stands against with the people in....
Then there's the third point which is important to all of this. We are enacting legislation that really should be in the hands of the people of the north. There's no question about it. This is legislation that in a province would be dealt with in a provincial legislature, where those choices that have to be made on the legislation should well be made by that political body.
When I stand up and say that you should listen to the people of the north, absolutely. They have political rights as well, and you must respect those. Everyone here must respect those. If you don't respect them, that's really a sign that you don't understand what Canada is. I'll leave it at that.
NDP
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
I also want to indicate why this should actually be in here. Similarly, it's part of the consultation process as well, as far as we're concerned. I think it's quite timely, given the fact that we've seen the Idle No More movement, and the first nations, the Inuit, the Métis, and the general public coming forward and saying that these people have not been treated fairly. The government has basically not been responsible with respect to their judiciary responsibility.
This is exactly what this bill is all about. Yes, you indicated earlier that the people had a say and they didn't quite get everything that they wanted, but they wanted the bill to go forward. Of course they wanted the bill to go forward knowing full well that it was going to come to a committee so that they could have their voices heard with respect to amendments, to have that second thought, because this is where we should be able to make amendments.
To come to committee and have the government basically throw out every amendment that's going to be put forward I think is shameful. Are you saying that these people came here to voice their concerns, and it was all for nothing? Have taxpayers paid all of this money to have them come here to basically ignore what people are saying?
For these people coming to committee is not full consultation. You indicated in your remarks earlier that 13 aboriginal groups, governments, and adjacent jurisdictions were part of the drafting of the legislation, but that still leaves a lot of people who haven't been consulted, and this piece would actually allow for that. So in putting this piece forward, I'm just wondering how this would hinder the legislation. Why can't we put this in there?
Conservative
NDP
Conservative
NDP