AANR Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, December 5, 2002

1545

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.))

1550

The Chair

1555

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Finlay

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

1600

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. John Bailey (Negotiator, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development )

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

1605

The Chair

Mr. John Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. John Bailey

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

1610

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

1615

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

1620

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

1625

The Chair

Mr. John Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Deborah Friedman (Counsel, Métis and Non-Status Initiatives, Aboriginal Law and Strategic Initiatives, Department of Justice)

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Deborah Friedman

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Deborah Friedman

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)

1630

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. John Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1635

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1640

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. John Bailey

1645

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.)

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Larry McCormick

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

1650

The Chair

Mr. John Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. John Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. John Bailey

1655

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

1700

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1705

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

1710

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 013

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, December 5, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1545)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Can I start? I'll ask the opposition, do you want clauses to carry on division or just carry? We'll let them carry.

(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to)

(Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to)

(Clauses 9 to 21 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 23 to 29 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 32 to 39 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 42 agreed to)

(Clauses 44 to 50 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 52 to 59 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 61 to 102 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 104 and 105 agreed to)

(Clauses 107 to 109 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 111 to 120 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 124 and 125 agreed to)

(Clauses 127 to 134 inclusive agreed to)

¹ (1550)

The Chair: Now we're going to go to work. I can tell you which ones have been stood: clauses 2, 5, 8, 22, 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 51, 60, 103, 106, 110, 121, 122, 123, 126.

On clause 2 I have an amendment from the Alliance.

(On clause 2--Definitions)

Mr. Vellacott.

¹ (1555)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): It's changing a definition, replacing line 26 on page 4 with the following:

been undertaken prior to the coming into force of this act.

It gets at the issue of the “existing” project, and there was much discussion about that. It's changing it so as to not have perpetual reviews of those that were in existence beforehand.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Now we go to G-1. Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): This is that clause 2 be amended by replacing lines 42 and 43 on page 7 with the following:

proposes to require, under a federal or territorial law, a municipal by-law or a first nation law, that it be undertaken.

The error, Mr. Chair, was that the municipal bylaw was left out. It should be included.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm just trying to grasp what is being included now that wasn't before.

Mr. John Finlay: The municipal bylaw. Under the definition of proponent it says:

in relation to a project or other activity, means a person or a body that proposes to undertake it, or a government agency, independent regulatory agency, municipal government or a first nation that proposes to require, under federal , territorial, or first nation law, that it be undertaken.

Municipalities are in the preambular wording, they aren't in the final bit.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. That's good.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Now we go to PC-1. Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment actually adds a new definition, of sustainable development. You heard the discussion over sustainable development. This definition comes from the umbrella final agreement. It's in the back of the agreement. This actually falls in line with the next amendment, which basically puts that concept in under “Purposes of Act”. So it's consistent. I believe this adds to the act and strengthens it, because the very point that's missing in this act in relation to the umbrella final agreement is sustainable development.

The Chair: Mr. Mark, do you find that we should deal with both at the same time?

Mr. Inky Mark: It would make sense to deal with both.

The Chair: Then we are dealing with both amendments, PC-1 and PC-2. Debate is on both.

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: I want to point out that this definition is already contained in paragraph 5(2)(e), so it doesn't add anything. As to the second one too, paragraph 5(2)(e) contains the definition of sustainable development from the Yukon umbrella final agreement, and that's the only place where sustainable development is mentioned.

º (1600)

The Chair: Mr. Mark, you will get the final word on this amendment.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm not a legal whiz kid on this stuff, but is there any problem if it's already there in the umbrella agreement? Is there some logistical or other problem? I don't see the harm of it, but there may be something, from a legal point of view, that creates a problem. If it's in the umbrella agreement, I don't see what would be the harm in including it explicitly here.

The Chair: Could we ask someone to respond to this?

Mr. John Bailey (Negotiator, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development ): If you only use a term once in a bill, it is quite common not to have a definition for it, but to actually say what you mean when you use the concept. We wanted to use the term sustainable development in paragraph 5(2)(e), and rather than defining it in clause 2, we just took the definition from the final agreement and plugged that right into paragraph 5(2)(e) just about verbatim. So I think we've achieved the same thing.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I can't necessarily see the harm. I'm not apprised of any particular damage done by way of this, and I think it is consonant with what is said in that other clause.

The Chair: Is there any other debate?

Mr. Mark, a final comment.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chairman, I don't see any harm in it, and I believe it reinforces the concept by having it in both the definition portion and under purpose. The addition to page 11, amendment PC-2, is another emphasis that sustainable development should be thought about when we deal with the act itself.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question on both amendments?

(Amendments negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(On clause 8--Board established)

The Chair: We are on amendment CA-1. Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's just a replacement. We're actually attempting two different things. If this one fails, we're going to that later. This was just a limitation to 7, which is kind of where it starts right now. Failing that, we're going to be proposing 13, which, from all accounts, I'm not even sure the department officials would indicate is a problematic number. But let's see where this one goes.

The Chair: Is there debate?

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): I have a question, Mr. Chairman. This bill flows from an agreement between three parties: the federal government, the Yukon government and First Nations. When we move amendments, I have to wonder if we are jeopardizing in some way the basic agreement that led to the drafting of this bill. I think we need to keep that in mind.

It may seem harmless to suggest a change, but if the agreement involved three parties and the bill is the end result of this tripartite accord, one of the parties might object to the proposed changes. That's what worries me.

We can always propose some amendments, but we need to be very careful. I have to wonder whether taking this initiative could upset the balance achieved during the negotiation process that resulted in this basic accord. I don't know whether you want to comment, but I have to say that the situation has me somewhat worried.

º (1605)

The Chair: Would anyone care to comment?

[English]

As this is an agreement between three parties, does the Canadian government have the right to modify certain things without the approval of the other two parties? I think it's an important point.

Mr. John Bailey: There are two elements, I think, to consider. One is that this bill is fundamentally based on the umbrella final agreement, which is a land claim agreement and not something that we really feel can be conflicted with in this bill. Second, the development of the bill was done in a collaborative fashion with the Yukon government and the Council of Yukon First Nations, with consultation, as I think the committee is aware, with a wide variety of stakeholders and first nations who are not represented by the council. We tried to and did reach agreement on all the policy that underpins the various provisions here. Making changes would perhaps result in some concerns that go beyond this table with those other parties that support the bill as it's written right now.

[Translation]

The Chair: You are quite right, Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, in the opinion of our experts, could the spirit of the agreement be violated if amendments are moved? Could they possibly single out the specific provisions in the treaty from which the bill flows as we move forward with the various amendments?

[English]

The Chair: We are placing a standing request that if you see amendments coming that could affect the agreement, you bring them to our attention.

Mr. John Bailey: Would that be the umbrella final agreement, the policy agreement we have among the parties, or both?

The Chair: Both.

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: The Yukon umbrella final agreement and this bill provide for a variety of panel composition options depending on the location and expected effects of a project under assessment. The panel could be two-thirds first nation nominees, two-thirds federal and territorial government nominees, or half and half. These potential combinations could require an expanded pool of board members to draw upon in the event that there are two or more panel reviews being conducted simultaneously. So a cap, Mr. Chairman, would interfere with the ongoing work of the panel.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, last comment.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have no further comment on this one.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We are now at CA-2. Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: This is basically just setting out some minimal requirements there for the qualifications and criteria that would have to be set out: “minimum qualifications and other criteria for the selection of the members of the Board” and all nominations and appointments. And appointments of members of the board should be after seeking the views of the Minister of the Environment.

The Chair: Is there debate?

º (1610)

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chair, it is inappropriate for the minister to dictate to the Council of Yukon First Nations and the Yukon government qualifications for their nominees. That would be running counter to the agreement and the gist of the umbrella final agreement.

The Chair: Do you have a final comment, Mr. Vellacott?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I don't think it is an offence or an insult to them to have that in there. They will maybe have adequate qualifications, but the minister has responsibility for this bill, and so I think it would be appropriate for him to have some qualifications in there.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'm calling the question.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings)]

The Chair: Next we have amendment CA-3, and if that passes, we will not deal with PC-3. Mr.Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: The amendment here simply strengthens the role of the territorial minister by having him nominate, rather than just being consulted on, one of the executive committee members. I think it strengthens the role also by enabling him here also, through item (b), to nominate two, rather than only one, of the non-executive board members. He is involved already anyway, and we're just trying to get a little more balance and get the power into the Yukon territory, the elected representative there.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that we have a letter from the new Premier of Yukon strongly supporting the bill. I would take that to mean he is satisfied with the nomination process and the role of the minister as in the bill now.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, final remarks.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have more of a query. I've not seen the letter. Is it brief and to the point, and could you quote, John, directly? Has it any qualifiers? Is he 100% pleased with it? There are no amendments and nothing to change at all?

Mr. John Finlay: I will read the letter into the record if the chair so desires, but you should have a copy. It was given to us.

The Chair: In all fairness, we've been pretty busy in the last three weeks. How long is the letter?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If it's a lengthy letter, I don't want it read. I just want there to be transparency. If he's 100% behind it, I'm not sure why we would spend much time on any of these amendments. Are we saying, Mr. Finlay, that he doesn't have any concerns in any area at all?

The Chair: We'll allow time for Mr. Finlay to find the letter and share it with us, if he wishes us to take it into consideration. Is it long?

º (1615)

Mr. John Finlay: It's two pages.

The Chair: Okay, we will spend the time.

Mr. John Finlay: I'll be as brief as I can. It's addressed to you, Mr. Chair.

Dear Sir:

I would like to acknowledge and thank you for the invitation that has been extended to the Yukon Government to appear before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources.

As you may be aware, our government has only recently been elected to office and will not be officially sworn in until this Saturday, November 30, 2002. As a result, we will not have had time to make a formal presentation before the Standing Committee. Please accept our sincerest apologies for not being able to appear before the Committee to discuss this most important piece of legislation.

I would like to take this opportunity to state that my government supports the spirit, intent and principles of the legislation. We fully recognize what has been done over the last number of years by the Government of Canada, the Council for Yukon First Nations and the Yukon Government to develop the YESAA.

We also recognize that some Yukon First Nations and other Yukoners have serious concerns about this legislation. The challenge facing the parties is to reach an agreement on a YESAA implementation plan and implementation process. This challenge is going to be made more difficult due to the fact that only eight of the fourteen First Nation land claims have been settled and ratified. YESAA must protect the Yukon environment while not becoming an impediment to responsible economic development in the territory. Our government is committed to working to ensure that these concerns are addressed to the greatest extent possible. We will do this by continuing to work collaboratively with the federal government, First Nations governments and the new board and by continuing to listen to and work with our stakeholder groups, industry, communities and the public. By working together in this way, we are confident the parties and stakeholders can make the process benefit all Yukoners.

As a result of the recent territorial election campaign, our government is committed to developing a government to government relationship with all fourteen Yukon First Nations and to make them full partners in the economic development of the territory. Bill C-2 fulfills the provision of Chapter 12 of the Umbrella Final Agreement which sets the framework for the design of the development assessment process. We are pleased the Bill provides guaranteed and meaningful involvement for Yukon First Nations in the assessment of development activities in the Yukon and we look forward to working with First Nations to develop economic opportunities and a workable regime that will be a benefit to all Yukoners.

Thank you again for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fentie, Premier.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I simply take your point. He didn't say it was a perfect bill, but he likes the meeting of the umbrella framework agreement condition. I'm relieved to know that doesn't preclude the necessity of some amendments. So I haven't worked in vain, I hope.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We are now at PC-3. Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you Mr. Chair.

I was happy to see that at the beginning of the meeting we made an amendment to respect the bylaws in municipalities. As we heard from the witnesses, the municipalities are stakeholders throughout this whole process. We're not reaching the mandate of the territorial government, so this one basically acknowledges the existence of the municipalities as stakeholders. If the territorial government does not wish to nominate them, fine, but at least they should be represented. That what this amendment provides.

The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: This proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman, would be in conflict with 2.12.2.12 of the Yukon umbrella agreement, which states that board members shall not be delegates of the nominator. Members should not be there to represent particular interests. The three governing parties are the Yukon territorial government, the Government of Canada, and the first nations, not municipal governments. They are creatures of the territorial government. They cannot appear as a judge on a project that is in their own best interest. That would be conflict of interest.

The Chair: Mr. Mark, final remark.

º (1620)

Mr. Inky Mark: There's nothing to say. Either they are stakeholders or they're not. If they are, then recognize and acknowledge their existence in the bill.

The Chair: Thank you.

That was the final remark, but

[Translation]

you may continue, Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It comes back to what I was saying earlier. When we have draft legislation such as this that flows from a tripartite negotiation process...In the United States, it's standard procedure in the case of commercial accords. Either the agreement is accepted as a whole, or rejected as a whole. This is known as the fast-track procedure.

If we want to see more treaties of this kind concluded between the federal government, a province or territory and First Nations, we must start out with the premise that the bill arising from the treaty or from regulations cannot easily be amended. If some inconsistencies are identified between the treaty and the bill, corrective action may be taken. However, I don't think we can tamper with the spirit or letter of the treaty.

I suggest we give this matter more thought at a later meeting. Mr. Vellacott and Mr. Mark put considerable effort into proposing changes and suggesting amendments, but in the final analysis, this bill is basically something that cannot be amended, unless some inconsistencies are noted. So far, that hasn't been the case. I think we need to give this matter more thought.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mark, final word.

Mr. Inky Mark: I have nothing left to say.

The Chair: I understand. I just wanted to ensure that you were offered the last say.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings)]

(Clause 8 agreed to)

The Chair: We have a new clause proposed by Mr. Vellacott, 7.1. Although clause 7 is done, this is a new clause, so we don't have to reopen.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: We heard numbers of witnesses on this, at least today, and maybe in individual correspondence or conversations as well members have heard this point made. I know Mr. Finlay is going to speak in favour of this, as it's in the umbrella framework agreement. I appreciate the support I get around the table here. It says:

After five years the minister shall cause an independent review of the Act, its administration and operation to be conducted, and shall cause a report on the review to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days in which that House is sitting after the review is completed.

It's pretty straightforward. I think, when you do a bill like this, you want to find out if it's working as you want, if it has all kinds of wrinkles, things that need to be changed, adapted. We're not perfect framers at this point, and the civil service is not, and those people on the ground in the Yukon would, I think, have the benefit of maybe improving things in hindsight after five years of it. I think we've seen that with the gun registry. A review would have probably been a good thing. Ray and other northern Ontarians would probably have agreed with that too.

At this point I look forward to the support of my esteemed colleague across the way, Mr. Finlay, for this amendment.

The Chair: I only argue with statements like that when I think I can win, so I'll keep quiet.

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, the requirement for a five-year review is in the umbrella final agreement quite clearly. I don't have the clause in front of me now, because I didn't have Mr. Vellacott's amendment.

º (1625)

The Chair: It's 12.19.3.

Are there comments that could be helpful to the committee from the department?

Mr. John Bailey: One of the reasons there wasn't a provision like this in the bill in the first place is that there is this requirement in the umbrella final agreement, and the concern was that by putting one in the bill, we would create two different obligations to do something similar. We felt that it wasn't really in anyone's interest to have a duplication of five-year review obligations. We know there's no choice, we have to act on 12.19.3 in the UFA. It calls for a comprehensive review of the whole process, which would include the legislation. As all the members are well aware, these kinds of reviews are fairly complex and take quite a bit of time, and to have two different obligations to do them we felt was not really appropriate.

The Chair: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: I must say there's a huge difference between what is in an agreement, which may or may not be respected down the road, in 10 or 20 years, and legislation, which is law. So I would ask you what harm there would be if we took the same clause and put it into the act word for word.

Mr. John Bailey: For example, the proposal I see here talks about the minister causing this review to occur, and that contrasts with the umbrella final agreement obligation, which calls for a comprehensive review to be conducted by the parties to the agreement. So that's conducted in collaboration with the Yukon territorial government, the Council of Yukon First Nations, and the federal government.

We've heard some discussion about an implementation plan, and how this review will be conducted has been part of those discussions. If the concern is that somehow this will be done in isolation and not involve people in the Yukon and others, the parties who worked on implementation have certainly agreed from the outset that you can't do a proper and comprehensive review and actually meet this obligation in the land claim without involving the people this process involves, be they proponents or intermediaries. So it's quite certain that the kind of public involvement we've heard requested today would occur, and we'd still be able to meet this land claim obligation.

Mr. Inky Mark: Is there any harm putting it in the act? That's my question.

Ms. Deborah Friedman (Counsel, Métis and Non-Status Initiatives, Aboriginal Law and Strategic Initiatives, Department of Justice): Perhaps I could just add to what Mr. Bailey was saying, Mr. Chair. If what is being suggested is to take the language of 12.19.3 and put it in the act, that could be a consideration, but I believe the language being proposed--

Mr. Inky Mark: That's what I'm asking you.

Ms. Deborah Friedman: --is in conflict with the provisions, because of the legal and philosophical approach envisioned here, which was that it would be a collaborative process by the three parties who negotiated the agreement, as opposed to one.

Mr. Inky Mark: So you're saying there's no harm in putting this exact line into the act?

Ms. Deborah Friedman: I think the difficulty you'd then run into is having to define the parties once again. You're duplicating a provision. This is a land claim commitment, an obligation that's imposed upon the parties. It has a certain legal enforceability that one could argue is potentially even greater than what would be provided for if you were duplicating it in this legislation. We're comfortable that the commitment is very extensively expressed in the UFA and is provided for as a legal commitment on the parties. You would be not adding anything to that commitment. In fact, you might be creating some ambiguity.

The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell, then we'll give the last word to Mr. Vellacott.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I just wanted to point out that the umbrella final agreement was passed in the House of Commons, and so it is backed up by legislation.

º (1630)

Mr. Inky Mark: We have hundreds of agreements the government signs annually.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: No. It was passed with the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act in July 1994. It was passed in the House of Commons. By making comments like that, you put into jeopardy every single land claims agreement this country has ever passed. So I would be careful how you dismiss the passage of land claims agreements in the House of Commons.

Mr. Inky Mark: The reason I'm asking for it is to entrench it in law. I'm actually more concerned than even you are. I want it entrenched in law.

The Chair: I will ask our advisors, without putting it in, is it entrenched in law, and by putting it in, is it entrenched in law?

Mr. John Bailey: The final agreements are given force and effect by the act of Parliament that was mentioned. So it's a constitutionally protected obligation, and it's not something that can be varied, unless the umbrella final agreement were open for renegotiation, and that's not seen as a likely occurrence.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, final comment.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: From the nature of the discussion here, if one were to say “five years after this act comes into force, the minister, as in 12.19.3, shall cause...”, would that do the job? Would that cover it off and have it explicit for people who don't have the benefit of reading the UFA?

Mr. John Bailey: You're talking about the minister causing something to happen, and the final agreement, being a constitutionally protected agreement and creating obligations that have to be dealt with, already causes it to happen. If we vary from that, we run into some potential problems in creating duplicate obligations to do the same thing.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Fulfilment of that obligation is what the intent would be.

Mr. John Bailey: My point is that the land claim agreement creates the obligation, it has to be followed through on. From our point of view, when we were preparing the bill, we did want to avoid redundancy. Since the obligation exists, it has to be done. It's not going to be more likely if it's in the bill. There's already as strong an obligation on the parties to do this as we can get. It's in a constitutionally protected land claim agreement.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I don't understand, Mr. Chair. If I'm around this place a hundred years, maybe I'll grasp why, if it's stated once, there's any harm in stating it again. Frankly, I need to have some further discussions, and maybe I need to be a legal whiz kid to understand that. If it's about saving some ink, maybe, but let's be honest. I'm just not grasping why there's a problem to state it the same way verbatim in another place just to make it clear. Because people don't have the UFA when they're reading this particular bill. That's part of the difficulty as well. I hear what's being said, but I think we're going round and round on that too. I would just propose that we get to the vote.

The Chair: I call the question.

(Amendment negatived)

(On clause 22--Designated offices in named communities)

The Chair: We have amendment CA-4. Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: This is enabling the board to select the communities in which the offices will be located. I think that would make a whole lot of sense, as it puts it directly in their hands. They're probably the ones who would make that recommendation anyhow. It avoids a potential for political interference in the selection of these communities, or the appearance of same, and just puts it right in the hands of the board that's supposed to be empowered to do its work.

º (1635)

The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: I'm warned, Mr. Chairman, that the role of the board is to conduct or oversee assessments, not to settle jurisdictional matters, and this arrangement was agreed by the federal and territorial governments and the Council of Yukon First Nations. The minister is responsible for the budget of the board and the offices, and therefore should be responsible for their location. The minister is accountable to Parliament for expenditures of the board and offices, not the board itself.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, last word.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I've said my piece, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 22 agreed to)

(On clause 30--Rules for executive committee and panels)

The Chair: You have an Alliance amendment, Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It was stated by several witnesses that there should be a review of existing projects where there has been no material change. Where somebody's going off on a different venture or up a different avenue, of course, that would see a review coming into effect. This is simply saying, unless there's been a material change in the project, there's no necessity for a review.

The Chair: As there's no debate, I call the question.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 30 agreed to)

(On clause 31--Rules for designated offices)

The Chair: We have another Alliance amendment. Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: This would reserve for the board the authority to make rules. A designated office would not be able to make rules that might conflict with rules made by a different designated office. We're just trying to bring some uniformity here. I understand some of the arguments that have been made for having a different scenario or as in the bill, but I'm still inclined to believe there's particular merit in having consistency and uniformity, broadening it out, making it more comprehensive. I think it would also prevent some complications in assessing the projects located in two or more districts, which paragraph 31(2)(d) envisages, but I certainly accept the fact that others would differ with that.

The Chair: I call the question.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 31 agreed to)

(On clause 40--Non-duplication and certainty)

The Chair: Here we have CA-5. Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: This is trying to get into certainty of time, because I would imagine, for any entrepreneur or person attempting to pursue a project here, the greatest way to kill any economic development is having no certainty, dragging it out, or just not knowing what the rules of the game are. So even if this amendment does not carry, I would certainly hope that some good common sense comes to prevail here, so that there is certainty provided for those participants with regard to time limits. This amendment would require assessors to provide that certainty to participants with regard to time limits, and only cost would affect this requirement of certainty.

º (1640)

The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, the provision as now written is based on a requirement in the umbrella final agreement, 12.4.2.9, and therefore it shouldn't be changed.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So something there means we can't have time limits?

The Chair: We'll ask the department to respond to that.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm not even saying what the time lines are, I just say, set them, make sure they're there.

The Chair: Is there a provision for time limits in the agreement?

Mr. John Bailey: The provision this is based on does mention providing certainty to the extent practicable with respect to time requirements, and we have refined that to use “time limits” in the draft bill we are looking at now.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You're saying there is a certainty regarding time limits in the bill? That's the whole point of the amendment.

Mr. John Bailey: It says:

shall provide certainty, to the extent practicable, to persons participating in the assessment process with respect to assessment procedures, including information requirements, time limits and costs.

The companion provisions we've been through already, with respect to a requirement for the board to create procedural rules that provide time limits for all the activities of the board and the offices, the actual assessment process. They have no choice, they have to create time limits within which they'll conduct all their responsibilities.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, final comment.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: The kicker in there is that there would be certainty in respect of those things, and that's why we've put that in the clause. But “to the extent practicable” is a bit of a bottomless pit, if you will. We're trying to say, let's set the time limits, instead of this “to the extent practicable”--in the minds of whom, I'm not sure.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 40 agreed to)

(On clause 41--Timeliness of assessments)

The Chair: We have CA-6. Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Again, this is to ensure that time limits are imposed on assessments. There's none of that anywhere in the bill. That element of uncertainty was of great concern to our witnesses this morning, which I think was valid testimony. So it's to have that inserted and reflected in the act, not even tying your hands as to what the time limit would be. If we want economic development and so on, we need some certainty by way of time limits on the assessments.

The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: As before, Mr. Chairman, it's covered.

The Chair: Do you wish to ask the department if they can confirm that?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It will be going back to “to the extent practicable”, possibly. I'm not sure if that's what the response would be.

The Chair: Could we ask for input, please, Mr. Bailey?

Mr. John Bailey: Our note was that “existing projects” had been removed, which seems to have been, I think, an oversight in the preparation of it. We did think we would want reviews of existing projects to happen in a timely and expeditious manner as well.

With respect to a requirement for there to be time limits on assessments, which was something of a recurring theme with some of our witnesses this morning and the other day, I'll refer again to clauses 30 and 31, which require that the board has to make rules with respect to the periods within which the executive committee and panels of the board must perform their functions under part 2. What that means is that with everything they do under part 2, every move they make in an assessment capacity or otherwise, they have to provide time periods within which they must do that. These are rules they must create. They have to do them and they have to cover all those activities. The companion provision is in paragraph 31(2)(f), which makes the same requirement for the board to make such rules with time limits for the designated offices. So all the assessments will be bound by these procedural time limits.

º (1645)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm glad to see that at least in spirit, there's an agreement with my proposed amendments.

Also, I should note that if you read carefully, there is no deletion of “existing” at all. In fact, “existing” is left right in. We're just amending lines 7 and 8 to read “conduct assessments of projects, existing projects and plans within the time limits”. There was no surreptitious attempt to take that out.

The Chair: Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Mr. Chair, it's just a question to you or the officials. I realize I'm not aware of what all is in this bill, but are the time limits set now, or when are they set and by whom?

Mr. John Bailey: The intention is that they'll be set through procedural rules by the board,. As we don't have a bill yet, we don't have a board. There has been some background research work going on to look at how long assessments take and so on, and we've had a fair bit of discussion on that, but ultimately, it will be up to the board.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Final word, Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I do see a big difference here. Even with these particular lines in clause 41, there's a big difference between saying “existing projects and plans in a timely and expeditious manner”, whatever specifically that means, and simply cutting to the chase and saying “projects and plans within the time limits”. “Timely and expeditious manner” is vague. It's in the eyes of whoever is reading this. If you say “time limits”, that's got a definitiveness about it and is more concrete. I don't like the vague language here.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 41 agreed to)

(On clause 43--Requiring additional information)

The Chair: We are now on CA-7. Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: The spirit of this one simply is that if the proponent or the one taking the initiative doesn't bring forward enough initial information, there's a deficit in that. Then we don't want that individual eating up time by saying, I don't have it, so in 12 months or whatever he's chewed up half the time and you don't have the body actually being able to do an assessment based on adequate information. So we're saying, if that proponent or initiator is dragging his feet and playing games or is a little dull in getting the information to them, the onus is reversed, the onus is on him, it's his problem. If it's going to drag out the time before he gets approval, that's his problem, because he hasn't provided the information. It enables the assessors to stay within whatever this imposed time limit might be, and he can't chew up that time through inadequate information provided to the board.

The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, the board is requried under paragraph 30(1)(d) and paragraph 31(2)(f) to create binding time periods within which the board or offices must perform all their assessment functions. There is sufficient flexibility in these rule-making provisions to accommodate any extra time a proponent may need to provide supplementary information.

º (1650)

The Chair: Mr. Bailey, can you confirm that? Is that your interpretation of the situation? Because we don't have time to go back and check all the documents.

Mr. John Bailey: There certainly would be that flexibility with the rule-making provision.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, final comment.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Again, we're talking about time limits, and I don't know why we're not putting this in the bill. I'm flattered, I guess, that there's such a consensus around the table, but the votes reflect otherwise. So I'm not sure what's going on in the aftermath of things there. All I can say, facetiously, is that the assurance that the time limits are already there simply makes my point and strengthens the reasons for us to be supporting this thing explicitly as well.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 43 agreed to)

(On clause 51--Determination of scope)

The Chair: G-2, Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: It is that clause 51, Mr. Chairman, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 28 on page 29 with the following:

other activity that it considers likely to be undertaken in relation to an activity so identified and sufficiently related to it to be included in the project.

The Chair: Do you wish to make comments about the amendment? Does anybody wish to clarify why we need this amendment?

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. John Bailey: This is really a drafting oversight. There was a grammatical problem where it says “in addition to any activity identified in the proposal”. It goes on to say, “any activity that it considers likely to be undertaken in relation to the project”, and the reference was intended to go back to that activity identified in the proposal. So it really was making sure the grammar and the structure were correct.

The Chair: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: You've changed the word “other” for the word “any”, but when you look at the last two lines, that's what it says. It says “in relation to the project and sufficiently related to the project”. So why do you need all these new words?

Mr. John Bailey: It's just the construct of it. We make a mention here of “any activity identified in the proposal, any activity that it considers likely to be undertaken in relation to...”, and it should be in relation to that activity we've talked about two lines ahead. So we're going back to a reference to the activity so identified to be included in the project. We want to pull together these various activities.

Mr. Inky Mark: That's what it says, though. “Any” is even more expansive than “other”, right? Then the last two lines say, “related to the project”.

Mr. John Bailey: Again, it was just a misuse of terms here. We talk about an activity identified in the proposal and any activity considered likely to be undertaken in relation to the project. What we mean to say here is that it's in relation to “any activity identified in the proposal”. That's why we had to make sure that in a drafting sense and grammatical sense, it all fit together and the proper reference to activities was made.

º (1655)

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 51 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 60--Review of Project )

The Chair: Now we have PC-4. Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: It's under the title “Request for Review”. It doesn't take away the rights of the territorial government, it creates the option for municipalities, with consent, to make a request for review. Again, it's acknowledging their existence and that they have a role to play.

The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Unfortunately, municipalities do not have this authority under the Yukon umbrella final agreement. There are just the three governing bodies, federal, territorial, and first nations governments, that can make such requests.

The Chair: Final comment, Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: That's the very point. The amendment says “with the consent of the territorial minister”.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 60 agreed to)

(On clause 103-- Request for panel review)

The Chair: The bells are in 20 minutes. Don't take that as a hint to finish before then, but it would be nice.

PC-5, Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: It's really the same idea, giving the municipalities the option of making a request, in this case if the municipality is the originator of the assessment request. To me it makes a lot of sense.

The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: It's exactly the same as before, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: The only difference is, when you debate, we go back for a final statement.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: If that is where they originated, shouldn't they at least have the option of making the request?

The Chair: Are you asking me, or...?

Mr. Inky Mark: No, I'm just stating that question. That's my final statement.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I call the question.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Then there's PC-6,. Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: It's the same idea.

The Chair: With no debate, I call the question?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 103 agreed to)

(On clause 106--Publication of notice)

The Chair: We are now at G-3. Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: I move that clause 106 be amended by replacing line 46 on page 61 with the following

section 103 or 105 and of the manner in which

This provision currently makes an incorrect cross reference to sections 104 and 105.

» (1700)

The Chair: I call the question.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 106 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 110--Recommendation for audit or monitoring of project)

The Chair: CA-7.1, Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: This amendment really prevents a needless ongoing use of resources by the board that will divert the authors of the project from their primary task of development. It's just that whole intent of not having perpetual review possibility for various of these projects. If they've already been approved, we don't want there to be a needless ongoing use of resources by the board in doing another assessment. Have the enforcement, hit them up big if they're polluting or whatever, but there don't need to be continual reviews.

The Chair: Thank you.

As there's no debate, I call the question.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We have another one, CA-7.2. Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: This one is really trying to avoid diverting project management away from the task of developing their projects, as there would be endless almost harassment in the project being reviewed and so on. These project audits and monitorings should be done in a proper, reasonable, and thorough manner, but not to the extent of project managers being diverted from developing the project. We want the economic activities to go forward.

The Chair: Again, there's no debate.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 110 agreed to)

(On clause 121--Information held in confidence)

The Chair: We're at amendment G-4. We only have the French version. Are we cleaning up the language in the French translation only?

Mr. John Finlay: Right you are.

The Chair: Do I have unanimous consent to accept this?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 121 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 122--Regulations of Governor in Council)

The Chair: We are now at PC-7. Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chairman, again, this is what all the standing committees should be doing, every one of them, in respect of exercising accountability, reviewing any regulations that are written by the department. This makes a lot of sense, so I submit it to your common sense.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Inky, we have two amendments here. Mine's in respect of the very same lines. I'll await the wisdom of the chair as to how you deal with that. Do you do one after the other? Does one pre-empt the other?

» (1705)

The Chair: They're adding different things, so we'll deal with both.

Mr. Mark, you've spoken on it?

Mr. Inky Mark: I haven't much else to say. I made the same appeal a few days ago to the common sense of the committee members.

The Chair: I call the question.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: So we go to the Canadian Alliance amendment on clause 122. Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's on the front end of it actually, but I guess it can fit in the clause. As people well know, the devil is in the details. We have a pretty significant bill here, but the regulations are made up outside the scrutiny of elected officials and so on. So we're just asking that no regulation be made under subsection (1) until the draft version has been reviewed at a public hearing. Then they'll proceed or do what they want to do, but at least it's had a public airing. It nicely flows with the language there, and I think it's crucial to have the key stakeholders involved in advising where there could be an improvement.

The Chair: As there's no debate, I call the question.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 122 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 123--Amendment of schedule)

The Chair: We have amendment G-5. Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: This one is to correct the French. It provides consistency with respect to how a territorial law is referred to in the bill. It will make this provision consistent with the English text.

The Chair: It's cleaning up the translation.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I don't think the words “aux termes” should be in the plural form.

The Chair: Does that rectify the problem?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No. Unless I'm mistaken, when the text says “tout organisme chargé, aux termes d'un texte legislatif”, the words “aux termes” should be in the singular form.

I imagine that when a bill is re-read, any spelling mistakes are corrected.

The Chair: Does it appear in the plural form in the bill?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No. The words appear in the plural form in the amendment.

The Chair: It appears that way in the text of the bill also. However, please take note of this to ensure that any corrections, if required, are made.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I will look into it. I'm not certain, but I think it should be in the singular form.

[English]

The Chair: Shall clause 123 carry as amended?

(Clause 123 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 126--Pending applications to territorial agencies and first nations)

The Chair: G-6, Mr. Finlay.

» (1710)

Mr. John Finlay: This is that Bill C-2, in clause 126, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 39 on page 70 with the following:

made to a territorial agency under a territorial law, or to a first nation under a first nation law or the first nation's final agreement, for the

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 126 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Shall schedule 1 carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill with amendments to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: We don't need a reprint. Do you all agree?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

It's done. Thank you very much. You did good work. This meeting is adjourned.