Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 12th, 2013

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Quite a few of the witnesses indicated that it was going to be imperative for them to have a review, and the challenges they were going to have.... We kept hearing the government say, “Well, do you agree that this is a piece of legislation where not everybody got what they wanted?” Even the government, when you look at this, knows there are very legitimate issues that have been brought forward, but the government was unwilling to make those changes in the legislation, and I think that could be very problematic.

My colleague spoke about the cost of not doing this five-year review, and why the government may not want to do this five-year review. I think we have to consider the cost that would be involved if it a five-year review wasn't done. What would be the cost of not doing it? I think that would be greater than the cost of doing it.

I wanted to put that forward, and I hope the Conservatives will finally vote for an amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Rickford.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Chair, there are a number of limitations and drawbacks inherent in conducting a review of the statute after five years.

In Nunavut, in particular, it may well be that within the first five years of the act's operation, only one or two major projects would be the subject of environmental assessment. This would seem to be a very limited sample from which to try to draw any meaningful conclusions. In addition, such reviews often consume more resources, both financial and human, than are saved by marginal improvements resulting from what can turn out to be a very lengthy process.

In respect of Ms. Bennett's specific amendment, the scope for changes is limited because the large majority of the act implements provisions in the Nunavut Lands Claim Agreement, and in the end it must be consistent with the agreement.

It's important to remember that these institutions have been up and running for more than 15 years under the land claim. This process used the 15 years of experience in drafting this bill in making the additions and improvements that it includes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Bennett.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

The point of the five-year review is to deal with any of the impediments to progress there may be in enacting this bill. It's a matter of just a checkup as to whether or not this is working, and particularly for northerners, in keeping with their own legislation. I think what the parliamentary secretary has said.... It doesn't mean that we don't need to check in with northerners in five years and see how it's going. That's our job here in the south.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Hughes.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

The government talked about how it should be consistent with the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. This is exactly what we have been mentioning with respect to our amendments, that these amendments are about consistency, and yet the government votes against them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Genest-Jourdain.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

I would submit that a five-year period would make it possible to identify the social, environmental and ecological impacts of these measures.

We have already seen the negative consequences of natural resources extraction initiatives. After a certain number of years, when people go back to their communities, we will be able to see the ensuing negative impact. We will also see the positive effects if there are any. In any event, I think that the five-year period will make it possible to highlight everything.

I would humbly ask you to consider this in its entirety.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

When the parliamentary secretary says we may have a lengthy and costly review over no changes, no indication of any problems, because we haven't done enough reviews, that's logically inconsistent. Either there is going to be an extensive review because problems show up, or there is going to be a very quick analysis of what's happening, based on the fact that no problems have shown up.

I think his argument on cost is not quite logical, and he should take another look at that because it doesn't work. Clearly—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Crowder.

Oh, pardon me. Were you finished, Mr. Bevington?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the time here.

I feel this opportunity is clearly one that can be determined very quickly in the modern age. If I look at the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, when it was finally put in place, and I'm thinking from 1999 until 2004, which would be a five-year period, it was in need of a review then. I sat on that board. I know that was the case because we did have enough projects. We did have an understanding of the nature of what we were working with at that point, and many very serious concerns were raised at that time.

The Liberal government of the day continually wanted to review how they could make it work better. Within the five-year period of the act being put in place there were plenty of reasons to review it.

So I don't see that there is any harm in this. This is a good idea. This works for the people of the north because, once again, if they do have problems with this legislation and it becomes apparent, they have no guaranteed recourse to get it changed within Parliament. They're relying on the goodwill of the government to bring forward those changes and that, Mr. Chair, is something I would not want to have as assurance for any of the northerners.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Crowder.

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

We also heard from the commissions and the boards about the challenges with funding. We've seen the foot-dragging, not necessarily just with this government but with past governments, around renegotiating the funding model. A five-year review would give us a formal opportunity to take a look at whether the funding model has also been implemented since there has been a refusal to amend the legislation to include that funding model.

That was a consistent message we heard from witnesses who get funding, that they're underfunded, and that the act imposes new responsibilities on them that they will not be able to fulfill. A formal five-year review would enable us to consider whether or not these commissions and boards are able to fulfill the responsibilities they're mandated to do under this new piece of legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Let's move to a vote on amendment LIB-2.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I'd like a roll call.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We will do that.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We're on amendment NDP-43.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Chair, we've had a good debate over the need for a comprehensive review. What this proposes is that rather than trouble the minister, which seems to be one of the issues on the government side, that the minister may be too tied up to do this, this would be undertaken by a committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons, or of both houses of Parliament, as designated or established for that purpose.

What we have here is the requirement on the part of parliamentarians to take a look at this. No government side is involved. It's simply that the people who represent the people here would have an opportunity after five years to ensure that what they have passed here is worthy of continuing in the fashion that it is, or they would put forward a report, including a statement of any changes the committee might recommend.

This is not even as strong as the previous review, but it is a review. I would hope that this would not be something that would be undertaken by the bureaucracy, but by the House. It is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that the work we're doing is correct.

Once again, I reference the fact that this is legislation that really should be in the hands of the legislative assemblies of the territories. Since it isn't, there's an added responsibility on the part of government to deal with it. Since we have this extra responsibility to the people of the north that the government has so far put forward, and as indicated in its policy documents it wants to change, I think today would be a good time to start changing that attitude toward the north. Agreeing to this amendment would be one small step. I trust that the government would consider this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We're voting on amendment NDP-43.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Okay, folks, we have considered the first of 20 clauses. So we now move to the vote on clause 2.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Could I suggest that in the future, we don't need “as amended” on this sheet anymore?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Bennett, we're in the midst of a vote.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(Clauses 3 to 10 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 11)

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

There are some amendments being proposed.

We're on amendment NDP-44.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-47, in clause 11, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 129 the following:

(1.1) The Board does not have jurisdiction in respect of any lands that are subject to a withdrawal order made under paragraph 23(a) of the Territorial Lands Act or under any other applicable legislation.