Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 46 - Evidence - November 21, 2018
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 21, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:46 p.m. to consider the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 11, 12 and 19 of Part 4 of Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.
Senator Lillian Eva Dyck (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening. Tansi. I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples either here in the room or listening via the web.
I would like to acknowledge, for the sake of reconciliation, that we are meeting on the traditional, unceded lands of the Algonquin people.
My name is Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan, and I have the honour and privilege of chairing this committee.
Tonight we continue our meetings on the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 11, 12 and 19 of Part 4 of Bill C-86, a second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018, and other measures.
I now invite my fellow senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Patterson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening. I’m Dennis Patterson, senator for Nunavut.
Senator Doyle: Norman Doyle, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Nova Scotia.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum from Manitoba.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, Ontario.
Senator Christmas: Dan Christmas, Nova Scotia.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, Manitoba.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
I would like to introduce our witnesses who are here in the room with us this evening. From the First Nations Land Management Resource Centre, we have Mr. William McCue, Board Member, Lands Advisory Board; Mr. Meko Nicholas, Executive Director; and Mr. Steven Aronson, legal counsel.
We also have Ms. Edith Spence, Manager, Lands Division, Opaskwayak Cree Nation in Manitoba.
Appearing via video conference, we have, from the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba, Chief Nelson Genaille, Sapotaweyak Cree Nation, Manitoba; and Mr. Chris Henderson, Executive Director, Treaty Land Entitlement Committee.
Thank you all for taking the time to meet with us today. We will begin testimony from the witnesses with Chief Genaille.
Chief Nelson Genaille, Sapotaweyak Cree Nation, Manitoba, Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba Inc.: Good evening, senators. Chief Nelson Genaille from the Sapotaweyak Cree Nation. I am also the President of the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba.
Speaking about being a witness, one thing that we do require is land entitlement in the agreement we entered into, which is titled 1997 Framework Agreement TLE. In this framework agreement we’re entitled to 1.1 million acres land entitlement, as promised in treaties. It’s an outstanding legal obligation. One of the big hindrances that we do have is presetting, before even getting to additional reserves, resolving all interests associated with land transactions.
To my left I have Chris Henderson, my executive director, implementing on our behalf and at the same time working with the 21 entitlement First Nations on getting our land entitlement.
Chris Henderson, Executive Director, Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba Inc.: Good evening, senators. Good evening from Treaty 1 territory in the city of Winnipeg. It’s a pleasure to be asked to appear before the committee yet again.
We are only speaking to Division 19 of the budget bill regarding the additions to reserve and reserve creation act.
The first point I’d like to make is that under this act we understand that the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act will be repealed if this ATR act is enacted into law. We were never asked if we wanted the proposed ATR legislation. We have had a supposed benefit of the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, which enables the Minister of Indian Affairs to create reserve land through ministerial order under our land claims settlement agreement, known as the Manitoba TLE framework agreement.
We can tell you that the legislation, the Claim Settlements Implementation Act, hasn’t lived up to its full potential. Certainly, when it comes to creating reserve land via ministerial order, it bypasses the Governor-in-Council process, but the front end of processing lands to reserve here at the ground level is still cumbersome and sluggish.
We are concerned about the proposed legislation simply by the fact that nobody from the government ever asked us if we want the act, and also in terms of how will this act improve the land conversion process under the 1997 TLE framework agreement. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now proceed to Mr. William McCue.
William McCue, Board Member, Lands Advisory Board, First Nations Land Management Resource Centre: Thank you. Good evening, honourable members of the standing committee. I’m a councillor, and before that I was a former chief of the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation for 12 years and a director of the First Nations Advisory Board, as well as the First Nations Land Management Resource Centre.
I am here with my colleagues to convey our support for the amendments to the First Nations Land Management Act, Division 11 of Bill C-86. Specifically, we are asking you to pass the FNLMA amendments as soon as possible, without any changes.
As I am sure you are already aware, the FNLMA considerations before us reflect the changes agreed to in Amendment No. 6 to the Framework Agreement on First Nations Land Management. Both Amendment No. 6 and the FNLMA changes are a result of several years of careful thought, lessons learned and discussions with signatory First Nations and Canada intended to modernize and streamline the process.
The framework agreement sets out the procedure for amending it. That procedure is not yet complete with respect to Amendment No. 6, which Canada has yet to sign. We have been assured that it will be signed by the end of this week. It is Amendment No. 6 that gives rise to the amending provisions of the FNLMA before you.
Given the definition of “framework agreement” in the act, section 4 automatically ratifies a formal amendment like Amendment No. 6. The specific amendments to the act are necessitated by the requirement in the framework agreement that the federal legislation be consistent with it.
While our clear preference would have been that precedent be followed and that Amendment No. 6 had been signed before the legislation came to this committee, we rely on the government’s representation that it will be signed in the next few days in supporting and commending Division 11 of Bill C-86 to you.
Twenty-two years ago, I was directed by my community at Georgina Island in Ontario to both host the signing of the framework agreement and to sign it with the Honourable Minister Ronald Irwin. I recall that it was February 14. It was quite cool, something like today, but not as cold as today.
Subsequent to this momentous occasion, my community, along with sister communities Mississaugas of Scugog First Nation in Ontario and Muskoday First Nation in Saskatchewan, was the first community in Canada to ratify the framework agreement and to bring our own land codes into effect. The first we did in 1997, and the second as of January 1, 2000.
In the interim, Parliament ratified the framework agreement by enacting the FNLMA in 1999.
In 1996, we started with 13 First Nation signatories to the framework. We now have 153, with an additional group of approximately 50 interested First Nations.
When it comes to decolonization, one of the most important and necessary aspects is the removal of colonial and harmful statutory instruments such as the Indian Act. It has to be done on our terms and at our own pace. It has to be faithful to our unique cultures and traditions. It has to replace the Indian Act with our own laws, policies and procedures. Most of all, it has to be done in a careful and community-driven way. It cannot be driven from the outside. The framework agreement and its ratifying legislation, the FNLMA, achieves this.
Without the Indian Act, communities are free to make their own decisions, according to their own due diligence and their own processes, not according to a one-size-fits-all law across Canada.
The framework agreement covenant with Canada has unequivocally shown that decisions in communities can be made quicker, dramatically reducing or eliminating unnecessary transaction costs associated with the Indian Act; decisions more accurately reflect community aspirations, cultural principles and land protection. I had the great fortune to see that in my own community.
Removal of the minister and agents has fostered more positive neighbouring relationships with townships and municipalities. The framework agreement engages community members in important governance decisions in ways the Indian Act never allowed.
Given all the success over the years with the framework agreement, as ratified by the FNLMA, some committee members may wonder why I say it is important that we seek to replace the FNLMA at another time in the future.
We support the amendments to the FNLMA in Bill C-86 because the framework agreement requires that this legislation be consistent with the framework agreement. This is, in fact, the sixth amendment to the framework agreement.
Members should note that in light of the original legislation ratifying the agreement on behalf Canada, which also ratified amendments made pursuant to the agreement, this exercise should not be necessary. It is occasioned solely by the fact that the FNLMA purports, in considerable detail, to restate the framework agreement. The redundancy can and should be eliminated.
An example of confusion caused by the current federal approach is found in the summary included in Bill C-86, which we understand will not form part of the bill as enacted. It misstates the purpose of the amendments as follows: Division 11 of Part 4 amends the First Nations Land Management Act to give effect to the amendments, to the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management.
The 2018 amendments to the FA, when signed by Canada and First Nations in accordance with the requirements of the FA, have legal effect by virtue of the FNLMA definition of the framework agreement, which includes all amendments.
“Framework agreement” means the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management concluded between Her Majesty in the Right of Canada and the First Nations on February 12, 1996, and includes any amendments to the agreement made pursuant to its provisions.
Looking beyond Bill C-86, we have proposed that the FNLMA be replaced with the shortest possible federal legislation that would serve only to meet the original purpose: federal legislation that ratifies the framework agreement according to its terms.
We have attached our written submission to the Finance Committee of the House of Commons, which is an outline of a proposed new lands governance recognition act, which would much better reflect the reconciliation and recognition approach in the framework agreement.
The FNLMA is fairly lengthy federal legislation which attempts to restate selected terms of the framework agreement but not all of it. Unfortunately, this has caused many government officials, professionals, businesses, non-members residents on First Nation lands and even some First Nation members to misunderstand the central importance of the framework agreement.
Mistakenly, many think the technical language of the FNLMA governs instead of the framework agreement. This is highly problematic, because it suggests to some that Canada, through Parliament, is delegating authority for self-government on terms dictated by Parliament.
The damage caused by this is compounded by the fact that this federal legislation does not, in some cases, correctly track the carefully worded text of the framework agreement. We work closely with Canada in carefully crafting the language of any amendments to the framework agreement but only a limited scope for input on the drafting of the federal legislation, the FNLMA. Again, this is unnecessary and unhelpful redundancy. It is also a waste of our time and Parliament’s time.
Every day our Lands Advisory Board directors and our resource centre have to remind everyone that the framework agreement is the mechanism for recognition of the inherent right to self-government over lands and resources. It is the framework agreement that First Nations sign, and it is the framework agreement that First Nations ratify by a community vote enacting their respective land codes.
We would all be in a much better position if there was short federal legislation which simply ratifies the framework agreement as amended from time to time.
Any new federal legislation must be developed in close consultation with the Lands Advisory Board on behalf of the First Nations, which have also ratified the framework agreement.
To conclude, replacing the FNLMA in the future will also finally reflect in a real way Canada’s policy of reconciliation with First Nations through agreement instead of unilateral legislation.
Replacing the FNLMA would also better achieve the objective of recognition of First Nation governance over our lands rather than an inappropriate federally imposed system. Taking this approach would also be more consistent with a commitment to the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
To be clear, we do not support turning to study the repeal of the FNLMA at this time without first passing the amendments contained in Bill C-86.
I appreciate having this opportunity to provide a formal submission to this Senate committee, as well as the opportunity to appear in person to discuss these important issues with committee members.
We would be pleased to respond to any questions committee members may have after my colleague’s presentation.
The Chair: We’ll now hear from Ms. Spence from Opaskwayak Cree Nation. Following her presentation, we’ll open up the floor for questions from the senators to all of the witnesses.
Ms. Spence, you have the floor.
Edith Spence, Manager, Lands Division, Opaskwayak Cree Nation: Good evening, my name is Ms. Edith Spence. I am the land manager for the Opaskwayak Cree Nation and also a proud member of Opaskwayak Cree Nation in Manitoba. I’m honoured to be in the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.
For over 16 years now, we have exercised self-government over our reserve lands under our land code.
OCN was at the table in developing the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management. As one of the originating First Nations, OCN was the fifth in Canada and the first in Manitoba to enact the land code in accordance with the framework agreement.
I have had the opportunity to work in the field of lands since 1989 to the present. I have seen the cumbersome processes and restrictions of land management under the Indian Act, as well as the community-based land code.
We adopted our land code after signing the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management. Opaskwayak Cree Nation signed all amendments negotiated since then with Canada, including the most recent Amendment, No. 6. We want Canada to sign Amendment No. 6 as well.
Opaskwayak supports the proposed repealing of the First Nations Land Management Act, which a lot of you referred to as FNLMA. I’m not a lawyer, and I do not understand these issues as well as some of the experts. However, I can tell you that as a land manager it’s confusing sometimes to look at both the wording in the framework agreement and the wording in the FNLMA. It seems strange that the First Nations Land Management Act repeats the details in the framework agreement but with some slight differences.
I can also say, as a land manager, that we don’t like delays. Right now, the process where Canada drafts changes to the FNLMA seems like a slow process. It would be better if Canada changed all of this by repealing the FNLMA.
For now, until the law is repealed, we support going ahead with the changes to the First Nations Land Management Act, Division 11, Part 4 of Bill C-86.
We were invited to speak to the committee, not only about the framework agreement and First Nations Land Management Act but also about Division 19 of Part 4 of Bill C-86 to deal with additions to reserve lands, commonly known as ATRs. I can only speak briefly about Division 19, because it is not really relevant to Opaskwayak Cree Nation, as we did not participate in the development or drafting of Division 19.
In the new federal act, in Division 19, it is only relevant to First Nations that are still under the Indian Act land system. When we look at Division 19, it deals in part with the designation of lands for leasing, but that is an Indian Act lands concept and has no application to Opaskwayak. The Indian Act designation and leasing process is much more cumbersome than the way we manage at Opaskwayak. Our leasing processes are a lot simpler, faster and designed by our own nation to suit our own needs.
Although Division 19 is not relevant to Opaskwayak, there is something I can say about ATRs to this committee. One of the important amendments in the Framework Agreement, Amendment No. 6 with Canada, has entirely new ATR provisions. The new ATR provisions in Amendment No. 6 will help the land code First Nations in the future ATRs in a number of ways. The process for adding lands to reserve is simpler by dropping the current recommendation for federal order-in-council to complete ATRs. Instead, only a ministerial order is required.
There are new provisions to assist in dealing with existing interests on lands that may be the subject of ATRs. Under the new provisions, land code First Nations can negotiate with third parties in advance what replacement interests will be issued under Opaskwayak jurisdiction. Amendment No. 6 recognizes the authority to sign replacement interests, which comes into force on the exact date when lands are added to reserve.
There are also new law-making authorities so that existing interests continue to be properly regulated when lands come under Opaskwayak jurisdiction. Opaskwayak will have the authority to make laws in advance, such as zoning laws, which will apply on the exact date when lands are added to reserve.
All of these ATR provisions are important to Opaskwayak, because they will help speed up the ATR process.
In 1997, a Treaty Land Entitlement Framework Agreement was signed, which meant an additional 56,068 acres would be added as reserve status. In 2002, our reserve land base was approximately 15,000 acres, having 17 parcels. When our first TLE selection land was to be added in 2005, OCN ran into roadblocks. Canada stated that the land code did not have provisions to add land. OCN amended their land code. Just for your information, our first TLE land was actually reserved as of August 10, 2007.
Since the land code came into effect, six new parcels have been added, totalling 29,685 acres. We are still waiting for the additional 26,283. A speedier process would help OCN in the conversion of TLE lands.
Not only does OCN have TLE lands, Opaskwayak also must deal with what is called legacy issues — that’s under the individual transfer agreement — dealing with unsettled land claims, mainly with the province. These often involve utilities like Manitoba Hydro.
Another concern of our First Nation is the enforcement of our environmental laws. In 2016, OCN enacted three environmental laws. We have struggled with the enforcement and adjudication process. If the court process is used, we still have to file in Federal Court. With Amendment No. 6, our First Nation will have clear authority to enter into agreements with other governments for issuing tickets and collecting penalties.
I appreciate having the opportunity to speak with the committee, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Before we turn to senators for their questions, it’s probably important to tell our witnesses something. Several of you spoke about Amendment No. 6, and we probably should have clarified that our committee is actually doing a pre-study of Bill C-86. The bill has yet to be passed in the House of Commons. It will be received formally in the Senate once it has passed the House of Commons. This committee can follow up next week with the minister to ensure that the commitment for signing Amendment No. 6 is kept. We haven’t formally received the bill yet, so there certainly is time for Amendment No. 6 to be signed, sealed and delivered.
With that, we will turn to questions.
Senator McCallum: Thank you all for your presentations. The question I have is for Chief Genaille and Mr. Henderson about the problems they’re having with Division 19. Are you okay with the rest of it? Is it just Division 19 you’re having a problem with?
Mr. Henderson: Thank you, Senator McCallum, for your question.
In reference to my opening statement, we have been operating under the 1997 Manitoba Framework Agreement, which was signed 21 years ago. There is a provision under this framework agreement regarding legislation to speed up the reserve creation process. That legislation was enacted in 2001, and that’s the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act. For the past 19 years or so, we have been utilizing that existing legislation.
Now, with this proposed new ATR legislation, nobody from the Government of Canada ever came to us or our member First Nations to ask us, first, do you want this ATR legislation; and second, what impacts will there be if we do propose legislation? We were never asked those questions. So out of nowhere, we have this new proposed ATR legislation before the House of Commons. At this point, it’s somewhat premature to ask us if we want it because, again, we were never asked to begin with if it’s something we had asked for.
Senator McCallum: What recommendation would you make to the Senate to help you through this process?
Mr. Henderson: I can give you an example. Say you acquired a piece of property within a municipality. We have fee simple on that piece of property already. Instead of waiting seven to eight years for development on that piece of property, elevate by expediting a piece of property by putting time frames on it. Time frames in regard to buying a property, applying for a licence to operate a property and doing business on a piece of property. That way, we wouldn’t be able to have lost use on a piece of property that might subsequently make 10 million for a community or First Nation. That’s one thing that’s missing out of the ATR.
But getting to the ATR policy, once you finally get it into the minister’s hands to sign off on it, sometimes it’s a time delay in itself. Regarding the time factor, there is no penalty clause from the government to basically tell you to get a signature and expedite a piece of property for reserve title.
Senator Coyle: That was actually the same question I was going to ask.
Senator Patterson: I’d like to direct my questions to Chief Genaille and Mr. Henderson. I think you gave the answer that you were not asked about the ATR legislation. Nobody from the Government of Canada came to us and asked us if you wanted this legislation.
Could you tell me what interface you have had with the Government of Canada on this legislation, if any, please?
Mr. Henderson: Thank you for the question, Senator Patterson. About two weeks ago, I was contacted by a policy adviser from Minister Philpott’s office regarding Division 19. That was the first time anybody from government ever advised me of this proposed national ATR legislation. So after I was finally able to see the text of the legislation, I then responded to this policy adviser’s email and let him know what our position is regarding Additions to Reserve generally under our 1997 framework agreement, and basically told him that this legislation does not help us.
As a new point, even though they were promoting that by enabling a minister appointed via Governor-in-Council to create reserves via ministerial order to speed up the reserve creation process, I would add that, at this point in time, we have one of our member First Nations, that being Norway House Cree Nation, they’re actually waiting for either Minister Philpott or Minister Carolyn Bennett to sign the existing ministerial order under the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act for four parcels to become reserve, which comes to just under 4,000 acres. So if they can’t sign these four parcels into reserve now, then what good is this new legislation going to do moving forward?
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Committee colleagues, I’m going to read from the transcript of our last meeting, on Tuesday of this week, where a representative of the department of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Ms. Waters, was asked by me about consultation.
I asked this question:
I have a few questions on the ATR legislative changes. First, is there an obligation to consult with respect to the Additions to Reserve legislative changes, and did that take place?
Ms. Waters: Thank you for the question. We did consult. This is 2009. We’ve been working with First Nations to reform the ATR policy and legislative process. Most of the work was done between 2009 and 2014, where we worked with the joint technical working group with the Assembly of First Nations, which involved a number of other Indigenous organizations and representatives.
And she went on, saying that:
Since the identification of this proposal. . .
That’s legislative changes.
. . . letters went out to all First Nations, informing them of the changes. We also did a number of cross-country engagements. We’ve heard nothing but support for these changes. If anything, First Nations are just keen to get their ATRs processed faster.
Then I asked — forgive me, members, but I think it’s relevant —
Speaking of the Prairie provinces, you would be aware that you’ve had some problems in Manitoba with the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee. Canada unilaterally amended the Manitoba Framework Agreement in 2013 and then went to binding arbitration in 2017. The adjudicator ruled that Canada had breached its obligation.
Did you consult with the Manitoba Treaty Land Entitlement Committee? We have heard from them that they are not happy with the ATR process. Did you consult with them? And if not, why not?
Ms. Waters: The Treaty Land Entitlement Committee was part of our outreach and engagement. We work closely with them. We are working with them to address the issues that were identified in the arbitration.
And she went on to say:
The Treaty Land Entitlement Committee are very much aware. We have spoken with them personally, and we continue to speak with them about this proposal. We are aware that they are interested in having things progress more quickly. We are doing what we can to work with them in a very constructive way for that to occur.
And then I asked:
Was the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba happy with and supportive of this legislation?
Ms. Waters: We haven’t heard that they are not satisfied with the legislation.
So I have to say, colleagues, that I’m concerned when this committee is informed by a representative of the minister that consultation took place, that we have talked to them, and we’re hearing from the committee — and I thank you for being with us here tonight — that nobody came from the Government of Canada to ask us about the legislation, and they were only informed after the legislation had been introduced approximately a couple of weeks ago.
I want to get that on the record because this is not acceptable, in my opinion.
The Chair: Senator Patterson, would you like a response from the Manitoba TLE?
Senator Patterson: Yes. Have I got it right in describing your non-involvement in this legislation?
Mr. Henderson: Thank you, Senator Patterson. I do take issue with how the official from headquarters has described our interaction, specifically on this proposed legislation. I could further advise that, on September 14, we did have a senior official from headquarters come and talk to our member entitlement First Nations in Winnipeg about some of their proposals to address our concerns resulting from the binding arbitration process you referenced. I could further add and confirm that this official did briefly tell us that legislation was in the works, but at no time did she ask us: What do you guys think of this? We were simply told there’s legislation in the works, and it’s certainly a possibility that it could happen relatively soon.
So we weren’t focused on the proposed legislation. If anything, we were focused on trying to come to agreement to resolve our issues of differences resulting from the binding arbitration process that we won. That’s where our focus was. So I do take issue with Ms. Waters’ characterizations that we were consulted, engaged and involved. That’s not true.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to all of the witnesses for giving us of your time and your knowledge this evening.
To Edith Spence, who said that she wasn’t a lawyer and it was rather confusing, I just want to say, I am a lawyer and it’s still very confusing.
I do want to ask a question, though, that is related, at least initially, to Division 11 of Bill C-86, and that is in clause 352(2), there is a reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and it says:
And whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
I also notice, thanks to our analysts, that a similar statement is not in Division 12 for the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, nor is it in Division 19 in the additions of lands to reserves and reserve creation.
My question to Ms. Edith Spence and any other witness who wishes to respond: Do you think that there’s a problem with that, or do you think that it really doesn’t make much difference?
Ms. Spence: I know at various meetings with the Lands Advisory Board, when we held national meetings, they wanted to have recognition of UNDRIP under the framework agreement. I can’t really speak to the other clauses because we’re not involved in that. Our LAB resource centre actually took what the chiefs and the First Nations have said to put some recognition to it. If Steve or one of the other witnesses can add, that would be good.
Steven Aronson, Legal Counsel, First Nations Land Management Resource Centre: Perhaps I could briefly comment, senator.
I think the framework agreement is a stand-alone arrangement between Canada and First Nations. It’s in that context that both the Government of Canada and First Nations felt that it was appropriate for a clause referring to the United Nations declaration that such a clause be included in the framework agreement in the legislation.
As I say, the land part of it is stand alone, it’s separate and apart from any other piece of legislation, although it’s really part of this omnibus bill that you have before you.
The United Nations declaration also deals considerably with lands and the recognition of the Indigenous interest in lands and resources. I think that’s the principal reason why it was placed in this particular piece of legislation, which is looked at — I know the way we see it here, it’s all cut into a million different sections. But as a consolidation, it’s a stand-alone piece of legislation that can be read through completely and that deals exclusively with First Nation lands.
Fiscal relations are not necessarily part of UNDRIP, at least directly, and the other ATR is just a sub-piece of some other legislation. It’s not really stand alone in any sense of the word.
Senator McPhedran: Just to make sure I’ve understood the responses, from your perspective it’s okay that reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is only in Division 11?
Mr. Aronson: It’s the only division we’re actually concerned with, at least with our own group here, yes. I can’t speak for the TLE First Nations.
Meko Nicholas, Executive Director, First Nations Land Management Resource Centre: It’s incredibly important for the First Nations involved that we work with that UNDRIP reflected in the framework agreement.
As we mentioned, the framework agreement and First Nation Land Management was created before UNDRIP was finalized.
For First Nations that are considering reclaiming their jurisdiction over lands and resources, it’s important that a signal is sent to them that we see the framework agreement as being consistent with UNDRIP and that Canada agrees with us.
I can’t speak, as Steve and Edith have said, for the folks mostly affected by Division 12 and 19, but I can say for the First Nations we work with, it’s incredibly important.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
The Chair: Do our witnesses from Manitoba wish to make a comment on that question?
Mr. Henderson: No, we have nothing to add to that.
Senator Christmas: I have to say I’m incredibly disappointed. It seems to me that the substance or the content of what’s intended here is right, that it makes sense, but what I find so disappointing is the process.
In your case, Chief Nelson, you were not adequately consulted. I’m very concerned that this committee was misinformed about that consultation.
The second part I’m disappointed in is the necessity on behalf of Mr. William McCue to tell us that even though he supports the passage of these amendments, it’s quite clear to me that Parliament really has no role in legislating a mirror of the agreement that you already have.
I’ve read with great interest that in the event, sometime in the future, we do repeal the FNLMA, that we go with the First Nations Land Management Act and repeal that.
It strikes me that the process here is all wrong. I would appreciate if either Chief Nelson or Mr. Henderson or even our guests at the end of the table, if you would comment on the process. If this process of a true relationship between Crown and Indigenous people is going to work, what should that process look like?
Mr. Nicholas: If I may, on the process that was intended, it was that the framework agreement was established first. That was discussed, negotiated. This is what First Nations wanted, and Canada agreed in 1996.
The process then was to say, “Canada, you then take the agreement and get that ratified through a piece of legislation.” I think what was envisioned at the time was that the FNLMA Act, before it was passed, would be smaller and simpler and we’d simply say this ratifies the agreement which has been established.
We see it like a treaty or a self-government agreement. The agreements are developed first and then the legislation follows to ratify it. That’s what was intended.
What happened was obviously something different. Things got repeated, some things got left out, some additional things got put in, some of the amendments that we’ve worked on over the last 20 years, we’ve looked to change that, again to simplify and streamline. I can only speak from the First Nations side of things, that the communities we work with are very supportive that Canada, as originally suggested, simply ratify the agreement that was negotiated rather than repeat and create redundancy, which ultimately has caused some confusion.
Mr. McCue: If I may add to Meko’s comment, our community was the first in Canada to vote and pass the land code which in turn was on the basis of the framework agreement.
I’ve seen the evolution of how we’ve moved forward in different phases of the legislation. The fact that our community voted over 90 per cent in favour of coming away from the Indian Act was the mandate for us that the present system that we had under the Indian Act wasn’t working. We needed a mechanism to move forward and that was the framework agreement.
I agree, senator, there is some inconsistency with how it evolved, but the benefits that have arisen in our First Nation that I’ve witnessed have gone tenfold in how we operate our community today. I believe that in moving forward with these new amendments would only help us again.
Thank you for your question.
Senator Christmas: Apart from the process itself, especially how the Crown and how Parliament is attempting to mirror the amendments — and I have a problem with that — can you say that your members are in full agreement with what is proposed in Amendment No. 6? Are you comfortable with what is in Amendment No. 6 and what this legislation is trying to enact?
Mr. McCue: I can speak for my First Nation itself. When it was explained to our chief and council and our community, we passed our resolution, and two thirds of the other First Nations have passed resolutions agreeing to the amendments that were proposed in Amendment No. 6.
Wholeheartedly, I can speak for our community that, as I’ve said, we’ve seen the benefits that have arisen by having the ability to perform our own areas in self-government, and we see the future amendments only aiding us in moving forward as a partner in reconciliation.
Mr. Nicholas: To add to that, we have 66 First Nations that have passed resolutions in support of Amendment No. 6.
Senator Christmas: Thank you very much.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much. Sorry to belabour this issue of consultation, but I think it’s really the central factor that’s rearing its head at this discussion.
We’ve seen this on a number of issues and not only what we’re looking at here today, where there’s a stated, very good intention at a certain level, and then somehow the translation to the relationships on the ground is not quite in tune with what that intention articulated.
This is a question to Chief Nelson Genaille and Mr. Henderson, back to you again.
In the materials that we have, we were told by our own Department of Finance that the legislation proposed in Division 19 responds to feedback received, I’m sure, from some other communities. That may be the fact, but it also says that on September 25, 2018, all First Nations in Canada were sent a letter and email about the proposed legislation.
I’m curious about that letter and email and what the substance of it was. Did you receive such a letter or email? Was it a letter or email that was telling you something, or was it asking you something?
Mr. Genaille: For myself and the community of Sapotaweyak Cree Nation, I live on this iPhone, and it gives me updates right away when I do get an email, and if I did not get it, then where has it gone to?
One issue I would like to raise is this framework agreement was signed in 1997, 21 years ago, and back then land was $197 an acre, and that was negotiated. For me to fulfill, in my urban area, 100 acres goes for $375,000. I’m not able to even start the ATR policy on acquisition of other land because I can’t afford it.
When legislation, an email or mail came to my office, I wouldn’t know about it. That’s one thing that I would bring out. For me, to fulfill this framework agreement for my community, I’m not able to do it.
So how is this ATR going to help myself in the consultation? How would I give you consultation with regard to my feedback of fulfilling an outstanding legal obligation of land entitlement? If a door opens or an avenue opens or an office opens for me to do that, I’m ready to come in.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Senator Patterson: When we were briefed on the bill at our last meeting, we had officials from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, known as CIRNA, and Indigenous Services Canada.
I’m wondering if I could ask the witnesses who is responsible for this legislation, if you have been dealing with the federal government on this, with which department have you been dealing? Is it clear to you who you should be interfacing with?
If I may ask both witnesses.
Mr. Henderson: That’s a very good point Senator Patterson raises, because last fall, when we were informed of the split of the department of Indian Affairs into two new branches, I posed a question to both new deputy ministers. I asked: Who now signs the ministerial orders under our existing legislation known as the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act? At that time I couldn’t get a clear answer.
One year later, we still haven’t gotten an answer, but we’re led to believe by officials that apparently both ministers sign the ministerial order. At the end of the day, the piece of paper is then signed off formally by Minister Carolyn Bennett.
In terms of Division 19, it’s my understanding that the Governor-in-Council will appoint a minister under that act but doesn’t specify which minister. Is it the Minister of Indigenous services or the Minister of CIRNA? That is not clear within the existing legislation.
Senator Patterson: Could I ask the other witness?
Mr. Nicholas: How we got to today is that the framework agreement contains its own amendment procedures. What happens is we’ve been working with our counterparts at LEDSP, I think they call themselves. I don’t know if they’re under CIRNA or ISC. That’s Lands and Economic Development. Our counterparts are either at ISC or CIRNA.
From what I understand, there hasn’t been a determination about where Lands and Economic Development falls, if it’s under Minister Bennett or Minister Philpott. I understand there have been briefings to both happening.
Minister Philpott’s office has been very responsive to us in the last couple of weeks.
So the process was we discussed with Canada that we want to make changes to the framework agreement. We spent about a year-and-a-half or two years developing language. We finalized that language and then we developed the approval procedures for our First Nations to approve those changes. As I mentioned, we received 66 approvals through formal resolution.
We then moved to the discussion of what language should go into the FNLMA. Of course, we originally said as little as possible, but we ended up with a much longer document and that’s how we got here. So there is support from our communities for the changes to the framework agreement and for the FNLMA to ratify those changes.
Senator Patterson: I asked a similar question of the officials about the split of the department. By the way, I think it’s now a three-way split because the northern program has gone to a third minister, Mr. LeBlanc. So the bifurcation became a trifurcation recently, but I digress.
I was told by a senior official of Indigenous Services Canada at our committee — and I’m sorry, I don’t have the transcript in front of me — that it wasn’t that the regional offices of that department were the window for interface with First Nations and that, therefore, there should be no confusion about where they should go because there was a one-window approach and the regional offices were helping people to navigate where they should go.
Has that been useful for you to deal with regional offices in these matters of these changes? Again, if the witnesses are willing, I’d like to get their comments on that. That’s what we were told, that the regional offices are helping to clarify any confusion that there might be.
Do you deal with them? Has that been helpful?
Mr. Nicholas: Well, we have a partnership. We call it a partnership with Canada by implementing the framework agreement, which is what we’ve been doing since it was signed in 1996. We value that partnership we have with Canada. And we work with regions to make sure that the framework agreement is being followed. When we assist communities in development or operations we work together. We both have our own roles and responsibilities. So we work with the regions in that respect. But in respect of these changes, we’ve been pretty exclusively dealing with headquarters here in Gatineau.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all of the witnesses.
I’m a little confused about probably lots of things, but you mentioned 66 First Nations directed. How many of your grouping is the first question? Shall I give you all the questions? Then I’ll make you confused. You can join me in my confusion. I’ll let you answer that.
Mr. Nicholas: The framework agreement requires that the First Nations that have ratified the framework agreement are the ones that assent to its changes. Those are the First Nations we ask because they’re the ones that have bought in 100 per cent.
Of the communities we’re talking about, we have a total of 81 First Nations that have passed land codes, but three of those communities have moved on to self-government or treaty. So they are kind of removed from the calculation, they’re not really covered by the framework agreement anymore. So we then moved to number 78. We have 78 First Nations that have passed land codes. The amending procedures in the framework agreement dictate two thirds of the First Nations that have approved it must assent to the changes. As I mentioned, 66 of those communities have given us their approval.
Senator Pate: Thank you for the clarification.
Yesterday the committee also heard testimony from government officials, and I’m getting to other questions about them. But one of the things they said was they had not consulted, so they did acknowledge they had not consulted on issues like well-being factors, poverty reduction, those sorts of areas which are certainly part of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and part of the broader framework agreements.
I’m curious as to, in your view, whether you see anything in these framework agreements that will assist you, and in particular, as we were travelling, some of the communities expressed an interest in things like guaranteed liveable incomes, getting some control over what are now often administered by provincial social services, some communities in parts of the country have developed health care arrangements with provinces. So I’m curious as to what extent those have been part of the very limited, it sounds like, discussions if not with Canada, then what kinds of discussions are happening within your communities? And are there things that this committee could be recommending that might assist with that process?
Mr. Nicholas: Senator, I can say that absolutely socio-economic and cultural improvement are at the forefront of every one of our communities. Raising the basic living conditions of all of our communities is a major priority.
I can also say, though, that the framework agreement pretty exclusively deals with lands and resources. Getting rid of those roughly 33 sections of the Indian Act that have been there for quite some time has been the focus.
Being a bit biased, I am absolutely a fan of this approach, where you have First Nations that have come to Canada and say, look, we want some relief from the Indian Act. We’d like your recognition that we are governments and we have the inherent right to do so. We don’t need to do that, but I think that communities definitely have something to gain through that official recognition.
It hasn’t made its way into the other areas that you’ve referenced, at least for us, but I can definitely say it’s absolutely a concern for every community.
Mr. McCue: If I may add to what Meko was saying, the fact that it does reflect on lands, and I can speak for our case, with our ability to control the lands through the framework agreement and through our land code, it has enabled us to move forward in generating economic development and creating a system that helps to improve our way of life within our community and offset some of the social programs that we do have.
Although the main focus was to get out of those 33 sections by doing that, going under our own land codes now has improved our community emotionally. We have opportunities to move forward in areas of economic ventures and improve the way of life in our community. I can speak to that and I thank you for that question.
Senator McPhedran: I’ll start by asking a question of Ms. Spence but I invite others to respond as well.
In your testimony to us this evening, you were really clear, you said that OCN supports the repeal of the First Nations Land Management Act and went on to give some examples of why that would be a good thing.
Could you tell us a bit more about that? For example, if it was repealed tomorrow, what difference would that make for the work that you do in land management?
Ms. Spence: If it was repealed, like Meko has said, you still need to have legislation, so a small clause giving effect to the framework agreement on First Nation lands. The framework agreement is what guides us and gives us authority. It has the provisions to say we can make laws, we can have the registry, the environment. It’s got everything that our First Nations, when we meet together, want to see. Each First Nations land code is actually the driving document that makes up our land management. That land code is what allows us to manage our lands in our own way.
It’s not even the framework agreement. The framework agreement helps guide it through the process so that you’re out of the Indian Act, along with the First Nations Land Management Act giving that legislation. That’s how we see it.
It’s land code that actually allows us to govern our own lands. We make our own processes as to how we want to manage our lands and what laws we need in place. It’s at your own pace. No one community is the same. That’s what I really like about the framework agreement. It gives us the ability to do so.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. I invite any other witnesses to respond as well.
Mr. Aronson: Senator, if I might add to that, there are a couple of reasons why replacement of the act would be better. The first reason is because there are clauses in the framework agreement and in the legislation that are inconsistent; the wording is different.
The second reason is because most federal bureaucrats tend to look at the legislation and forget there’s an agreement. The legislation does not contain all of the operative clauses agreed to among First Nations in Canada.
It causes confusion for third parties as well who are neither First Nations nor parliamentarians but are interested in acquiring an interest in First Nations land as a non-member, as a corporate interest, for mining or putting up a shopping centre, whatever. They’re also confused as to why there’s legislation that repeats, usually consistently but sometimes inconsistently, in an agreement that has been honourably signed by two parties yet legislation unilaterally imposed by the federal government. Does that help to answer your question?
Senator McPhedran: It does, yes. Any other witnesses?
Mr. Nicholas: I’ll add to that. The intent of the framework agreement was to recognize the inherent right of First Nations to self-govern their lands and resources. The impression that the FNLMA has given is that that authority comes from Canada or the minister and that it’s a delegated kind of thing. So that puts a completely different lens on what First Nations are trying to do by saying, “We’re exercising what was inherently given to us or we’ve always had,” as opposed to Canada or the minister saying, “We’re going to allow you to do this” or “We grant you the authority to do it” as opposed to the recognition it was supposed to be.
That’s an important thing when we’re working with developmental communities, when we’re out talking with communities, even when communities are implementing their land codes. Again, it makes a completely different impression.
Mr. McCue: With our community, that was the driving force because our community couldn’t do anything in relation to development or moving forward with our lands without asking Canada. Our membership, the elders, gave us the direction that you have to move forward to something different. If the inconsistencies are there, we don’t want to still have to ask others for our own laws. We pass our laws.
The Chair: If I could ask a supplementary question on that, when we heard from the departmental officials yesterday — and I’m searching my memory here, which is not all that great at this time of day — they basically, I think, said that what was in this act was administrative in nature, that it was clarifying inconsistencies between the framework agreement and the First Nations Land Management Act. That was the sense I took away. Was that also what other senators heard?
From what you’re saying to us tonight, you just mentioned that there were inconsistencies between the two.
Mr. Aronson: Madam Chair, the act creates the inconsistencies.
The Chair: Right.
Mr. Aronson: It’s that simple. And the federal people who appeared before you should be well aware of that.
The Chair: Right. So essentially it sounded like they’re going back and trying to correct the mistakes that were there when they first —
Mr. Aronson: With all due respect, there are no errors in the framework agreement.
The Chair: Right.
Mr. Aronson: The errors are created when drafters from the federal Department of Justice decide to go through the agreement and say, “Oh, we don’t like these words” or “We’ve discussed it with our fellow colleagues, and we know you have an agreement, but we’re going to change the words anyway.” That’s what happens, and that’s what creates inconsistencies.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you. But they’re not actually changing the framework agreement. Or am I misunderstanding?
Mr. Aronson: What they do is they change some of the words in a clause that had been correctly worded in the framework agreement. As a result of the word change, an inconsistency is created. There was no inconsistency.
As I say, we go back to the reason why we would like the legislation to be repealed and replaced, first to confirm the agreement is in force and effect, and second, to change any federal legislation that may be required to be changed. That is the only requirement of any federal replacement legislation.
The Chair: I have one other follow-up question. Let’s say if there was a proposal to take these paragraphs out and not proceed with them, I think you were saying basically you’re supportive of going ahead; is that the route to go?
Mr. Aronson: At this point and at this late stage in our existing process, as Bill McCue and Edith Spence have pointed out, there is support for the legislation to go through. I think it’s fair to say that over the last year or more, we have been requesting of government to do the repeal and replacement approach. We have been consistently told that this would be done after this particular bill is approved and passed. We did not see why that was necessary to go through the process we’re going through, but having committed ourselves to this process of having agreements on the amendments to the framework agreement, the federal government itself decided what portions of those amendments would have to be in this bill. We had nothing to say about it. We were not consulted about it.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Senator McCallum: If this FNLMA, Bill C-86, is passed, would it be harmful to First Nations that are caught in agreements and have been unable to move forward? How many First Nations would be included in this TLE framework?
Mr. Nicholas: Are you asking the TLE folks that question?
Senator McCallum: I’m asking them and you as well. Because if they’ve said that the Manitoba claims will be repealed if the ATR comes, and you still want this passed, then it seems like some people are going to be caught in a situation that isn’t very good for them.
Mr. Aronson: If I can clarify, senator. We’re appearing for the Lands Advisory Board only on Division 11, and it’s only that legislation in Division 11 that we are concerned about the repeal and replacement. We are not asking for anything — at least from our perspective, we’re not here for TLE, and our colleagues from Manitoba who are appearing on screen would be better off to say whether they think the TLE legislation should be repealed and replaced.
Senator McCallum: Would you be able to respond, Mr. Henderson?
Mr. Henderson: Thank you, Senator McCallum. Again, we’re appearing before the committee with regard to Division 19 only. As I said earlier, we were not formally asked in any way about the legislation being proposed. Of course, we’re concerned when we hear that Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act will be repealed once Division 19 becomes law, because we have been operating under that legislation for the past 19 years. So if you ask me, “What are the specific impacts of that?” At this stage, I can’t give you an answer because we haven’t had the time to study and offer a constructive view on the impacts of this repeal. So that’s what is concerning to us.
Senator McCallum: Thank you. Can I ask one more question? You said that it was 66 out of 78 communities. But in your statement it says: “We now have 153.” Why is there a difference?
Mr. Nicholas: When a community wants to become part of the process, they sign the framework agreement. Simply signing the framework agreement doesn’t mean they’re self-governing. It means that they have the option of developing a land code and their community can develop that and vote on it. So since 1996, we started with 13 First Nations, and since then we’ve grown to over 153 signatories to the framework agreement.
What happens often is that some First Nations become a signatory and, because of changing circumstances, be it a change in chief and council or administration, the reclaiming of their lands and resources is no longer a priority, for various reasons. It’s not only those reasons, but there are many different reasons why a community will come in and just not. There are some communities that have voted. One of the things we’re looking to reflect as a change in the framework agreement is voting. So we’ve had 32 votes over the last 20 years or so which have been insufficient to pass a land code because of what we call a 25 per cent plus 1 threshold. I think you talked about that with the previous presenters. So that has been a very big problem for us. Some communities where we’ve had 90 per cent approval of people who have shown up and cast a ballot in favour but still have not met the threshold. We’ve had situations where that has been a problem. Some communities have not been able to generate enough ballots in order to reach that 25 per cent plus 1. That’s another reason why you have more communities on the list that are not operational.
Senator Christmas: I have two questions for Ms. Spence, and it’s in regard to the last page of your written remarks. On the top of that page you mention that since your land code has come into effect, that six new parcels have been added, totalling 26,685 acres. It’s the next line that caught my interest. You say we are still waiting for an additional 26,283. You mentioned a speedier process would help OCN in the conversion of the TLE plan. What’s causing the delay?
Ms. Spence: It’s the same as what Chief Nelson is saying, that they’re not following up with what was dealt with in the arbitration. Consultation with the Metis, is one. Another one with Sapotaweyak is, as he says, you’ve got acquisition to be able to purchase land, but the monies aren’t the same as 21 years ago. Then you have your third-party interest and your service agreements and you’ve got your municipalities not wanting to do service agreements with you. Where do you go from there?
I’m not too sure of everything they have because I don’t work with TLE myself. I have a counterpart, Lori Lathlin, who works on our behalf at Opaskwayak Cree Nation, and maybe the TLE commissioner there can assist a little bit more in that area.
Senator Christmas: The second question is you mentioned in the second-last paragraph that since 2016 OCN had enacted three environmental laws. But in the next sentence you mention that:
We have struggled with the enforcement and adjudication process.
Could you tell me what the struggles were with enforcement of your laws and obviously the court system was a problem?
Ms. Spence: I think because you have to go to Federal Court. I’ll take an example right now. When we’re collecting our arrears — I’m not talking about the environmental one right now. That one is still in the process. Because you have to give recognition to our laws, first of all. Right now the only process you have is to file in the Federal Court system, which is in Winnipeg. So any time we take somebody to court, we file in Winnipeg, the people from The Pas, whoever we’re taking to court, has to go all the way to Winnipeg and some people can’t go there. But if we could have a system where we can have our own agreement with the province, so we can have a court that goes around to each of the communities when needed, that would be a good system to have. I believe the framework agreement says the court of competent jurisdiction right now. But right now, for us, we are using a federal system because that’s what people recognize right now, until we have some other system in place that can help us.
As you know, with the provincial system, if you utilize that and you go to them, usually the fines and everything goes to them and nothing comes to us. If we can enter into some kind of agreement, that would be good.
Senator Christmas: I understand here, then, with Amendment No. 6, that you’re able to address those problems, that you would be able to have the ability to enter into those kinds of agreements; is that correct?
Ms. Spence: I will let Steve answer that one.
Mr. Aronson: Yes.
Ms. Spence: I’m not a lawyer.
Mr. Nicholas: I’d like to offer a clarification to the last question I was asked about the numbers. We have communities that are operational. We have communities that have come in and their priorities have changed, and we have communities that we call developmental. These are communities that are actively in the process of developing their own land codes. That could take anywhere from two years to five years. It’s even beyond. We have some communities that run into some pretty serious problems when it comes to land descriptions, as well as provinces, as Chief Nelson well knows. We’ve run into a few showstoppers, we like to call them. That’s why we have more signatories on the list than, as I mentioned, 153 versus 81 that have passed land codes.
Senator Coyle: Thanks again to all of you for being so patient with us. You mentioned how complicated that long document is. This is very complicated for us as well, and you’re really helping us to tease out what the most important issues are. I want to get to those most important issues.
Ms. Spence, you said in your testimony that, for now, until there’s a law to repeal the FNLMA, which is the First Nations Land Management Act, your community, you, support going ahead with the changes to the FNLMA Division 11 of Part IV of the bill we are currently pre-studying, which is Bill C-86. You’re saying go ahead; let’s get this done.
Mr. McCue, you also said specifically that you’re asking us to pass this bill as soon as possible and without any changes.
We’re hearing both of you loudly and clearly. You’ve given us our marching orders on what you would like to see on this particular element of Bill C-86.
But you’re also both very clear with us here — and actually all of you are quite clear — that the First Nations Land Management Act is far more problematic than the Framework Agreement on First Nations Land Management, and that there is further work to be done, not to hold up what we’re doing right now, if I’m understanding you correctly, but get this thing done, and then we have to get back to this other piece of business; is that correct?
I know we’re meant to focus on this right now, but I’m very curious. Let’s say we go ahead, we take your advice, we move forward on this as soon as we get the legislation here. What are the steps now in repealing the FNLMA? Let’s say get this done, get this done before Christmas. Now, part of our issue here is your issue, which is something that’s not working for you. What are the steps after we get through this piece of legislation?
Mr. Aronson: The first step is for Canada and the Lands Advisory Board and First Nations to agree on an approach to what will be the content of any replacement legislation. As was pointed out earlier, the two main components of the legislation would be, first, to confirm and bring into effect the framework agreement; and, second, to make any changes required in federal legislation resulting from the framework agreement.
For example, many sections of the Indian Act would no longer apply, and there would have to be some legislation to say that those sections no longer apply. If there are amendments to other legislation, whether it’s relating to nuclear safety or environmental legislation that are impacted, then those would also have to be reflected in the federal legislation. But it would still be a relatively short and it would not be inconsistent with the framework agreement.
Senator Coyle: The framework is there and it’s good?
Mr. Aronson: That’s right.
Senator Coyle: I’m feeling clear on Division 11 of the bill, and you’ve been clear and Ms. Spence has been clear. Another division that we’ve been talking about tonight is Division 19. I want to confirm with our colleagues from Manitoba — Chief Nelson Genaille and also Chris Henderson — my understanding from what you had to say on Division 19 was you’re really not ready to say, “You guys better go ahead and pass this. Nobody has asked us about it. We’re not so sure it’s going to improve on anything,” and it doesn’t actually look like it’s helping you at all in terms of your case; am I right?
Mr. Henderson: I would say that’s a fair assessment, senator.
Senator Coyle: Because we’re looking at a couple of different things here tonight. Thank you for that.
Senator Patterson: Madam Chair, I want to say that I am really concerned about the discrepancy between the testimony we received from officials and the testimony we received tonight from the witnesses.
I would recommend we ask Minister Philpott, whose name is on all three of these divisions, to appear and to assist us to understand these discrepancies. If, for some reason, she isn’t available, I’d recommend this committee’s report should strongly recommend more parliamentary scrutiny for Division 19.
I wonder what we would hear from Alberta and Saskatchewan, whose enabling legislation for ATRs would be also repealed by this bill. If I may suggest, we do have a precedent for splitting divisions from the BIA, and that’s not something I would suggest lightly. But such a huge discrepancy in testimony is, for me, indicative of a need to exercise our duty as legislators to further study this legislation. I don’t think that duty can be properly exercised before our reporting date in early December.
I guess, forgive me, that was a statement, not a question. Thank you.
The Chair: I believe we have time to hear back from the department. The committee will consider it.
Want to thank our witnesses this evening. It’s been a very good discussion. Thank you for your clear answers to the questions. Thank you, senators, for your input. It was a very confusing topic, and I believe, senators, you clarified it.
(The committee adjourned.)