Evidence of meeting #55 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was know.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
NDP
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to refer to the report produced by Mary Simon. I think it's a pretty good report, with important recommendations with respect to housing in particular. In her concluding remarks she talks about the noteworthy signposts that have happened from the Constitution Act of 1982, Canada's endorsement of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the commitment of your government to implement the that commissions calls to action. She says in her remarks that “these advances must become both roots and branches in a new Arctic Policy Framework”. I would suggest that these advances must also become the roots and branches of any future policy development of your government, any future legislation of your government, because the rights enshrined in the UN declaration, as you know, are considered to be the minimum standards for the survival, dignity, and well-being of indigenous peoples in this country.
If you are true to your commitment to adopt and implement the UN declaration, I think we need to be clear about it. I asked you this question about a year and a half ago. Maybe you weren't prepared to answer it, so I'll take this opportunity to ask it again a year and a half later. We need to do away with that confusion of not responding clearly to questions about the UN declaration's call for free, prior and informed consent.
I have proposed a legislative framework. It's Bill C-262, which I introduced in April last year. It would provide that legislative framework as recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as your leader proposed during the last election and recommitted to after being elected. Will your government, yes or no, support Bill C-262?
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
I think the commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is there to adopt and implement. How we go about it will have to be done in a collaborative way with first nations, Inuit, and Métis. We have to discuss how we see this working, not only at the federal government level, but also in the provinces, the territories, the municipalities, and the private sector. How do we breathe life into the rights that are in section 35? If it is important that those be codified, then we will work towards that with the Minister of Justice. It is a matter of collaborative approach, as opposed to just one piece of legislation.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to ask the minister a question on something that came up during my visit to some of the communities in the north regarding the Beaufort Sea moratorium and the study we're going to conduct in that area.
The budget indicated that there was $18 million for the study, and we were quite excited about that. However, looking at it a little more closely, half of the money would go to Nunavut, leaving us with a little over $9 million. We understand that part of that will also be used for administration, so we're getting a little bit nervous that there's not going to be enough money there. The department is saying that they'll be using about half a million dollars of that money a year for administration.
The last study cost over $22 million. For this one we're going to try to do it with $6 million or less. We know the work is important. The last study found a number of new species, and showed a lot of information that we need, but we know there's more that has to be done. Stock assessments are not cheap. There's a lot of work that needs to be done with traditional knowledge.
We won't be able to accomplish all of these things if we're going to stick to the formula and the work plan envisioned now. I wanted the minister to maybe take a look at it, or commit to taking a look at it, and give me some comfort—or give the north some comfort—that we will do a proper study in this area.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
Sure.
As you know, as part of the moratorium we have committed to the five-year science-based review of the decision and a one-year consultation with the territories, and indigenous and northern communities and industries on the details of that review.
We will do whatever it takes to get the proper science to make a proper decision. As you know, industry has not felt there was an economic case to do those explorations, at the same time as knowing about this bill in response, and is thinking that the difficulty and risk involved in these kinds of explorations and projects is too great for them to go forward.
Again, we want to explore all the science around spill response and the kinds of things we could do. Also, as you know, incorporating indigenous knowledge and respecting will very much be a part of that. So again, as you know, it's only the offshore that is covered by this moratorium. The land-based programs are separate from that.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
I'm hoping that we're going to have enough resources to do a proper job. I'm also hoping that we'll do a really good job providing good communications. Nobody has talked to the Inuvialuit yet on some of the issues, especially the oceans protection plan and the coastal strategy, so I'm hoping we're going to be able to improve it. In light of President Trump's directions on reversing some of the decisions made by the previous president, I think that communications are going to be even more important.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
Mike, there is money for engagement and we're really serious. This has to be bottom-up when making a decision. Also, I must say that Joe Biden's wise counsel was that reality has a way of intervening. So if markets aren't supportive of projects where there is no economic plan and there is huge environmental risk, then green light/red light is a little bit separate from what governments decide.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
But at the same time it has to be a balanced review.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
The review is not only to indicate what is there on the environmental side, but we also have to be looking at what it would take to make it an attractive place to invest for oil exploration. We have no ports, no navigational aids, no oversight, no spill response. In this country we have the longest coastline, yet we have no infrastructure at all.
I'm hoping that we're going to take a balanced approach and look at it from both sides, because there is huge potential for oil development there. At the same time, there's a huge potential for a real crisis to happen if there were a spill, so I'm hoping that while we have the five years and we're doing a lot of work in that area, we will start looking at it in a serious, balanced fashion.
Maybe the minister could give us a comment on what she thinks the impact will be of Trump's decision on this.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
Budget 2017 has what, $2 billion over 11 years, for infrastructure? The things you're describing, such as ports and all the real deficits in infrastructure needs in the north, are very interesting across the whole of government in terms of economic opportunities for Canada and the idea of what is a real Arctic policy framework. It means the tourism piece, and all the opportunities need to be explored, but we're serious about a scientific review, with engagement on the possibility of oil and gas.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Thank you.
Questioning now moves to MPs Arnold Viersen and Cathy McLeod. I understand you're splitting the time.
Conservative
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm going to continue in a similar vein as my colleague Michael McLeod. On the northern development ban, the west coast tanker ban, and the northern gateway project, I know that a number of people have been concerned that consultation didn't take place on those decisions—particularly on the northern gateway. Some 30 bands had signed on to that project, and those weren't deals for agreements, but as equity partners in that project. What kind of consultation took place with those bands in terms of the “no” answers? We see consultation having to take place for a yes answer; was there any consultation for the no answer, specifically on northern gateway?
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
I think again, in how we have to make decisions, it is about the big picture, whether it's the boreal forest or whether it's the risk that people in Kitimat identified of the tankers having to move many times. That was viewed as a very significant risk—what would happen once that oil ended up on a tanker. In the balance, that was the decision that was made. As you know, we—
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
On the consultation, repeatedly you shot out, saying, “Oh, we have to consult, we have to consult”, things such as that.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
At the end of the day, that just comes into your calculation for the decision.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
As you know, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment are embarking on significant principles as we go forward now that include indigenous knowledge and indigenous consultation. You know it's never going to be unanimous.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
For sure, but did you consult with the “no” side? When the government made the decision to stop the northern gateway, did you consult with the 33 groups who were in favour of the project?
