Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 17
Michèle Audette
View Michèle Audette Profile
Michèle Audette
2013-05-30 18:14
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
[The witness spoke in the Innu language.]
If I may, I would first like to pay tribute to the Anishinabe Nation for welcoming us on their land. As I say every time, many moccasins have trod on Parliament Hill, on this beautiful land, to remind Canadians that we, the aboriginal peoples, are and will always be proud of who we are.
It would also be important to pay tribute to all those people we work for on a daily basis: families who have lost a mother, a sister, a cousin, a child or a granddaughter. In the past two months, in my nation alone, three young Innu women have been murdered or held against their will for several weeks. I would like to pay tribute to them. If you would like to pay tribute to them, we could observe a minute of silence for all missing or murdered women, a phenomenon that has been happening here for too long.
[A moment of silence observed]
Thank you very much.
[The witness spoke in the Innu language.]
This is our first meeting, and I hope it isn't our last. I would also like to share a bit of our perspective with you and tell you what we, at the Native Women's Association of Canada, feel about this reality that I call a national tragedy, a tragedy that affects everyone. In fact, we all are close to someone who has lost a child or dear loved one.
I must also say thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to speak with this committee. This is how I see the role of the Native Women's Association of Canada with you, dear MPs, who represent the various regions of Canada. It is an opportunity to exchange and have debate, but healthy debate. That doesn't mean we are always going to agree on the same ideas or understand everything we are going to discuss. That isn't how it works in a family, either. However, I hope we can do this respectfully, because we are talking about human lives and dignity here. People really have a lot of hope in the committee's role, but also in the role of the Native Women's Association of Canada. I think that, if we work together, we can surely bring about great change.
The Native Women's Association of Canada was founded in 1974. Allow me to provide a brief summary of who we are and where we're from. Our association has been advocating for several decades for individual rights, collective rights, the environment and human rights. We condemn discrimination, racism and sexism, but always in a constructive way, to enable our societies to live in safety, in dignity, obviously, and far from violence.
Our role here today, in fact the role we are going to try to build together with all of you here, is to better understand how the Native Women's Association of Canada will be able to fuel the debate and contribute to the committee's work through expertise, passion, love and knowledge of women across Canada and the member organizations. This represents a lot of people.
There are various issues that we are concerned or unsure about. Perhaps we also have solutions, quite simply, who knows? I would also like to say that we are currently in discussions with elected officials and colleagues within our organization. We do not see ourselves as witnesses, as we are known as here, but rather as partners or people who can help move these causes forward. I don't think we have the same status as everyone who comes and appears as a witness. I think it will be important to clarify that and agree on it formally.
In April, we sent a letter to the chair to find out how we could discuss the role of the Native Women's Association of Canada, the understanding of the process and how we could be involved in this exercise.
We also sent an email this week, I believe, explaining how our organization would work in good faith and goodwill in the coming months and over the next year.
Madam Chair, I was pleased that your introduction helped us understand the nature of our role a little better. However, I think it will be important to establish a much more official dialogue between the chair and me, or between the chair and our organizations. I think that we are going to find good solutions.
We are not here today to set aside the national public inquiry to document the situation of missing and murdered women. That remains a priority for us. We say this to all tribunals, be they local, regional or national. We recently said before the United Nations in Geneva and New York, and I will say it again next week in Norway: we want a national public inquiry.
As we have seen recently, a lot of people are calling for inquiries when money is misspent or when things happen in elections. We demand inquiries. It is normal. In this case, we are talking about a large number of missing women who have never obtained justice. Perhaps the problem is systematic. A national public inquiry would therefore shed some light on the issue and bring about solutions.
We are holding fast in our position. We want and demand a national inquiry. We also support the committee in its work, and hope that the NWAC's role will be clarified in the coming days.
It is clear to us that this is not just an aboriginal issue.
This is not an aboriginal issue. For us as mothers, grandmothers, and women—and I hope our brothers will come along with this—this is a Canadian issue and also a human rights issue.
I say that from my heart. I'm a passionate person, and I know that our office and the board of directors have the same goal in this exercise. We want to work in partnership and, of course, collaborate with this committee and the aboriginal affairs working group because we know for sure that since 1974, we have been developing that expertise on family violence, elders, and sexual abuse. There are many things we do, including research and training, databases, etc. We were a witness on several committees. We went all over the world learning and exchanging with respect to this expertise. We do need to work together, and I believe we'll find a good way.
Over the years, other organizations have noticed that we have that expertise. The Assembly of First Nations is mostly led by men. I know that more and more of our men are part of the strategy and solution with respect to ending that violence in our communities. I'm glad to say that AFN is also a partner with NWAC on this issue. We had a huge forum in Edmonton. There were probably 450 men and women from across Canada, chiefs and grassroots.... We had a strong three-day discussion with recommendations on ending violence against women.
We also work with first nations governments, not only with AFN but also with communities and with 11 provinces and territories on this issue. Each time we had an aboriginal affairs committee working group where the ministers responsible for aboriginal affairs and some premiers were there. I had the opportunity to have two meetings with them in December, and not long ago. We were so honoured to witness what I call a historical moment. For many years they didn't want to have a national public inquiry. For many years they were saying that a national task force would cost too much money, and other things like that.
After two meetings, NWAC was able to present something to them to say that the issue belongs to all of us. It's not only an NWAC issue.
I was so pleased to hear that they agreed to send a letter to Minister Valcourt and Prime Minister Harper saying that this committee and 11 provinces and territories support NWAC and AFN in wanting a national public inquiry.
We have the international aspect, and we have the other provinces and territories across Canada. They all think there is a need to go further. That's great. I was proud to be part of that historic moment. Let's hope we'll have some more.
Every day we work with families. I call them families—the Stolen Sisters and Sisters in Spirit. We work with them in order to prevent violence, to make sure we are there to support and to listen. We may gather with them once or twice a year just to make sure they're not forgotten. Those moments are so important to them, to know they're not isolated. Their stories are the same, whether they're from Yukon or from P.E.I., and it is important that we work with them.
For me, working with the people...and you all do. You were elected and you're accountable to the people in your respective regions. This is why we are in politics. This is why we decide one day to stand up and run for a position, to do something for people. For most of us, it's not for the salary; it's for our love for the people. We listen to them. They're the ones who give us the fuel, the things to say or do. Maybe they can't afford to do this themselves, or maybe they're not comfortable doing it. For us, those gatherings are really important.
Madam Chair, I hope you and your colleagues will take half a day or a couple of hours to listen to families. I'm from the Innu nation, and it's so Innu to listen to the person. It's probably your first experience in a different culture. Let's try that for an afternoon or a night. Let's gather a few families together and listen to what they have to say. While I don't promise anything, I believe that doing this might change some thoughts in your mind, and it might make you feel differently. They gave me the flame, in French la flamme after listening to many families. I work for the families and the women in the things I do every day. They are so close to my heart. It would be great if you had a special event or something with the families.
Of course, in order to address this issue we have to make sure that we correctly identify.... We all know, I hope, the root cause. There are many reports, databases, and Statistics Canada data, etc. It is obvious that housing is a problem, as is the legacy of the residential schools. Even if we didn't go to the residential schools, our generation, I'm sad to say, is still affected by what happened there. I won't tell you my personal story, but it's everybody's story across Canada for first nations, Métis, and Inuit women in our generation who are still affected by that era.
We also have to take other issues into consideration. Housing, homelessness, addiction, racism, sexism, child sexual abuse, mental health, which is a big issue, negative government policies, historical victimization, gender factors, trafficking are all big issues in our community.
Trafficking is a big issue. We don't talk a lot about it, but it is there, and it's sad that aboriginal and indigenous women are affected by it.
It is past time that those individuals, processes, and policies responsible for maintaining the status quo and the subsequent harms to aboriginal women and girls be remedied.
It is also important that we see....
I'll switch to français for my own sake, and I'll come back en anglais to be polite to the rest who don't speak French.
It will also be good for me to speak in French for a bit.
It is important that you know that you have an extremely important role to play in the work to be done. We have seen a number of committees. I have been involved in aboriginal politics for 20 years now. That's 20 years of giving my heart to aboriginal women and, believe me, I'm giving it. In 20 years, we have seen it, committees, briefs, reports and so on. I would like you, Ms. Ambler and all the members of the committee, to ensure that this time, things are different and that the committee's recommendations are different. We are not just going to choose recommendations that are the least costly or the recommendations that are short term, or simply choose them based on a political capital. I'm asking you to find solutions here that all Canadians can benefit from in the short, medium and long term. It's a good exercise.
There have been various fora at several levels, federal, regional and community, in which national aboriginal organizations and aboriginal women's groups, including the Native Women's Association of Canada and its member organizations, have tried to make their recommendations heard.
Also, as you surely know, there were two editions of the national aboriginal women's summit that resulted in some very interesting recommendations that might be part of this exercise.
There was also the Assembly of First Nations national justice forum, where a significant portion of the second day was spent on missing or murdered women. Recommendations were made there, as well.
As I said, we recently had a summit with the Assembly of First Nations, and we are still working on the recommendations.
Keep in mind that British Columbia co-hosted an event with the Native Women's Association of Canada. It was a good exercise that, once again, gave rise to interesting avenues on the issue that this committee is studying.
I repeat that it is important not to simply take these recommendations lightly, but to invest in people. We are talking about women and families who deserve justice and answers.
We have presented this situation in many regions in Canada and in many countries. Quite recently, Canada had to submit an accountability report as part of the Universal Periodic Review to the United Nations in Geneva. I'll tell you that our organization worked really very well with the member countries that Canada was to respond to. We also felt the solidarity from the international community, which was concerned about what was happening here, in Canada. So it's everywhere. Although we are no longer active internationally for the moment—I'd be surprised if it stayed that way since nothing can stop me—the message was put out there, internationally.
Quite recently, we submitted a request to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Ms. Ameline is the chair of the committee. I met with her last week in New York, and I highlighted how important it is for the special rapporteur to work with us if she or he came to Canada. It's important. You also have the opportunity to show, internationally, that you really want to eliminate those statistics to make way for prevention and the safety of aboriginal women across Canada.
We had the opportunity to meet three times with members of the Organization of American States as part of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Quite recently, still as part of the Organization of American States, we reiterated our support. Lastly, Canada—thank you very much—agreed to bring the three special rapporteurs here. To date, on the international and inter-American levels, meetings have been held with the attendance of the special rapporteur, James Anaya, an official from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States and Ms. Ameline of the CEDAW.
All these people are aware of the situation. Every time, I invite them to come and see the situation, while telling them that I am convinced that we can change things together if we take a constructive approach. It's always a hope. However, if things don't budge, there might be recourse at the international court, but I don't think we need to go that far. At least, I hope not.
In Canada and the United States, there is a situation that some may feel is emerging, but that we know has existed for far too long, and that is the trafficking of women. And then comes prostitution. It is clear that prostitution and trafficking are closely linked, unfortunately. I hope you know that. For us, it clearly violates human rights.
We are talking here about poverty, vulnerability. In the very beginning, we mentioned homelessness, housing problems, extreme poverty, the repercussions of residential schools. Canadians might be wondering what the connection is between the schools, the lack of housing and poverty. These are all health determinants, factors that make aboriginal women five times more likely to die of a violent crime. In many cases, the profile of these women fits into the examples I just gave you.
It is clear that there really is a systemic problem. Trafficking is becoming increasingly…
Madam Chair, I know that this is not our role, but in my heart, as an advocate, I think it would be interesting to look at the links between aboriginal women, trafficking and prostitution, as well as the factors that mean that our children and our daughters are in situations where they are extremely vulnerable. They are taken away before they are 18 years old and then end up in prostitution. I'm hearing some groups say that these people have the right to choose what they do with their body and their life. But we have to keep in mind the fact that these young people might have gotten involved in an unhealthy environment before they were 18.
For us, violence clearly is not acceptable, and I'm sure all of us around this table agree. We have focused on very, very serious violence for many years.
Violence affects aboriginal women, our children, our families. I will share with you some stories and events that happened in our communities across Canada. They are sad stories, and they're true.
Back in the day when Paul Bernardo killed two white girls, every Canadian, even me, knew the names of the two girls, Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French. Everybody knew their names. But we have to remember, and we do, that in that same period, a number of aboriginal girls went missing, and today Canadians still don't know their names.
A shocking 1996 government statistic reveals that indigenous women between the ages of 25 and 44, with status under the Indian Act, as I said earlier, were five times more likely than other women of the same age to die as a result of violence. The numbers used here come from a federal organization. Today in 2013, aboriginal women are still facing that reality every day.
In two separate instances in 1994, two 15-year-old indigenous girls, Roxanna Thiara and Alishia Germaine, were found murdered in Prince George. The body of a third 15-year-old indigenous girl, Ramona Wilson, who disappeared that same year, was found in Smithers, in central British Columbia, in April 1995. Only in 2002, after the disappearance of a 26-year-old non-indigenous woman, Nicola Hoar, while hitchhiking along a road that connects Prince George and Smithers, was there media attention all over Canada. Her name was also on a list of the unsolved murders and other disappearances along what has been dubbed the Highway of Tears. But what about the other indigenous girls?
This is my last story for you today. In 1996 John Martin Crawford was convicted of murder in the killings of three indigenous women, Eva Taysup, Shelley Napope, and Calinda Waterhen, in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Warren Goulding, one of the few journalists to cover the trial, commented. “I don't get the sense the general public cares much about missing or murdered aboriginal women. It's all part of this indifference to the lives of aboriginal people. They don't seem to matter as much as white people.” That comes from one of your brothers.
The disparity between recommendations being made by aboriginal women at these events, such as, NAWS, the National Aboriginal Women's Summit, the Joint AFN-NWAC National Forum, and so on, and the one I named earlier in the presentation, and what government is actually doing is getting way too big. But I have a strong feeling—and we do, we had that discussion—that we will be able to—we have to—make sure that those numbers decrease until we don't have any more missing and murdered sisters.
There are many things we can do, but we have to work together. We have to work with the families. We have to work with the grassroots organizations.
We heard the same thing when we discussed this. When I met with several ministers from the Harper government, I heard that we have the same views. Action for us is important. We have to focus. I often heard some of your colleagues talk about action. It's the same for us. We have something here that connects us. We have to focus on action.
To implement the action we need, as I said, we have to work together. Funding is also necessary, not only for the Native Women's Association of Canada, but also the PTMAs, the members of NWAC, the organizations, volunteers, women who gave their heart and love to their region, but also other grassroots or first nations communities, Métis organizations, and Inuit. They need to have proper funding and the proper resources in place to prevent violence.
I will conclude this part, because we are a team and her English is way better. If the committee continues its work, and I'm sure it will after listening to your opening remarks, Madam Chair, but if the work is done without the full participation of the Native Women's Association of Canada, we will not be able to endorse this work. But I'm sure we'll officially find ways. We already had a good discussion with Madam Chair on how we can make sure, and the special advisory position is something we're really comfortable with. The dialogue between meetings will be important, making sure we can connect as much as possible to exchange some information, etc.
I have lots of hope, Madam Chair. I had a good meeting with you, so the hope is still there.
View Royal Galipeau Profile
CPC (ON)
I listened very attentively to all the questions that have been asked.
Ms. Latendresse, my first comment will be in Russian and has to do with the work you did: spasibo.
I would like to continue in the wake of my colleague's questions about the quality of the French in the bill. The English version has a sort of rigour. In fact, the English is consistent from one paragraph to the next. But, that is not the case in the French version. It isn't very serious, but perhaps the people who drafted the bill could look into it. I do not want to make a big deal out of it, but since our role is to defend Canada's official languages, first and foremost, I think the French language should be treated equally.
View Royal Galipeau Profile
CPC (ON)
Paul Quassa
View Paul Quassa Profile
Paul Quassa
2013-02-05 8:52
Qujannamiik. Uvunga Paul Quassa.
[Speaker speaks in Inuktitut]
I'm Paul Quassa, chairman of the Nunavut Planning Commission, and I'm here today with Sharon Ehaloak, our executive director, and Adrian Boyd, the director of policy.
On behalf of the Nunavut Planning Commission, I'd like to thank the committee for the privilege of speaking directly with you today. The Nunavut Planning Commission is an institution of public government established under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. The commission is primarily responsible for the implementation of article 11, land use planning under NLCA.
As a public agency, we conduct our operations in a fashion similar to that of any land use planning department you may have encountered at the municipal level. Our nationally certified, registered, professional land use planning staff ensure that best practices and emerging trends of the profession guide our land use planning activities. These planning activities are designed to implement our unique legal obligations set out under the NLCA.
The Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, “the act”, adds the long-awaited clarity required by the commission to fulfill its role as the gatekeeper of Nunavut's regulatory process. Under the act, the commission will be the single entry point into the regulatory system for Nunavut. This of course is where land use planning was always meant to be.
This additional duty is a monumental task. However, it eliminates 20 years of confusion and debate over where the regulatory process starts in Nunavut. Therefore, when the act comes into force, the regulatory process in Nunavut will be instantly streamlined. It is important to note that the NLCA requires that the objective of the land use planning process be the development of planning policies, priorities, and objectives regarding the conservation, development, management, and use of land in the Nunavut settlement area and the preparation of use plans to guide and direct resource use and development in the Nunavut settlement area. The commission is responsible for the implementation of its approved land use plans.
The NLCA also requires that in the development of planning policies, priorities, and objectives, factors such as the following be taken into account: economic opportunities and needs; community infrastructural requirements, including housing, health, education, social services, and corridors; cultural factors and priorities; environmental protection and management needs, including wildlife conservation, protection, and management; and energy requirements, sources, and availability.
Land use plans developed under the NLCA shall reflect the priorities and values of the residents, must give great weight to the views and wishes of all Nunavut municipalities, and must take into account input from appropriate federal and territorial government agencies, designated Inuit organizations, communities, and the general public.
All of these interests must be taken into account for an area that includes 1.9 million square kilometres of land with vast economic potential, sensitive and unique Arctic wildlife and habitat, pristine freshwater reserves, and thousands of kilometres of Canada's marine coastline.
According to the Conference Board of Canada's Centre for the North, mining production in Canada's northern regions could nearly double by 2020. Challenges for Canada's north include a “clunky regulatory process”. Discussion needs to be focused on environmental stewardship and respect for aboriginal rights in order for projects to be developed sustainably.
With the implementation of the act and the development of the Nunavut land use plan, many of these concerns can be addressed. Land use planning, when appropriately funded, is capable of addressing concerns raised by the Conference Board of Canada, Inuit, Nunavut municipalities, environmental agencies, industry, and all Canadians. Through land use plans, we are able to bring certainty to investors by addressing the age-old debate of conservation versus development. As you can see from the NLCA obligations I have already mentioned, land use planning is expected to tackle competing interests in land use head-on.
The act creates significant new legal obligations for the commission. These obligations require organizational changes, which will have financial, human resources, and technological implications that need to be addressed to support the commission's transition.
The requirements under the act will change and add to the current operational task of the organization. Being established as a single entry point into the regulatory system will create a major shift to the conformity determination obligations established under the NLCA.
In essence, the commission becomes the conductor of the regulatory process. The Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Nunavut Water Board, and government agencies and regulators form the orchestra; as conductor, the commission directs the flow of projects into the environmental and regulatory review process.
In addition, the establishment of legal timelines, an online multilingual public registry, and other technical and language services will seriously increase demands and workloads for the commission. At present the commission is constrained by its existing human and financial resources and is not currently able to take steps required to prepare for implementation of the act.
It is important for me to emphasize that the commission embraces the new opportunities that expand our public service role. We believe the new obligations will bring clarity to the regulatory process and promote investment, create awareness, and maintain a high level of environmental stewardship in Nunavut. We are excited to see the act advancing and are committed to its success.
That said, this organization has been critically underfunded for nearly a decade. Industry and Inuit have told us that the land use planning process takes too long, and we agree. However, without additional resources, the commission is helpless to respond.
Over the past 90 days the commission has consulted with nearly half of the communities in Nunavut on the draft Nunavut land use plan. During our consultation on the draft Nunavut land use plan, Inuit, Nunavut municipalities, and hunters' and trappers' organizations have all rung alarm bells over the development of a land use plan that applies only to the Nunavut settlement area. They all insist that the jurisdiction of the commission must expand to apply to the entire marine area along the east coast of Baffin Island and to the part of Hudson Bay that lies within the Nunavut territory yet outside of the Nunavut settlement area.
The commission believes that land use planning under the NLCA and the act could form the foundation for a world-class regulatory system that is envied by all nations. However, without appropriate financial and human resources and the expansion of the commission's jurisdiction to include all land, water, and marine areas within the Nunavut territory, the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, in our view, will miss the mark.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you today.
Qujannamiik.
Udloriak Hanson
View Udloriak Hanson Profile
Udloriak Hanson
2012-12-10 15:33
[Witness speaks in Inuktitut]
Thank you very much for asking us to present today. My name is Udloriak Hanson. As you mentioned, I have John and Dick with me. They're both with NTI as legal counsel. It's nice to see some familiar faces here. We have Nunavut Sivuniksavut students, our college students, all from Nunavut. It's great to have that support. We have people from NTI and my son here, so I'm very pleased to be here. Thank you.
First, I'd like to give thanks to the committee again for the invitation for NTI to appear today. NTI, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., represents more than 25,000 Inuit of Nunavut for the purpose of asserting and defending the rights of Inuit under the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
Part 1 of the bill before you today arises directly from the Nunavut agreement. It is our job as representatives of Inuit, as we believe it is yours as legislators, to ensure that the bill fully respects and implements the treaty promises made by the crown to Inuit. We take that responsibility very seriously.
NTI is a not-for-profit, non-partisan organization incorporated under federal law. We have a board of directors headed by a slate of executive officers who are popularly elected by Inuit across Nunavut. Actually, today is our election day for presidents. The Nunavut agreement covers some 20% of Canada and a larger portion of Canada's marine areas. Our agreement is the bedrock of Canadian sovereignty in much of the Arctic. It is a treaty under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The Nunavut agreement requires that legislation set forth the powers and functions of the resource management bodies created under the agreement, in this case the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Planning Commission,but there is an obvious risk to the aboriginal party in this legislative exercise. A land claims agreement is a contract. All its provisions, both large features and small details, are the outcome of negotiation and compromise. Neither side gets everything it wants.
The wording of many provisions reflects a careful balancing of interests. Implementation legislation proceeds differently. One of the parties to the agreement gets to draft the legislation. Recognizing that imbalance and reflecting the crown's duty to act honourably, the Nunavut agreement expressly requires that implementation legislation be prepared in close consultation with the designated Inuit organization, in this case, NTI.
There must be fair and sufficient collaboration and accommodation. Inuit cannot just be stakeholders in such a process. We have to be partners in the bill's design and wording. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the crown is under a duty to consult and accommodate aboriginal peoples and to act honourably when aboriginal rights are involved. This duty logistically extends to the crown acting as part of Parliament, so that these principles should also be respected and applied by this committee.
Between 2002 and late 2009, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, NTI, and the Government of Nunavut worked together on the development of this bill. The Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Impact Review Board also participated in that work. The working group operated on the basis of consensus, building on the practical experience of the Planning Commission and the impact review board since they came into existence in 1996. The strength of the bill is the result of that consensus-based process. It is a credit to the federal officials with whom we worked that at this concluding stage of the process, NTI can say that it has been a partner in the bill's development. This is the first time NTI can say that about a federal legislative project.
Having said that, NTI did not draft this bill, nor did it instruct the legislative drafters directly. Therefore, NTI cannot warrant that this bill complies in all respects with the Nunavut agreement. As provided in the agreement, in the event of any conflict, the Nunavut agreement will prevail.
In fact, NTI will be proposing today a number of changes to the bill. While relatively minor, many of these changes are needed to ensure clearer compliance of the bill with the Nunavut agreement.
It is important to note that due to the limited time available, and the length and complexity of the bill, NTI has not been able to conduct a review of the French language version. Parliament must look to the Department of Justice and its own staff to ensure that the two official language versions are consistent.
In NTI's view, the strengths of the bill include: a requirement that public hearings and reviews be conducted in Inuktitut in addition to French and English, at the request of a board member, proponent or intervenor; specific direction to regulators not to issue permits unless the land use planning and environmental assessment processes authorize the granting of a permit; and direction to regulators to include in their permits applicable terms and conditions of land use plans and project assessment certificates. Another strength is offence provisions that backstop the duties of regulators in relation to land use plans and project certificates.
As well, other strengths include: a requirement for Inuit approval of land use plans, which is consistent with the unique Inuit role in the land management system in Nunavut and the Inuit ownership of much of the land; instructions for how projects will be scoped in advance, so as to avoid problems such as project splitting; and provisions to facilitate commission and board operations, such as recognition of their legal capacity to hold property and sign contracts.
Notwithstanding these positive features, a number of aspects of the bill should be corrected.
Contrary to the Nunavut agreement, the bill fails to identify cabinet as a body responsible in all cases to implement land use plans and project certificates. The result is a gap; where cabinet has exclusive authority for land-related functions, plan or project certificate requirements will be without anybody responsible to implement them.
The bill expressly requires that in exercising their functions with respect to land use plans, the Planning Commission, ministers, and Inuit must give specific attention to “existing rights and interests”. However, existing patterns of natural resource use and“economic opportunities and needs are already factors that must be considered. The introduction of another factor emphasizing the same or similar points improperly skews the delicate negotiated balance of the agreement.
There are some areas of the bill where process should be improved. For example, under clauses 141 and 142, proponents are the only source of notice to the Planning Commission and the Impact Review Board of modifications to a project during assessment. Regulators should also be required to notify the Planning Commission or Impact Review Board if they receive an application with a project description that differs from the project under assessment or that has been assessed by the Planning Commission or Impact Review Board.
In a number of places, the wording of the bill varies from the wording of the agreement for no good or agreed reason. This is unsound in principle and in law and is likely to create confusion and uncertainty in the day-to-day operation of the new act.
Draft amendments for these and other proposed changes are included in NTI's written submission, and I've been told you all have a copy of it. NTI requests the committee to make these amendments.
Finally, NTI reminds the committee that a law is only as good as its day-to-day administration. The bill gives the Planning Commission and the impact review board a number of new or expanded functions. For example, both bodies will have an extensive public registry responsibility that exceeds current federal record-keeping requirements. Functions such as these naturally require the allocation of appropriate levels of new funding.
Another funding need relates to the increase in the number of existing and anticipated mines and other resource development activities in Nunavut. Land and water inspection in Nunavut is already overtaxed. Adequate funding for these functions is long overdue.
The bill appropriately contains strengthened monitoring, inspection, and enforcement provisions. However, we have had no assurances whatsoever that sufficient funds will be allocated to implement the bill.
Arctic ecosystems are fragile, and this is an urgent priority. NTI invites you to ask federal government witnesses to identify specifically how and when the necessary additional funding to implement this bill will be made available to the boards and to relevant federal offices.
Nakurmiik. Thank you for your attention.
David Akeeagok
View David Akeeagok Profile
David Akeeagok
2012-12-05 16:20
[Witness speaks in Inuktitut]
Good afternoon. As the chair mentioned, my name is David Akeeagok, and I am the deputy minister of the Department of Environment in the Government of Nunavut. On behalf of Premier Aariak, I would like to thank the committee for your invitation to the premier to appear before you. Premier Aariak sends her regrets. I am appearing on her behalf.
I am appearing to speak in support of part 1 of the bill, the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act. As Premier Aariak has noted, the bill marks an important milestone in creating an effective regime for Inuit and the government to manage resource development in Nunavut together.
The bill fulfills a major commitment Canada made under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. In 1993, the Inuit of Nunavut and Canada signed the largest land claims agreement in the country. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement requires that new federal legislation be created to set forth the powers and functions of the resource management boards created under the agreement. In this case, they are the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Planning Commission. These two boards play an essential role in land and resource management in Nunavut. They are composed of members appointed or nominated by Inuit as well as by the territorial and federal governments. They have been in operation since 1996, under the authority and powers granted to them under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act.
Between 2002 and late 2009, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the Government of Nunavut, and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated worked together to complete the federal legislation that would set out clear roles for the boards. The Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Impact Review Board also participated in that work. I would like to acknowledge the hard work officials from the Government of Nunavut, the federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Nunavut Tunngavik, and the two boards have put into the development of this bill.
The working group was guided by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement as well as by the experience of drafting similar legislation in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The working group also benefited from the work the board, Inuit, and the government have been doing since 1996.
The Government of Nunavut believes this bill will make a number of improvements to the regulatory regime in Nunavut. Specifically, the Nunavut section of this bill will make the work of the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Planning Commission stronger by backing it up with solid federal legislation. It will also create a clear regulatory process with predictable timelines.
The bill will integrate the process of approving project proposals by the Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Impact Review Board. The bill establishes a one-window approach to project approval, with the Nunavut Planning Commission as the entry point for all project approvals. The bill establishes three-party approval of the land use plan by Inuit, Canada, and the Government of Nunavut.
The bill further clarifies the role of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in Nunavut. This will eliminate the overlap of jurisdictions, which has caused confusion and delay elsewhere in Canada. The bill will make it clear which projects are subject to assessment. It will also set out in a schedule all government authorizations that must comply with the requirements of the bill before being finalized.
The bill sets out the regulatory approval process in a clear manner and organizes the processes chronologically.
The bill allows for enforcement of land use plans and project certifications on Inuit-owned lands, crown lands, and commissioner lands.
The bill requires that public hearings be conducted in Inuktitut if requested by a member, proponent, or intervenor.
The bill includes specific directions to regulators to include in their permits applicable terms and conditions of the land use plans and project assessment certificates.
The bill includes specific timelines for regulators and ministers to make decisions. This will bring certainty and predictability to Nunavummiut, to industry, and to other stakeholders.
Finally, the bill provides for offence provisions in relation to land use plans and project certification.
As the committee can see, this is an important piece of legislation for the north, and it will contribute to the economic development of Nunavut.
Additionally, as members of this committee may know, the Government of Nunavut is currently engaged in devolution discussions to transfer jurisdiction over land and resources from the federal government to the Government of Nunavut. A devolution agreement has been concluded with the Yukon, and an agreement in principle has been reached with the Northwest Territories.
An effective regulatory system, which Bill C-47 will create, is a key component of devolution. The Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act will assist in creating a transparent and effective regulatory system in Nunavut. It will allow the Government of Nunavut to take on management of lands and resources in a seamless way without disruption to resource development in Nunavut.
This legislation is an important achievement by the federal and territorial governments and Inuit to strengthen Nunavut's institutions and enable Nunavummiut to advance along the path towards greater self-reliance.
Mr. Chairman, that's all I have in terms of opening remarks. I would be happy to take questions from committee members.
Quyanainni.
View Dennis Bevington Profile
NDP (NT)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much to the witnesses for being here today. Quyanainni.
I'm pleased to have an opportunity to ask you questions on this. We are very delighted that you have a piece of legislation that you are anxious to see go through the process here and become law.
You can see the timeframe that's been involved in this. I'm a little curious as to what the sticking points were in this legislation that led to this taking so many years for the federal government and Nunavut to agree on. Could you maybe give us a sense of the issues where the two governments weren't in sync?
David Akeeagok
View David Akeeagok Profile
David Akeeagok
2012-12-05 16:29
Quyanainni.
From 2002 to 2009 it has been a very complex file. It has been worked on very carefully by two governments, along with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. With a tri-party working group, I don't think there were a lot of sticking points in terms of what the major issues were, but it did take quite a bit of time to do the drafting.
As well, just trying to have the same wording in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and the new legislation, and trying to line those up with the regulatory—it took a good number of years to get that through.
Quyanainni.
David Akeeagok
View David Akeeagok Profile
David Akeeagok
2012-12-05 16:33
What NTI has submitted to the committee represents one of the areas that has been worked on for a good number of years. NTI have used the same wording used in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. From the assessments we did on what they submitted, that's what they're asking for.
In that regard, our government is satisfied with the bill before your committee. I believe NTI will be speaking to you on their points later this week. We have maintained the position that this should be worked on by the three parties, and we were satisfied by the working groups that we should move forward. From the government's standpoint, this is what we would like to see go through.
Quyanainni.
David Akeeagok
View David Akeeagok Profile
David Akeeagok
2012-12-05 16:35
Currently the Nunavut Planning Commission is conducting community consultations on the plan they have drafted, which will have a Nunavut-wide focus. That's taking place right now. I'm awaiting the community consultation results to see if there are going to be any amendments or any refinements on the draft that's before our territory.
Quyanainni.
David Akeeagok
View David Akeeagok Profile
David Akeeagok
2012-12-05 16:49
As I mentioned in my opening comments, it will bring about certainty to the people of Nunavut. If there are any economic development opportunities in natural resources, there will be certainty that there will be a review process to allow for the environmental and economic opportunity for both of those. I think our government, through the Tamapta priorities that our premier is implementing, will bring about a good amount of certainty.
A prime example I will use is on the Baffinland project. Leading up to that, we used the boards—the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Water Board. This legislation has a model to make sure we don't duplicate a lot of efforts.
As you might know, the population in Nunavut is small. Having one window to give that opportunity helps all of us within Nunavut. It's streamlining a lot of these processes, which allows our population to effectively have their say in terms of moving this forward. The horizon we have and the projections on the resource development that is coming...it's growing, and it's growing quite substantially.
Without proper regulatory legislation, we did have concerns. But with the proper regulatory systems in place, from the Nunavut perspective, that's going to help our population, in terms of having their voice and having the decisions made by the people, for the people, in Nunavut.
Quyanainni.
David Akeeagok
View David Akeeagok Profile
David Akeeagok
2012-12-05 16:58
I think there were two components to the questions. One is on funding for the institutions of public government in the NIRB. There is a process to fund them through another tri-party agreement that has to get done, and that's through the contract relating to the implementation of the Nunavut Final Agreement. Within that contract, the institutions of public government are funded on an annual basis. That work is still ongoing, in terms of renewing that contract. That portion, ensuring the institutions of public government are getting adequate funding, should be addressed through the working party, the Nunavut Implementation Panel. With the number of projects that are coming forth, we're hoping that funding will be reflective of the number of projects that are coming. It's not contained within this legislation.
In terms of the other part of the question you raised, which is on our government and whether we're confident that we'll have adequate funding brought as part of this implementation, we have been working in very good faith on the drafting of the legislation. It is our anticipation that if we do need further funding to implement this legislation...I'm confident that there will be good faith among all parties to move that forward. We'd like to see that happen in good faith. It has already been identified what impact it will have on the territorial government.
Also, as part of the devolution agreement, those are still subject to negotiations, in terms of who does what and on the lands and controls and enforcement side, so I'll leave that portion in that area. But I'm confident that we've both been working in good faith for the needs of the Government of Nunavut and that that will continue.
Quyanainni.
Norman Fleury
View Norman Fleury Profile
Norman Fleury
2012-11-29 12:48
Thank you.
When I'm asked questions that are very open, my mind expands. When you're talking about the North-West Mounted Police, “simâkanis” is “police” in Cree. My great-grandfather, Edward "Maakun" Fleury, was in the North-West Mounted Police. It stayed in our family until my grandfather passed on, so we have a connection with that.
You were talking about our people being major interpreters, and the mediators and mediums in the making of this country. First and foremost, we are mixed heritage, so we had all the languages, all the diversity. We were needed in the opening of this country. When the Dakota people came to Cypress Hills, it was our people who took Sitting Bull back to his territory because they knew Lakota.
Even pre-Canada, we were involved in the opening of the country through the fur trade. We actually flew our first flag in this country prior to the country having a flag. When we're talking about the distinctness of our people as a Michif people, we had our language, our stories, our songs, our music, and we had all that together.
In order to identify what our youth need, we have to empower them by including them. We have to ask them what they want. They can ask me questions as an elder and I have to come up with an answer. It's the same as when I was about 13 years old and I asked my grandmother questions. I used to have breakfast at my grandmother's place. We had porridge every morning, and for one reason, I don't why—it was God who said to me that I should ask my grandma what Michif is and where it comes from. I asked her, and I said in my language:
[Witness speaks in his native language]
“Grandma, where did we get this language? Where does it come from?”
She looked at me with great awe, and she asked me why I was asking her this question, because nobody had ever asked that question before, where is this language from. She said that she couldn't think about it right then because I had caught her off guard, but that she should think about it. She said I should go there to eat every day anyway and that I'd probably go there again the next day for breakfast. I did go, and she said she had thought about it. For a lady who never went to school a day in her life, she was very much an academic in her culture, and in who she was as a Michif person.
She said that God created this world and the people overseas. She said that the French have the French language, the German have the German language. She said that everybody has a language, and in this country, the first nations have a language. She said that the Dakota have the Dakota language, that the Cree have the Cree language, and then it was our turn. She explained that our language is a God-given language, that it's a language of the land, that it's a spiritual language.
That's the answer my grandmother gave me. How else can you explain it? The linguists do all the research—and they're still doing research—and they want to know where this Michif is.
When our youth get themselves organized, they talk about the effects of Confederation. They talk about the effects of losing their history. They talk about empowerment and about healing. Those are the kinds of things that are important. I'm talking about the Métis specifically, because I'm at this table to speak on behalf of a particular nation, my nation. That's what we have to do. We have to sanction people to adjust our history. We have to follow protocols.
We have all the chance in the world. In Saskatchewan, there's a francophone community at the university. We've had round table discussions there, talking about the evolution of the language and how it's become the Michif language. We also have English, which I'm using today and which we use every day, but we don't use the Michif language every day, so we have to make sure that's included.
Thank you.
Merci.
Sharon Stinson Henry
View Sharon Stinson Henry Profile
Sharon Stinson Henry
2012-11-19 16:34
Thank you.
Aaniin kinaweya. Good afternoon, everyone.
[Witness speaks in her native language]
My name is Sharon Henry Stinson. I'm the chief of the Chippewas of Rama First Nation in Ontario, but I'm appearing before the committee—and I thank you for hearing me today—as a member of the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board.
The National Aboriginal Economic Development Board, as you may know, is a federal advisory board created in 1990 to provide strategic policy and program advice to the federal government on aboriginal economic development. The board brings together first nations, Inuit, and Métis community and business leaders from all regions of Canada to advise the federal government on ways to help increase the economic participation of aboriginal men, women, and communities in the Canadian economy.
Today I am pleased to offer information that may assist the committee in your study on the subject matter of clauses 208 and 209 in division 8 of part 4 of Bill C-45, which proposes to amend the Indian Act to modify the voting and approval procedures in relation to proposed land designations.
I would also like to offer the national board's views on these modifications and why we believe the proposed changes could go further, such as by providing first nations with additional leeway to amend the term and use of designations when circumstances change. At the board's last appearance before this committee in March of this year, we noted a range of challenges to creating strong economies on reserves, many of them related to the land management processes under the Indian Act, which are all too often expensive, complex, and extremely slow, resulting in missed economic opportunities.
This year, the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board conducted case studies of three first nations. These case studies provide solid evidence of this reality. The three communities that were examined were the community of Membertou in Nova Scotia, the Osoyoos Indian Band in British Columbia, and my community of Rama First Nation. We have all achieved relatively high degrees of economic success despite operating under an antiquated system that was never designed to allow for a range of economic opportunities such as we are seeing across the country today.
With respect to the proposed amendments to the Indian Act under consideration by this committee, our case studies reveal the following. Some of the panellists have already spoken to some of these issues, but I'll repeat them.
First, designation votes cause first nations to lose both time and money. To conduct a designation vote, a first nation must invest a significant amount of time and money to inform all of its members, both on and off reserve, about the vote. We must ensure that they have adequate information to make an informed decision, to hold meetings, to develop communication materials, and, finally, to conduct the vote.
For example, in Osoyoos a designation vote was conducted in 2008 for the Senkulmen project to set a designation length of 69 years and allow for light industry uses in the park. It cost Osoyoos $50,000 and took nearly five months to conduct that vote.
Later, to allow the band to seize an energizing economic opportunity to build a $250 million correctional centre, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and the Department of Justice insisted that Osoyoos conduct a second designation vote for the same parcel of land to change the lease period and allow for institutional tenants. The second designation cost the band an additional $20,000.
In total, the federal government's designation and leasing requirements caused Osoyoos to incur $150,000 in expenses.
Second, designation votes put existing economic activity at risk. Any amendment to the purpose and term of a designation requires an additional vote by the electors of the first nation involved. Communities do not have flexibility to change the duration or purpose of land use as economic opportunities present themselves or continue beyond the term of the original designation.
For example, the land in my community on which Casino Rama is located has a designation term. When that term expires, under the terms of the Indian Act we are to conduct another referendum to approve the future designation of those lands. This puts us at a $30 million net revenue risk.
That is unacceptable. Imagine Canada having to hold a referendum every 40 years on the location of the Parliament Buildings. Now imagine all the local businesses who have built their future on the location of these buildings and leaving their future up to a referendum. It is disruptive to the community and the economy. If you had to go through a referendum every 40 years or less—20 years in some cases—on the land you sit on today, that is unacceptable as well.
In conclusion, the national board is supportive of the overall direction taken in Bill C-45, to this extent: first, we agree to the proposed amendment to Bill C-45 to reduce the voting threshold to a simple majority, as has been mentioned. However, the board is of the opinion that the bill should go further and eliminate the need for a second designation vote when changes to the lease or the use of the land are required.
Second, while the national board supports any measure that will streamline the designation process, such as the proposed amendment to allow the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development rather than the Governor in Council to approve the land designation upon receipt of a band council resolution, the board would like to impress upon the committee the need to further modernize the Indian Act's land management regime. For example, the designation processes should be more similar to the process by a municipal authority to designate or zone land for a particular use. I heard that mentioned earlier as well.
Assuming that a comprehensive community plan exists, the use of costly and time-consuming referenda for decision-making should be limited. First nations that are willing and able should be provided with tools to free themselves from the bureaucratic gridlock that emerges due to the federal government's risk-averse approach.
On a personal note, I recommend that the committee seriously consider eliminating or removing the word "surrender" from the Indian Act and using the word "transfer", if anything. It's unacceptable to use that term.
Voting has already been mentioned in the discussion by the panel. First nations need to have a simple majority, as other communities do in their processes. For heaven's sake, we're not even allowed to have addresses of our voters, if you can imagine, to reach them to give them the information they need to make an informed vote.
I could go on and on, but I won't, in the interest of time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your invitation to be here today.
Meegwetch. Thank you.
Results: 1 - 15 of 17 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data