Evidence of meeting #32 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was important.
A video is available from Parliament.
Métis National Council
Yes. I think appropriate notice to the aboriginal government in the region would be necessary.
Environmental Assessment Manager, Department of Lands and Natural Resources, Nunatsiavut Government
I think notice is helpful, but there are so many notices that come through. Capacity is a real problem within our organizations. In Labrador, a study was done on traditional use and occupancy before the Labrador Inuit lands claims agreement process started, and the book is called Our Footprints are Everywhere, because all water and all land were used.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you all for being here this morning for the committee’s study on the possible review of the Navigation Protection Act.
Like you, I was astonished from the outset at the manner in which the committee began its study on the Navigation Protection Act. We are currently studying future amendments, amendments that the government seems to have already decided to make without telling us about them. This is a concern for our party.
In fact, on several occasions, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard have clearly indicated they would like to make amendments to the act and re-establish protections that were in the previous version of the act, before the most recent amendments.
In parallel, the minister committed, in the letter he sent to the committee, to hold his own consultations with aboriginal communities and with the various groups involved. To our great surprise, during an appearance before the committee, the Minister of Transport dismissed the consultations held by the Department of Transport itself, which sought to find out the expectations and needs, and rather to hold a more formal consultation with a view to justifying the potential amendments to the Navigation Protection Act.
With my colleagues, I have had a number of occasions to quote different passages from letters the minister has sent us, so I will not go back over them. However, I am a little surprised to see that even Transport Canada has decided to make hearings of this committee into official Transport Canada consultations. My experience in Parliament is short, but I have not often seen that.
In a letter, counsel for the Heiltsuk Nation writes:
I am writing to you because Deputy Minister Michael Keenan has invited Chief Marilyn Slett to state again that the First Nation would like to appear before the Standing Committee on Transportation.
So the deputy minister is asking a chief to repeat her wish to appear before the committee rather than asking the first nation to send its comments directly to Transport Canada officials. I confess that I find that very surprising.
I quote from another letter, this one written by Mr. Keenan:
…we will be in touch with the committee to encourage it to hear what the coastal First Nations and the Heiltsuk First Nation have to say.
So you can somewhat understand our shock at this process. We would have liked to be able to discuss your proposals and propose potential changes to the act. In fact, it has been stated, on a number of occasions, that the minister is going to make changes to the act. We would have liked to hear what you have to say about those amendments.
Ms. Hoyt, I accept what you said just now about the number of requests for opinions about the various changes. It must be very difficult for a small organization like yours to follow the developments, in comparison to the huge machine of the federal government. You also have to deal with local and provincial communities. So I imagine that the fact of coming back before the committee to restate your comments on the matter will add an additional workload to your community.
I was listening to your concerns about the protection of waterways, which seem perfectly legitimate to me. In your opinion, would such a review of protection measures require Transport Canada to hold wider consultations directly with your communities?
Ms. Hoyt, perhaps you can answer first.
Environmental Assessment Manager, Department of Lands and Natural Resources, Nunatsiavut Government
The communication we've had from the Minister of Transport said that the minister asked this committee to review the act, and the minister will be consulting with aboriginal groups after this process is complete and before any changes are made. The minister has not told us that there are any changes. No revisions to which we need to react have been written, but this committee is looking at what changes could happen and that's why we're here to say that all lost protection should be restored and all waterways should be protected by default. However, my understanding is that the minister will be fulfilling the duty to consult on a government-to-government basis regarding any changes to legislation.
Métis National Council
Madam Chair, I would agree. Part of the purpose in appearing today is first, to identify clear matters that we want stated on the record. Second, we want to ensure it's understood that a fuller and deeper consultation, which as the member mentioned, has been a commitment made, needs to actually happen.
Certainly from our perspective, this process is not over yet and we anticipate that those amendments to the legislation will happen as a result of the report of this committee. From our perspective, we're providing input to this committee to feed back to the minister and we would expect that we would have an opportunity to provide input and to be consulted on any of those proposed changes at that time.
Thank you.
National Vice-Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
Yes and thank you for the question.
Regarding the relationship with the minister's office, we want to go back to see where we are with respect to the letters that were referred to just a couple of minutes ago. I want to go back to our office to find out where we are.
One thing I do want to stress is that the congress certainly wants to be engaged going forward on a nation-to-nation basis. These are important to us.
Yes, that consultation process is going to be on our radar—there is no question about it—straight to the minister's office.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Madam Chair, I am, with all due respect, a little shocked with the comments of my colleague, Luc Berthold. To the best of my knowledge, I know that these witnesses weren't consulted earlier.
Having said that, I do want to switch to the NPA's opt-in, opt-out program. That's what I've been zeroing in on, because I really feel that it demonstrates the uncertainties with the legislation.
The NPA prevents granting owners of works on non-scheduled waters the ability to opt out of the NPA regime after five years of the amendments coming into force. Do you know of any works that have taken this opportunity, and how in your view, would navigable waters be threatened by opting out?
Andrea, we'll start with you.
Environmental Assessment Manager, Department of Lands and Natural Resources, Nunatsiavut Government
I do not know of any examples in Nunatsiavut.
Métis National Council
I'm also not aware of any examples, in response to your question, but certainly, if we're in a position to make written submissions, that could be something we could address in those submissions.
National Vice-Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
Yes, it's the same for the congress. We're not aware of any examples, but we are certainly going to take the opportunity as well to draw up any submissions on that. We welcome the opportunity to submit those, so yes, we'll be doing a little bit of an investigation process.
Thank you for that question.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Okay, I'd appreciate it.
Madam Chair, I would like to split my time with my colleague.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to begin by thanking our witnesses for coming today and to reassure them that, contrary to what my colleague, Luc Berthold, says, a consultation is not a single item. True consultation is a relationship and that is our hope for this process.
Since you have travelled to be with us this morning, I would like to give you the opportunity to tell us about your vision and expectations for the consultations on the Navigation Protection Act.
This meeting is the beginning of the process. It is the opportunity for you to tell us about your recommendations before changes are suggested. It is the opposite of what my colleague said previously. We want to know about your recommendations before we propose anything. So feel free to tell us what they are.
Thank you once again for coming to meet with us this morning.
Environmental Assessment Manager, Department of Lands and Natural Resources, Nunatsiavut Government
Merci beaucoup for that open offer.
I don't have a clear answer for you on exactly how I think the consultations should happen. I think that in the future, once there is a new act...I assume you're talking about the consultations on the changes, right?
I think that we need to have something to react to, some sort of idea of where the government is going. I've told you what I think—restore all lost protections, and have everything protected by default—but I don't know where the federal government is heading, and if they're heading in a totally different direction, then it would be helpful to know that. As my colleague said, the more information we have and the earlier, the more meaningful our responses are.
Métis National Council
Madam Chair, the Métis National Council has made some early recommendations through my earlier comments. I am grateful to this committee, through Madam Chair, for the opportunity to provide further detail.
What consultation would look like is a challenging question to answer at this particular point in time. One of the important aspects for the Métis National Council is that however it goes, the development of what that looks like includes the governing members in developing that process, so that it fits both our national interests but also works on a more regional basis.
Again, we've highlighted some big principles today, but the nuance is important. I think that's something I've heard today from this committee, that there are many details to this current act that are challenging and could potentially use revision. Once we have a sense of what those are, an opportunity to have more of the nuance, I think we'd be in a better position to reply in a fuller way.
Thank you.
