Interventions in Committee
 
 
 
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
View Hunter Tootoo Profile
Ind. (NU)
Mr. Chairman, I hope this is not a case where you use your word of the day.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Hunter Tootoo Profile
Ind. (NU)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for the hard work you guys are doing, especially on this very important piece of legislation. I'm here just briefly, as I committed to you yesterday, Mr. Chairman, to speak to the amendment I've proposed for Bill C-55.
The ultimate goal of this amendment is to reduce and directly address any procedural ambiguity regarding the ministerial decision-making process of the marine protected areas in areas where there are established land claims agreements. I'm putting this in the context of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, but there are also other land claim agreements across the north, including Labrador, northern Quebec, and the Northwest Territories. It's understood in those agreements, and accepted as part of the agreements, that nothing should happen to our lands or to our waters without the input and involvement of Inuit. I think this applies to all facets of decision-making, any activities, as well as the management of those areas.
I feel that the proposed amendment makes this distinction very clear in the particular case of marine protected area designation. I spoke to Inuit back home, and to representatives from Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, and the belief is that the proposed amendment would help ensure that the federal government is living up to its obligations under ratified and approved land claims agreements, especially the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. I believe the acceptance of this amendment would not only substantiate the Inuit-to-crown partnership, but it would also further highlight the government's commitment to honouring the appropriate consultation process with the indigenous people of this country.
I know that this is something we heard in the House from all parties, so I'm looking forward to support for this. I think it also shows that this government is serious and is committed to honouring its obligations under land claims agreements.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
View Hunter Tootoo Profile
Ind. (NU)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have three quick questions for the officials in regard to some of the things in here.
My first one, given the government's commitment to working collaboratively with indigenous people of this country and renewing the relationship—
View Hunter Tootoo Profile
Ind. (NU)
This one is specific to all of it, but there are some specific ones with regard to dates and registration.
View Hunter Tootoo Profile
Ind. (NU)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
In part of it, on that topic of those amendments, the word “consultation” was used. I'm wondering if the department consulted with first nations on this bill and on these different amendments.
View Hunter Tootoo Profile
Ind. (NU)
I appreciate that, and I think I got the response: there's no real consultation on it. I think the grand chief would agree with that.
The other question I have is about 1951 as a date. Where did that date come from?
View Hunter Tootoo Profile
Ind. (NU)
In talking with the grand chief, I think he feels that it should go all the way back if you want to deal with it.
The other quick question can be ruled out of order. I know one thing, from my discussions with the grand chiefs, is that they want self-determination. They don't feel that it should be, with all due respect, someone here determining whether you're an Indian.
As Inuit, we have that. A local group in our communities decides who a beneficiary is and who is not. Why not just do that instead of going through all of this? It was good and right for us. Why can't we extend that same leeway to first nations?
Results: 1 - 9 of 9