Evidence of meeting #37 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blake Richards
Does anyone else wish to speak to the amendment?
(Amendment negatived)
Next I have PV-17. Ms. May did you wish to speak to PV-17?
9:50 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, this amendment is to specify that policy directions only apply if explicit consent of the first nations and of the territorial minister has been given. Then it continues to say that they do not apply “in respect” as it is currently drafted.
Again, I note that my friend Mark Strahl is making a point about similar language that we find in the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. This again is an example of where a federal act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, contains a similar policy direction, which has a narrower scope than what we're seeing under Bill S-6. I think amendment Green Party-17 should be given serious consideration by the committee for providing a narrower scope and greater respect for first nations and the people of Yukon.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Yvonne Jones Liberal Labrador, NL
Yes, I'll speak to this amendment because I think this particular amendment can right some of the misdirection and misguidance in this bill that will be very problematic for Yukon first nations and Yukoners.
I think that any time the federal minister issues any kind of binding policy direction to aboriginal governance, it is going to be a problem, and that's exactly what's happening in this particular bill. This amendment will at least seek consent of first nations and a territorial minister, and it will give them a little bit more leniency to have some input.
That said, I think it has to continue to be noted, as is felt by many, that a lot of the amendments in this bill are contrary to the treaties and the agreements that have been set in place by first nations governments in Yukon. This is very sad and unfortunate, because these decisions are going to be made in their lands, their settlement lands, where they have an inherent right and a legal agreement, and where they have a constitutional agreement that should be allowing them to assert control and input, and that's not going to happen. I wanted to say that and to say that I'll support this amendment.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Northwest Territories, NT
This is one amendment that we won't support. We just simply will not give in on this and offer any solution that moves the Yukon territory backwards. We can't accept that.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Yvonne Jones Liberal Labrador, NL
I do. I want to say something else, because I think it was very clear at all the consultations.
I have no problem with the fact that the NDP doesn't want to support this particular aspect or with their view for not supporting it, but I think it was very evident that there was a desire by all the people who presented to us to reach an agreement with the Government of Canada, one in which they could reconcile their differences through dialogue and conversation, one in which they were saying that we can come to an agreement that is acceptable to all.
They really outlined the fact that we were able to do that with 90%-plus of the amendments in the bill, but there were four sections in this bill that they had not been consulted on and that they really had difficulty with. They really felt that, given the opportunity to have an open discussion with the government, they could reconcile those differences and come to an agreement on the amendments. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Unfortunately, this morning we are here putting forward recommendations on their behalf that are being voted down one after the other at the committee level by government members. It is really unfortunate that their voices have not been heard, despite the tremendous efforts they have made.
Is this particular amendment to clause 34 ideal? No, it isn't. It is not ideal. But one thing is for certain. If there is any way we can impose in this bill any additional powers that would give any additional input to first nations people and Yukoners, I think that we at least have to give it our best effort to make that happen.
I wanted to say that so that it's on the record. Thank you.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blake Richards
Seeing no other speakers, shall that amendment carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We have an additional amendment here in PV-18.
Ms. May, do you wish to speak to that?
10 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, to put it on the record, I certainly respect the position of the official opposition that my amendments in attempting to improve legislation that's so egregious may be not worth supporting, but I'm grateful that my friend Yvonne Jones voted for it. It's nice to have any votes on the record, but the reality, particularly as all amendments, it appears, are being defeated en masse here before the committee, is that it will go down as a bill that doesn't meet the standards of the respective first nations as enshrined in our Constitution. It's likely to be overturned in the courts, but at great expense, and not just with the expense of the federal government spending money on lawyers to defend an indefensible bill, but the expense to—
10 a.m.
Conservative
10 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I'm presenting my last amendment, Mr. Chair, and I've watched them all go down in defeat. Just permit me to finish this one thought.
It's at a cost that's not just financial. It's at a cost in the relationships between the Government of Canada and first nations. This amendment is an attempt to repair that. Again, as I said, I understand that my friends may not vote for this. It reads:
If there is a conflict between policy directions given under this section and the provisions of any Act of Parliament, any regulations made under an Act of Parliament or any territorial law, those provisions prevail to the extent of the conflict.
Now, this again matches the language that you'll find in the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, so that the federal minister cannot issue policy directions that violate the act. At the last, I'll ask the members of the Conservative Party at this committee to consider actually passing one amendment. This one is consistent with language found under another act that's been found to be acceptable by this current administration.
Thank you.
10 a.m.
Conservative
10 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Northwest Territories, NT
I'm just curious about this amendment, because what prevails in the time when there's a conflict between any act of Parliament or any territorial act?
10 a.m.
Conservative
10 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
What I'm attempting to do with this amendment is that if there's a policy direction given under this section that does not conform to an act, the act will be a superior authority. In the event of conflict, one would look to the act, not the policy direction given under a minister.
So it's an attempt to provide more predictability and respect for the rule of law.
10 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Northwest Territories, NT
Well, I'd just once again say that there's the Yukon legislature, which may pass a law, and then there's an act of Parliament. Now, there may be circumstances where both of those are constitutionally okay, where one doesn't supersede the other. What would we do in a case like that? What law would prevail over the policy? Or would it simply be that if the policy didn't match up to either of those laws, there would be no conflict in terms of rescinding the policy?
I suppose that's correct and that we can support this.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blake Richards
Does anyone else wish to speak to the amendment?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 34 agreed to)
We have a number of clauses here with no amendments.
(Clauses 35 to 42 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On Clause 43)
I see that we do have some amendments here. The first is NDP-8. Would someone care to speak to that?
10 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Northwest Territories, NT
In clause 43, we're looking at limiting...by replacing lines 18 to 26 on page 18 with the following:
shall not exceed 25 years.
This is to ensure there is some outside limit to that particular legislation.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blake Richards
We'll just note here as well that if this particular amendment is adopted, we will not be able to proceed with NDP-9, as the amendments are seeking to amend the same lines.
(Amendment negatived)
We can proceed with amendment NDP-9. Does someone wish to speak to that?
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Northwest Territories, NT
I move NDP-9. This once again looks at a more full discussion on this particular topic.
These are requests that are coming from the people in Nunavut. I think they're reasonable. During the consultation on this section of the bill there were things that people wanted to see improved. This bill deals with their issues, and I think, quite clearly, there needs to be some support from the government for the Nunavut people in making sure the bill matches up to their expectations.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Yvonne Jones Liberal Labrador, NL
I support the amendment that my colleague is putting forward here, and again he's exactly right. This amendment was requested by people in Nunavut, and they would like to see this amendment incorporated into the bill. I would encourage the committee to accept it.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative