Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 6th, 2014

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With regard to clause 112, this amendment would restore the words “and land and water boards” to the preamble of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

These changes to the land and water boards are not required for devolution and restrict first nations input into decision-making. Regional land and water boards are a stipulated requirement of multiple land use claims agreements between aboriginal groups and the government. The federal government is now, as we see it, unilaterally reinterpreting these requirements.

Alternatives North, a social justice coalition in the NWT, questions whether this “significant reinterpretation” is even legal.

To quote them further, they believe that “eliminating regional boards will result in considerable damage to the relationship between public and Aboriginal governments, to the detriment of all parties...”. Further, they say that the “changes are counter-intuitive, counter-productive, and will not achieve the desired and intended effect: a more effective, efficient, and timely land and water use management system”.

Those are our comments, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Hyer.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I would agree with this particular amendment. It clearly speaks to the nature of the agreements that were signed for the first nations governments in the Northwest Territories. They are the ones who have said very succinctly that what is happening here within this act is inappropriate to their land claims.

The government has taken this road. This particular amendment is symbolic. Nonetheless, we will support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

I should just remind members of the committee that PV-5 and PV-5a are identical, and therefore voting on one will be the same for both.

All those in favour of PV-5a?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 112 agreed to)

(Clauses 113 to 119 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 120)

The NDP has proposed an amendment to clause 120, amendment NDP-6.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I move to amend clause 120 of Bill C-15 by replacing line 19 on page 96 to line 11 on page 97 with the following:

12.(1) The chairperson of a board shall be appointed by the federal Minister from persons nominated by a majority of the members. (2) If a majority of the members does not nominate a person acceptable to the federal Minister within a reasonable time, the Minister may appoint any person as chairperson of the board. (3) A board may designate a member to act as its chairperson during the absence or incapacity of the chairperson or a vacancy in the office of chairperson, and that person while so acting may exercise the powers and shall perform the duties and functions of the chairperson.

This amendment changes the proposed process for appointing the chair of the super-board. Under the current MVRMA, section 12, the chair of the board, except in the case of the Wek’eezhii Land and Water Board, is a person nominated by the majority of the board.

Bill C-15 removes the role of the board members in choosing a chair. This change is contrary to devolution by removing the opportunity for anyone other than the minister having a say in the appointment of a chair. This amendment also ensures that the board members, who do the work in this regard, have a say over those who do the administration.

The chairperson of a board is—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Bevington, maybe I'll just jump in now. I do have a ruling with regard to this. You have introduced the motion, so I will now rule.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Oh, sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Clause 120 of Bill C-15 provides for the position of a chairperson of a board, and creates several exceptions to the case in the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. The amendment proposes to remove these exceptions.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 166, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” In the opinion of this chair, the amendment aims to remove the essential element of the bill, which is contrary to the principle of the bill, and therefore the amendment is inadmissible.

We will now move to the consideration of and a vote on clause 120, unamended.

(Clause 120 agreed to)

(Clause 121 agreed to)

(On clause 122)

I believe the Liberals have a proposed amendment.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

My amendment proposes that Bill C-15, in clause 122, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 40 on page 97 with the following:

implement that right and the number of other members, not including the chairperson, reflect, respectively and to a reasonable degree, the population composition of the area affected by the board's decision.

This amendment I've brought forward simply because in the presentations we heard in the Northwest Territories, people were very concerned that when decisions directly related to their area were going to be made that they would have adequate representation at the board level to make those decisions. We're not increasing the size of the board, but we're ensuring that there is proper composition to take into account the areas that are being looked at.

I would ask the committee to accept the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We're voting on amendment LIB-1.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 122 agreed to)

(Clauses 123 to 130 agreed to)

(On clause 131)

On clause 131, the NDP has proposed amendment NDP-7.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I move that Bill C-15, in clause 131, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 100 the following:

(4) These policy directions shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation and on the planning board's website.

Proposed section 50.1 allows for the minister to issue written policy directions that are binding on the planning board with respect to the exercise of any of its functions. This amendment, simply, would require that these directions be made public. Certainly, within the scope of understanding what is going on.... Actually, having policy decisions be binding on the land use planning boards is a serious change under this act. We would have probably proposed motions to eliminate them, but quite obviously the chair would have ruled against those as he did on the even lesser issue of the chairperson.

We have put forward this amendment simply to ensure that the public understands quite clearly what's happening with the direction.

Land use planning boards can make decisions that are very important in terms of the disposition of protected areas and the use of land. Policy decisions that come ahead of those decisions can be a great influence on how those decisions are made. We obviously look at this as being a time when the public has a right to know why a planning board would be making changes and what the rational is for those. Certainly the politicians responsible for making these types of policy decisions have a responsibility to ensure that they are made in front of the public as well.

That's the purpose of this amendment. I would look for the support of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mrs. Hughes.

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

Thank you very much.

I would hope the committee would actually support this. During the discussions on the Elections Act, I know there was an issue with respect to transparency and making sure that first nations would actually put the information on websites as well.

I can't see that the government side would actually have a problem with this. It's part of transparency. I don't think it impacts negatively at all. Maybe if the department wants to weigh in as to whether it would affect the bill negatively in any way, I would welcome that, but I think it would actually be a good addition to the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We will now move to a vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 131 agreed to)

(On clause 132)

We have three different amendments proposed, two of which are identical, PV-6 and PV-6a.

Amendment PV-6a has already been moved.

Mr. Hyer, please go ahead and speak to it.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, this amendment deletes the repeal of the definition of “management area” from the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. It is the opinion of many, including Alternatives North, that this amendment means that Canada and the MVRMA no longer recognize the distinct nature of settlement areas within the NWT.

One would think, Mr. Chair, that each settlement area would continue to be considered a unique environmental management area given the distinct resource management systems and commitments that continue to apply within these respective settlement areas through land claims agreements, which are a matter of public policy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Hyer.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Certainly there still will remain land use planning boards within the act. There still will remain renewable resource boards within the act that are of a regional nature. So by repealing this definition, I think quite clearly we're missing something in terms of those boards that will remain as part of this act.

I would ask the government witnesses if they would want to comment on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Bevington, do you have a specific question?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Yes. Will the removal of the definition of “management area” affect the other regional boards that will exist after this act has passed?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Lobsinger.

[Alison Lobsinger, Manager, Legislation and Policy, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

No, it won't affect the other regional boards, as “management area” is specifically in relation to the regional land and water boards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you very much.

We will now move to a vote on amendments PV-6 and PV-6a, which are identical.

(Amendments negatived)

I believe the NDP would like to move NDP-8.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I move to amend Bill C-15 in clause 132 by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 102 with the following:

(a), (b) or (c) of the definition “use”, for subsistence purposes.

This amendment removes the term “to earn income” from the definition of an instream user.

The term “instream user” is used in proposed paragraph 72(2)(b), proposed subparagraph 72.03(5)(b)(i), and proposed paragraph 72.04(2)(c).

The term “to earn income” introduces a vague term while any authorized use is included in these sections. By this term, a person earning money through an unauthorized use of lands and waters would be protected. If your unauthorized use of land and waters is as protected as a licence user, why go through the process of getting a licence?

We're looking at very much a definition of how people use the land here, and I would urge the support of the committee for this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Not seeing any additional speakers to NDP-8, I will go to a vote.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 132 agreed to)

(Clauses 133 to 135 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 136)

For this clause, the Liberals are proposing amendment LIB-2.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're proposing that the bill, in clause 136, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 27 on page 105 with the following:

(b) two members appointed on the nomination of the Gwich'in First Nation; (c) two members appointed on the nomination of the Sahtu First Nation; (d) two members appointed by the Tlicho

Again, we're recommending that it doesn't change the context or the consistent makeup of the board. What the amendment does, basically, is allow the aboriginal governments to have more representation. The bill itself stipulates that the board would consist of eleven members; however, it only accounts for how eight of them would be selected. What we propose is that the additional three members be divided up and an additional member be given to the Gwich'in, the Sahtu, and the Tlicho governments.

I hope the committee will support that. Certainly, when we were in the Northwest Territories, we heard that from all three groups as well.