Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 21st, 2015

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

I'm finished.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Okay.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to the amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

Then we'll move to the consideration of clause 21.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Can we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Okay, we will have a recorded vote.

(Clause 21 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3])

I see no amendments to clause 22.

(Clause 22 agreed to on division)

(On clause 23)

Moving to clause 23, we do have a number of amendments here.

First on the list I have LIB-4.

I'll just note that if this is moved by Ms. Jones, then we would not proceed with NDP-6, PV-12, and PV-13 because they're identical.

Ms. Jones, do you care to move LIB-4?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Yes. I propose that clause 23 be amended by deleting lines 1 to 23 on page 12. This is the section that talks about how the panel of the board can make recommendations and what the requirements of the board would be, and says that the minister can certainly ask the board to extend time limits and so on and so forth.

Basically, I think it's fair to say that the people we spoke to would have preferred to have clause 23 not be approved at all in this bill. I guess it's for a number of reasons, but first of all, again, they feel that it is a violation of their treaty agreements and what they had agreed upon with the federal government. They certainly feel that they were not consulted appropriately and that these recommendations are not coming forward as a result of concerns they have expressed or any recommendations they've made.

As well, I think we can't just look at this bill in the context of which government is in power today. It has to be looked at in the context of which governments may be in power in the future as well. Once you remove the powers of an independent board to make those kinds of decisions in their own area, their own territory, and then give the ultimate power and control to government, they have completely lost any control they might have of governance within their own areas, in areas that are inherently theirs, lands that are inherently theirs in which they have self-government agreements with the Government of Canada.

All of these clauses, including clause 23 of this bill, are seen as being absolute violations of first nations governance agreements between the Government of Canada and first nations people. The outfall of changes in this bill not only will impact first nations but will in fact impact all Yukoners, and it sets a very dangerous precedent as to how we move forward with developments in aboriginal lands across Canada.

I'm recommending that we make the changes I'm proposing here. In the absence of being able to remove the clause from the bill, I really feel that this is the next best option to achieving those changes. I would ask the committee to support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Ms. Ashton.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Seeing as how we proposed the exact same amendment, we will be supporting this amendment. I certainly agree with my colleague Ms. Jones on the key points in terms of the disregard of the role of first nations governments. It's obviously an attack on the rights of Yukon first nations with respect to development in their territories, stewardship, and the future of not just their own nations but also of the Yukon entirely. It speaks to how problematic key sections of this bill are that we have to propose to delete almost entire clauses. In our case, the NDP proposed the deletion of entire clauses as well.

There's no question that this is a sad day for Yukon first nations and Yukoners. They have been key and have shown time and time again in the past their willingness to work in partnership with the federal government, and they have taken the lead, as they should, for development in their territory. Yet we see a federal government that's turning around and, in key sections of this bill, showing anything but that respect for partnership, respect that they should be the ones driving the agenda, not a federal government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Does anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Seeing no one, shall the amendment carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

It's defeated, which, as I indicated, means that we cannot proceed with amendments NDP-6, PV-12, and PV-13. I do have an additional amendment here.

Ms. May, did you wish to speak to amendment PV-14?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, this is an attempt to remedy these egregious sections that deal with the time limits imposed by Bill S-6 on first nations and on a process that has been working well. Of course, I did support the previous ones; my amendment was identical, as you mentioned, to the Liberal and the New Democrat effort to make deletions.

What we're attempting to do here on page 12 is to bring the timeline under the purview of the board rather than having it handed down through this very last minute process and a mandatory five-year review, by replacing lines 5 to 23 very clearly with language that would ensure that the timeline is specified by the board.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Does anyone else wish to speak to this amendment?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We move to vote on clause 23.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

A recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Okay, a recorded vote on clause 23

(Clause 23 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3)

I see no amendments to the next three clauses.

(Clauses 24 to 26 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 27)

I do see an amendment here, PV-15.

Ms. May, did you wish to move PV-15?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under the motion, under which I am somewhat coerced to appear here today, I don't believe I have the power to move a motion. I believe my amendments are deemed to have been presented by—

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Do you wish to speak to it?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I do wish to speak to it. I thought you asked if I wished to move it. I would wish to move it. I wish also to vote on them. Many things I would wish, but I am following your motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you.

Please go ahead.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In speaking to this amendment, PV-15, again, this is an attempt to respect the process. I'm proposing an amendment that would appear on page 13, in clause 27, proposed subsection 77(2), replacing with the following: Currently it reads:

The executive committee or panel of the Board shall make a new recommendation to the decision bodies in respect of the project within the period prescribed by the rules,

It goes on to say:

which is not to exceed 60 days for a screening by the executive committee or 90 days for a review

etc. My amendment proposes to end that clause after “prescribed by the rules”, period. Then that would result in the deletion of everything down to the beginning of subsection 28.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Does anyone else wish to speak to this amendment?

I see none.

(Amendment negatived)

I move to the consideration of the clause.

(Clause 27 agreed to)

I see we have no amendments from 28 to 33.

(Clause 28 to 33 agreed to on division)

(On clause 34)

I do see a number of amendments to clause 34. First I have NDP-7.

Does someone wish to speak to that?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Yes. Thank you, Chair.

We do propose the elimination of this clause. We realize that the clause is an addition by this government as part of this bill that is opposed by Yukon first nations and Yukoners.

Again, it speaks to, as my colleague pointed out, the kind of paternalistic behaviour we see from this government with regard to Yukon first nations and residents of Yukon Territory. We stand with them in calling for this clause to be removed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

As per my previous rulings, amendments that seek to delete entire clauses at committee stage are inadmissible. Therefore, this is an an inadmissible amendment.

We would move to PV-16.

Do you wish to speak to that, Ms. May?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This, again, tries to ensure that we are respectful of existing agreements, existing powers and responsibilities, both of Yukoners....

I take the point that my friend Dennis Bevington made that although the Green Party has been speaking to the affront to first nations in Bill S-6, it is also an affront to Yukoners who are not aboriginal, because of the different powers and responsibilities within territories and the fact that agreements have been made that are being overturned and imposed under Bill S-6.

In this case, it's a very simple change that you'll find, Mr. Chair, under the section that begins “Policy Directions”, the proposed new section 121.1 in Bill S-6. Where the bill currently reads, “The federal minister may, after consultation with the Board, give written policy directions that are binding on the Board with respect to”, my amendment would simply change it to "respect to the exercise of any of its functions under this Act".

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Does anyone else wish to speak?

Mr. Strahl.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Yes, we believe that the Umbrella Final Agreement provides a blanket authority in section 12.19.2.15 for development assessment legislation to provide for “any other matter required to implement the development assessment process”. This authority would include policy direction and, again, there are four examples of policy direction having been provided to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in the Northwest Territories. In each case, policy direction was used to clearly communicate expectations based on interim measures agreements with first nations. One was requiring that notification be provided to each of the Manitoba and Saskatchewan Denesuline regarding licences and permits in a given region; providing instruction to the board regarding its obligation under the Deh Cho First Nations Interim Measures Agreement; respecting lands withdrawn from disposal that may not be used in geophysical land use operations involving seismic operations; and, ensuring that the board carries out its functions and responsibilities in cooperation with the Akaitcho Dene First Nation and its pre-screening board. So whenever policy direction has been used, it has been used to protect the interests of first nations, and the UFA clearly provides for this clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Does anyone else wish to speak to this amendment? Mr. Bevington?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

I think what the parliamentary secretary said can be taken in a number of ways. First nations in Yukon did not ask for the protection of the minister for policy direction. They did not consider that appropriate. What does that say about the nature of the relationship in Yukon right now? It says that they're not looking to the federal government to intervene in their process. It's been established that it's working. They're not asking for that. They're quite clearly saying no to it.

When the parliamentary secretary brings up the examples of the Northwest Territories where outstanding issues are still going on with land claims, he's really talking about another unique part of Canada. He's not talking about Yukon. This is one of the problems this federal government has with all this legislation. They're trying to cookie cutter the north, and that's simply not appropriate. It's really almost absurd from a northern perspective that the government would consider that Nunavut with its particularly structure, the Northwest Territories with its very different structure, and Yukon with its well-established unique structure are somehow going to be treated the same from now on.

I think the parliamentary secretary's argument flies in the face of what's going on in Yukon. I think this particular policy direction, although it might not be used by anybody, is an affront to people who have come to expect something different. You can say we don't need to worry about appearance. It's not important what people have come to accept as theirs. We're just going to walk right in and do what we want. That's pathetic.