Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 42 - Evidence - April 25, 2013
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 25, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which were referred Bill C- 47, An Act to to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts; and Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, met this day at 8:01 a.m. to give consideration to the bills.
Senator Richard Neufeld (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Senator Richard Neufeld. I represent the province of British Columbia in the Senate, and I am the chair of this committee. I would like to welcome honourable senators, any members of the public with us in the room and viewers all across the country who are watching on television.
I would now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves, and I will begin by introducing the deputy chair, Senator Grant Mitchell from Alberta. Carry on.
Senator Unger: Betty Unger.
Senator Lang: Dan Lang, Yukon.
Senator Sibbeston: Nick Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
The Chair: I would also like to introduce our staff. Our clerk is Lynn Gordon, and our two Library of Parliament analysts are Sam Banks and Marc LeBlanc.
Bill C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, was referred to our committee on April 16, 2013.
Honourable senators, in the first portion of our meeting today, it is my pleasure to introduce the following officials who will give us an overview of the legislation: from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Janet King, Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs; Janice Traynor, Analyst, Environmental Policy, Northern Affairs; and Camille Vézina, Manager, Legislation and Policy, Northern Affairs. From Justice Canada we have Tom Isaac, Senior Counsel.
Ms. King, you have some remarks to deliver. Go ahead, and we will then go into a question and answer period.
Janet King, Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I have the distinct pleasure of speaking to you this morning about Bill C-47, the northern jobs and growth act, from the operational perspective.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, improving regulatory efficiency and effectiveness in the north has been a long-standing commitment of the Government of Canada. Subsequent to the McCrank report highlighting regulatory challenges in the north, the 2010 Action Plan to Improve Northern Regulatory Regimes provided the direction for northern regulatory reform. This plan was expanded into the Northern Regulatory Improvement Initiative in 2012. Bill C-47 is an important first step in this initiative and towards regulatory improvement in Canada's north.
[English]
As you know, Bill C-47 has two parts. Part 1 is the proposed Nunavut planning and project assessment Act, which we often refer to as NuPPAA. It responds to our government's obligations under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement of 1993 to establish in federal statute the Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Impact Review Board.
Part 2, the proposed Northwest Territories surface rights board act, fulfills our obligations under the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement and the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement to establish such a rights board in the Northwest Territories.
Both of these acts were developed in consultation with the relevant Aboriginal groups in accordance with our legal obligations under the land claim agreements. With respect to Part 1 of the bill, both the Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Impact Review Board have been operating under the provisions of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement since 1996. Bill C-47 provides greater detail and certainty about the functions of these two bodies.
The Nunavut Planning Commission is responsible for preparing land use plans that are to guide and direct resource use and development and provide for both the conservation and the use of lands in the Nunavut Settlement Area. The commission holds a public review of the draft plan and then submits it for approval to the governments of Canada, Nunavut and the Inuit. The plan is in effect once it has approval of all three parties.
With respect to individual project proposals, all prospective resource development projects in Nunavut will enter the planning and review process through a single window or entry point: the Nunavut Planning Commission. Project proponents are responsible for submitting a proposal describing the project to the commission. The commission determines if a land use plan applies to the area in which a project is located and, if so, whether the project conforms to the plan. All project proposals must conform to any applicable land use plan before they can go any further in the review and approval process.
If a project conforms, the commission verifies whether it is on a schedule of projects exempt from screening for environmental impacts by the Nunavut Impact Review Board. If it is not listed on the schedule of exemptions, it is sent directly to the Nunavut Impact Review Board. If it is on the schedule, the project can proceed to obtaining its licences and permits, unless the commission has concerns about the cumulative impacts in the region. In that case, the commission sends the project proposal to the Nunavut Impact Review Board for screening. The review board screens project proposals to determine whether a project requires a review due to its environmental impacts or public concerns about the project. If it requires a review, the ministers with jurisdiction for the project decide whether the review should be conducted by the board or by a federal panel.
After a report on the review is prepared by the board or a federal panel, the relevant ministers must decide whether to accept or reject the determination as to whether the project should proceed. They may accept, reject or vary any terms and conditions recommended in the report.
If the ministers' decision is for the project to proceed, the board must prepare a project certificate that sets out terms and conditions of the project. Federal and territorial regulators must then ensure the terms and conditions are implemented in permits and licences. Enforcement provisions help ensure these terms and conditions are respected.
Several timelines exist at key decision points in the process. These timelines are intended to improve predictability and certainty for investors. In addition, federal panels and review bodies of neighbouring jurisdictions may jointly review projects that cross territorial boundaries. The Nunavut Impact Review Board can also review projects situated outside the territory if these projects might have adverse effects in the Nunavut Settlement Area.
In walking the committee through this process, I hope I have shed some light on how Bill C-47 will operate. To recap, Part 1 of the bill, NuPPAA, establishes an efficient and expeditious single entry, one project, one assessment process, which we believe makes it possible for Inuit and the governments of Nunavut and Canada to cooperatively manage resources and lands in a clear and predictable manner.
[Translation]
As I indicated earlier, Part 2 establishes the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board, which fulfils the Government of Canada's obligations under the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement and the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement. Both agreements refer specifically to the need for a surface rights board.
The establishment of the board is also consistent with the terms and the spirit of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and the Tlicho Land Claim and Self-Government Agreement, the other two land claim agreements in the Northwest Territories. Once established, the Surface Rights Board will resolve disputes between holders of surface or subsurface rights and the owners or occupants of surface lands when agreements on terms, conditions and compensation for access cannot be reached by the parties.
As a law of general application, it will address issues related to access disputes throughout the Northwest Territories. Surface rights are those rights associated with land that relate to the ability of owners or occupants to use and enjoy the land. Subsurface rights are typically mineral or oil and gas rights, often held by the crown, which are granted to third parties through other acts of Parliament.
[English]
It is important to note that the Northwest Territories surface rights board would have no power to grant rights, not mineral nor oil and gas. The Canada Petroleum Resources Act sets out the process for issuing oil and gas rights in the North. Mining regulations in the Territorial Lands Act outline the process for staking mineral claims and establishing mineral rights. Regulations in that act also establish the Office of the Mining Recorder, the body responsible for recording claims and issuing prospecting licences and permits.
If parties cannot reach an agreement on access through negotiations regarding terms and conditions and compensation, either party may apply to the board for an access order. Once received, the board will review the application, and if the application is within its jurisdiction and negotiations between the two parties have been conducted or attempted in good faith, the board will be required to accept the application.
The board itself will consist of no fewer than five and no more than nine members, plus five alternates. All will be appointed by the minister. The minister is required to appoint members who are residents of the Northwest Territories.
When dealing with a dispute related to a specific settlement area, the panel hearing the dispute will be comprised of three, at least one of whom will be a resident of the particular settlement area, as is required in the land claims agreements.
Once an application is accepted by the board and a panel is formed, the panel may include any terms and conditions that are appropriate to minimize damage to, or peaceful enjoyment of, the land. The board will consider matters such as times when the right of access might be exercised, the location and routes of access, the number of individuals who may exercise the right of access, activities that may be carried out and equipment that may be used. The board will also have the power to determine compensation for unforeseen damages as a result of access that has taken place, award costs and periodically review or terminate access orders.
After receiving an order, a proponent is able to exercise its right of access in a manner consistent with the terms and conditions set out in the order and any other requirements set out in any other acts of Parliament or the land claims agreements.
The board is the final decision maker. No mechanism exists to enable parties to appeal an order. However, orders of the board may always be judicially reviewed by a court.
An order of the board may be made an order of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories by filing a certified copy with the court, making it enforceable in the same way as an order of the court.
I must reiterate that the surface rights board is being established as a tool of last resort. Its real efficacy stems in fact from its mere presence, which provides the impetus for parties to negotiate agreements themselves.
In sum, Bill C-47 represents the balanced views of the multitude of stakeholders that were consulted at length and accommodated whenever possible and that are supportive of the bill moving forward. Bill C-47 is a positive step toward clarity, predictability and legal certainty in the often complex world of environmental management and resource development processes in the North.
[Translation]
The result will be better coordination, clearly defined time periods for project reviews, more streamlined and predictable review processes, and improved regulatory approvals.
[English]
If it is adopted, Bill C-47 will support jobs and growth in the North, improving the conditions for investment across the North.
My colleagues and I would be pleased to respond to any questions and comments senators may have. Thank you for this opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that presentation. I usually defer to the deputy chair for the first question, but today I will go to the senator who carried the bill in the Senate and who has good knowledge of Nunavut, of the North, and then I will go to our other senator from the Northwest Territories to be able to ask his questions. I think it is pretty unique that we have two senators, one a previous premier in the North and one from Fort Simpson who has been here for a long time and who was also a previous premier in the North.
Senator Patterson: Senator Sibbeston and I are delighted that the North is on the agenda of our committee this morning. It is a very important area of Canada. I appreciate the opportunity to ask a couple of questions.
First, there are two unsettled land claims in the Northwest Territories, and I am referring to the amendments involving the creation of a surface rights tribunal in the Northwest Territories. Those unsettled land claims are in the Dehcho and Akaitcho regions, and I know some concerns have been expressed in those regions that this bill might somehow prejudice those unsettled land claims.
I would like to ask the witness — thank you for your presentation — how the new surface rights board's jurisdiction would impact ongoing negotiations. What is being done to accommodate groups who have yet to settle an agreement?
Camille Vézina, Manager, Legislation and Policy, Northern Affairs, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: I can answer that question. Areas where there are no negotiated land claims agreements are Crown lands. Since the Crown consents to the surface access and also consents to subsurface rights, if there is an issue with subsurface rights, there is no dispute that can be brought to the surface rights board. The exception to that would be where there is an owner or occupant on that land — for example, a leaseholder; that would be an example of an area where the surface rights board may have jurisdiction.
The act would therefore have no impact on land claims negotiations, since the board would have no jurisdiction on unsettled land claims areas unless there is an owner or occupant.
What is being done to accommodate groups that have yet to settle an agreement is that Aboriginal groups and governments were consulted throughout the development of the legislation, so there were numerous discussions about making sure their concerns were addressed and accommodated. One of the ways that was done was with section 7(1) of the proposed surface rights board act, which is essentially a provision that requires the minister to meet with Aboriginal groups and governments that have settled a land claims agreement in relation to the Northwest Territories to ensure that that agreement works with the act. If any changes need to be made to the act in order to accommodate what is in their agreement, that would be done.
It is important to note that throughout the process, individuals are able to raise concerns regarding any Aboriginal or treaty rights that may be impacted, either through the environmental assessment or the permitting process.
Senator Patterson: I want to make one brief comment. I am familiar with the consultations that have gone on in Nunavut with the territorial government, with the Inuit land claims organization Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and with the mining industry. I would take the liberty of commending the department for a thorough and lengthy process. I think it is no exaggeration to say there has been at least 10 years of intense work, which has led us to where we are today.
Some concerns were raised, when the House of Commons committee considered the bill, from at least one co- management board that appeared before the committee. It was about the adequacy of the funding needed to implement the bill. I believe the Nunavut Planning Commission talked about new requirements that would fall on them as a result of the bill. Could one of the witnesses comment on whether the department will respond to these additional duties and requirements under the bill with a business plan to provide the necessary financial resources?
Ms. King: The proposed NuPPAA will, to a large extent, implement processes already in place in Nunavut. They have been funded for many years to carry out their duties under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Nevertheless, some incremental costs are expected to attend to implementing the act. For example, the Nunavut Planning Commission has indicated that the requirement for an Internet-based public registry will add some incremental costs to its operations. There are a number of other areas where enhanced duties and responsibilities will impact both the board and the commission.
The department recognizes that appropriate funding levels will need to be negotiated once Bill C-47 receives Royal Assent. We negotiate with Canada NTI and the Government of Nunavut through the land claim implementation contract and through submitted work plans by the review board and the Nunavut Planning Commission. We would be looking forward to sitting down and negotiating with them on the basis of work plans going forward.
Senator Sibbeston: Bill C-47 is meant to implement certain aspects of claims in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. There is a history of experience in our country with the gaps that exist between land claims that have been settled and what is delivered eventually by the government. The Auditor General has commented on that; and our Senate committee has dealt with this issue.
This bill before us is an attempt to implement land claims. What assurance can you give us that the legislation will actually deliver what is expected of the land claims? My concern is mostly about the Northwest Territories. I am satisfied with the Nunavut area because a task force has been set up between the parties involved in this proposed legislation and there is a lot of support for it. However, in the Northwest Territories there has not been a task force like that, although I appreciate that there has been a fair amount of consultation. The question is always whether this will satisfy the land claimants.
Ms. Vézina: The NWT surface rights board was created in consultation, as you alluded to, with the four land claimant groups, groups still negotiating land claims and groups with transboundary interest in the Northwest Territories. There were extensive discussions, and three different drafts of the proposed legislation were shared to ensure that we reflected what was in the four land claims agreements and that we were respecting the intent and the ideas reflected in the land claims agreement.
What we have developed will reflect what is in the land claims agreements. In particular, land claimant groups have said to us that what is in the land claim is reflected accurately in the proposed legislation.
Senator Sibbeston: I would ask officials to tell the public and me why they are proceeding with this bill, in particular because there is the surface rights board in the Northwest Territories? A devolution process is ongoing and eventually the Northwest Territories government will take over all of this. I understand that when the House of Commons committee visited the North, the Gwich'in appeared before them and stated that they were not in a hurry to have this proposed legislation dealt with. I understand that an arbitration clause in the land claims would deal with disputes, and it has never been used. This proposed legislation is only there in the event that there is a dispute that cannot be resolved.
In the world of land claims, so many other areas are perhaps more significant. Why have you come forward with this, in particular for the Northwest Territories when I would say that it is not really needed and the Gwich'in say they are not in a hurry?
Ms. King: As we noted earlier, Canada has an obligation, as set out in the Gwich'in and other land claims, to establish a surface rights board; so in many ways it meets that obligation. There have been attempts over the years to accomplish that, but they are not yet completed.
You note devolution. There is an agreement to try to conclude devolution by April 1, 2014. We hope to conclude this obligation in advance of devolution so that we can turn over to the Government of the Northwest Territories a more complete regulatory framework.
Senator Sibbeston: It is not unusual in a bill to have a provision for a review after five or seven years. Why is there not a sunset clause in this bill to provide for a review in five or seven years? In the Northwest Territories, you will be setting up a new body, and it is not known how the body will work and whether it will be successful. There is a certain amount of uncertainty as to its effectiveness. Review clauses are often put into bills so that the legislation can be reviewed after a number of years. Why have you not provided for a review?
Ms. Vézina: I can answer for the Northwest Territories surface rights board portion; and I will let my colleague answer for the Nunavut portion.
There is no five-year review in the portion on the surface rights board. We felt that proposed section 7 pretty much already addressed that issue. Reviews will be done when new agreements are signed. The legislation will be looked at from beginning to end to ensure that those agreements work with the land claim agreement. It will be, in a sense, tantamount to a review.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Thank you for being with us this morning. As I read the bill or listen to your presentation, I get the sense that land planning and project assessment in Nunavut is similar to a land use plan you would find in Canadian cities. In Montreal, for example, every 10 or 15 years, a municipal plan is prepared to establish the zoning rules. Is it similar? Is the purpose of this bill to establish criteria and zoning rules?
[English]
Janice Traynor, Analyst, Environmental Policy, Northern Affairs, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: The main difference in Nunavut is that these are regional land use plans, so they cover a much broader area than a typical municipal plan would cover. For instance, of the two plans in place, one covers the north half of Baffin Island and the other covers most of central Nunavut. They are very broad areas.
Those two particular plans are not so prescriptive in their conditions of use, but the Nunavut Planning Commission has some leeway to develop plans that include prohibited uses, permitted uses and conditionally permitted uses; so all these things we may see in a land use plan.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: It addresses land use, land density and the type of use?
[English]
Ms. King: Yes, in general it does address the type of usage, the access and community regional agreement on the nature of that land use.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: I notice, however, that the federal government has to agree to the proposed plan. Any deviation from the plan must go back to the federal government for an exemption approval.
Ms. King: Yes, but I should point out that it is also done with the Nunavut government and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. It must be done through a joint management system.
Senator Massicotte: You see that kind of thing happening in cities like Toronto. You will undoubtedly encounter a developer who is proposing a new plant or development project and will need an exemption. I worry that granting that would require the approval of three different parties. Is it a matter of weeks or months? If the process is too burdensome, it will not be doing what it is supposed to.
[English]
Ms. Traynor: Once the plan is approved, project proposals would come into the Nunavut Planning Commission only, and the Nunavut Planning Commission would decide whether or not that project conformed with the land use plan. The three parties are involved with approving the land use plan, but each individual project is only judged by the Nunavut Planning Commission as to whether it complies to the plan.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: According to what you are saying, then, if a project deviates from the federally approved plan, it falls back on the federal government to grant the exemption from the plan submitted to the federal government? Is that correct?
[English]
Ms. Traynor: Yes, if the project does not conform with the land use plan, an exemption from the plan can be granted by the minister.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: You are not worried that the process might be too onerous, that it could take too long and that, as a result, investors could grow impatient and take their money elsewhere?
[English]
Ms. Traynor: There are timelines on the exception decision, as well as the conformity determination.
Senator Massicotte: What is that?
Ms. Traynor: I will look it up and get back to you.
Senator Lang: I have two questions. Just as an overall view of the bill, the planning process in Nunavut, to my understanding, is somewhat tailored after the experience that we have had in the Yukon with the environmental assessment program that was put in place about 10 years ago. I want to let members around the table know that, overall, it has been very successful. Frankly, one of the reasons Yukon has experienced the growth it has is because it is one process and one decision to be made. It is not a number of environmental reviews going on at the same time. It basically has accepted the principle that all the parties are involved in the initial process. You work your way through the process, and a decision is made. To Senator Massicotte's question about timelines, there are clear timelines when decisions have to be made. Overall, investors are very pleased with the process, the way I understand it, which is not to say there are not some areas that perhaps could be further refined to ensure the process works efficiently.
That leads me to my first question in respect to the planning process for Nunavut. In the tailoring of the legislation, were the proposed amendments that are working their way through the system for the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board taken into consideration? There are some areas of concern that have not worked that well and that will require federal legislative measures here, I would hope within the next year. I am wondering whether they were taken into account so they can learn from our experience.
Ms. Traynor: Yes, senator, they were taken into account. Northern Affairs has the advantage of being a fairly small organization. I was also on the departmental part of the team that did the review, and I was also on the working group. My colleagues and I were able to take some of the lessons that were going on and being learned through the review and apply them to the development of this bill.
Senator Lang: If I can go to another area, I noticed it was not mentioned in the opening remarks and it is important that viewers, at least in Yukon, be aware that there are some amendments to the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act. For the record, it is important that it be clarified that there are some amendments. Perhaps you can outline the purpose of the amendments so it is on the record.
Ms. Vézina: That would be in the portion that comes after the NWT surface rights board act. You are correct, and I apologize for not including that.
The nature is mostly administrative, so to bring things in line with other northern boards that are very similar. It is something that was recommended by the board itself. We were asked as a department to look at making those amendments.
The first amendment would add an immunity clause to protect the members and staff from civil action for anything done or not done in good faith. Another amendment will require that accounts, financial statements and transaction of the board be audited annually by an auditor appointed by the board rather than the Auditor General, which it was before. Furthermore, there will be amendments to two other sections to allow terms to be extended for board members so that they be allowed to finish hearing a particular issue before them, even though their term may expire.
Senator Lang: Thank you.
Senator Mitchell: Just as a general question, this is part of devolution, it seems to me, yes or no, and what would be some other big chunks of devolution, just for clarification for people watching, and for me? I think you said it is another year, and next year devolution might actually be completed. That is good news.
Ms. King: Just a word about devolution: As you are undoubtedly aware, on March 11, it was announced that a consensus agreement had been achieved with the parties to the devolution negotiations. We are looking forward to meeting the objective of concluding that agreement by early summer and implementing devolution in the Northwest Territories by April 1, 2014. Diverse pieces of legislation involved in devolution relating to lands and resource management are being looked at through devolution, and we are concluding the implementation pattern for that now.
We have talked about the surface rights board. That is one piece that I think is identified even in the agreement in principle of a couple of years ago for devolution as an act that would be mirrored over to the NWT. There is a suite of other legislative pieces being looked at right now to consider what to mirror and how best to transfer responsibilities.
Senator Mitchell: In your opening comments, you mentioned that the Nunavut Impact Review Board can review projects situated outside the territory if these projects might have adverse effects on the Nunavut Settlement Area. Who resolves a dispute between Nunavut and an area outside that is contemplating a project that might have an impact?
Ms. Traynor: There is no dispute resolution mechanism. The board can review such a project. It makes its recommendations to the government, and the government considers them.
Senator Mitchell: The government of the other jurisdiction?
Ms. Traynor: Or the federal government as well, if the federal government is involved in the project outside of Nunavut. Such a review would take place only on the request of government.
Senator Mitchell: Ms. Vézina, you mentioned that there was a sharing of a series of pieces of draft legislation on this. Could you tell us what kinds of groups, Aboriginal groups, for example, you shared it with in the process and whether that is a standard procedure in developing this kind of legislation?
Ms. Vézina: In the Northwest Territories, we shared it with the four land claimant groups. We shared it with groups who are still negotiating claims, such as the Dehcho and Akaitcho, which were previously mentioned by Senator Patterson, as well as groups such as the Athabasca Denesuline, which would be a transboundary group that would have interests in the Northwest Territories.
In total, 13 Aboriginal groups received three drafts of the legislation and were invited to consultation sessions and provided with funding to have legal counsel or experts review the legislation and attend the sessions in order to improve the legislation.
Senator Mitchell: Did you have any complaints from Aboriginal groups that they were not adequately consulted?
Ms. Vézina: We had some groups say that there were certain things they would like to have seen in the legislation. We did accommodate where we could. Several times those things were left out because they would have been inconsistent with the land claim agreements, which we were implementing, or they did not have application in the legislation.
It was about educating people about the scope of the legislation versus what they would like to have seen in the legislation.
Senator Seidman: I would like to continue with the consultation process. It is my understanding there have been enormous and extensive consultations around this bill. I also understand that there have been concerns raised about building in this kind of consultation process to the bill for the future so that the obligations of the commission are well delineated.
Please tell us how this bill will maintain the standards of consultation going forward for future decision making and planning processes.
Ms. Traynor: Are you speaking particularly about Part 1 of the bill in terms of NuPPAA?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Traynor: You are correct in saying that the development of the bill was very long and involved in terms of its consultation. We developed it through a working group that included Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Government of Nunavut. We also had the advantage of having the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Planning Commission present on that working group, as well.
Once the development of the legislation was completed, that working group was no longer functional and the bill was introduced.
However, the bill itself contains provisions for the planning commission to consult with the public and anybody else that might be interested when the commission is developing a plan. When they are developing a plan, they review a draft plan publicly, with hearings, and then it is submitted for approval.
In terms of the process with individual projects, once the project makes it way to the Nunavut Impact Review Board, the board would consult with the public and any other interested parties — governments, et cetera — that might have an interest in that project. It makes its recommendation at that point.
The planning and environmental assessment processes involve the public and governments going forward from here.
Senator Seidman: That is built into particular clauses in the bill, if I am correct.
Ms. Traynor: Yes, it is.
Prompted by my legal counsel, I should mention that if there are amendments to be made to the bill, we have the duty of consulting closely again with Inuit to make those amendments.
Senator Seidman: Good. Thank you very much.
Senator Wallace: The Nunavut planning and project assessment act, as you pointed out, defines processes for creating and implementing land use plans. Many of us are familiar with what land use plans are like in the South, in the areas where we live. Senator Massicotte did touch upon this.
You have touched on this somewhat, but could you give us more detail about the types of land use planning that are now in place in Nunavut? You mentioned certain areas in Nunavut that are covered in certain ways by land use plans, but do I take it from that that there are areas that are not covered that would be picked up? What is the current status of land use planning in Nunavut?
Ms. Traynor: The current status is that there are two approved land use plans: one for the northern Baffin region and one for Kivalliq Region, which is the central portion of Nunavut.
The Nunavut Planning Commission is in the process right now of publicly reviewing a draft of a land use plan that would cover all the Nunavut Settlement Area. We do anticipate the remaining part of the area to be covered by a land use plan when the planning commission finishes that review, revises and submits it for approval to the two governments. If this act is in force, it would also go to the Inuit for approval.
Senator Wallace: Would the types of issues to be dealt with in those land use plans be similar to what we would be accustomed to in the South, or would they vary in significant ways?
Ms. Traynor: They would not be exactly the same, because we are talking about non-municipal lands, for the most part. We do still anticipate that municipalities in Nunavut will develop municipal land use plans — and some have — that would apply within the boundaries of the municipality.
These are broader regional plans that cover broader issues — where development broadly might occur, certain areas that need to be protected because they are important for wildlife, important for cultural preservation, or significant physical or biological features; and transportation corridors is another example that might be identified in a plan. Therefore, they are much broader and regional in scale. They might suggest for the establishment of a protected area for a particular area, so they are not as minute as a municipal plan. It might encompass zoning regulations, et cetera. They are broader areas.
Senator Wallace: Even in the South, there are broader plans and then you are down to the zoning level, so I was trying to get a similar sense. Thank you.
You touched on this next question somewhat in your earlier comments. How does the Northwest Territories surface rights board compare with other jurisdictions in terms of structure, approach and content?
Ms. Vézina: It shares some similarities with other comparable jurisdictions, particularly north of 60, so in the Yukon and Nunavut. It has differences, because it incorporates requirements from four land agreements: the Sahtu, Gwich'in, Tlicho and the Inuvialuit.
While there are different surface rights board models that are used south of 60, differences in land ownership, oil, gas and mineral legislation, and requirements in land claims make it so that it is difficult to apply an exact model that would have been in another jurisdiction.
It creates an efficient process, while respecting the land claim agreements and ensuring a degree of consistency throughout the North.
It is important to note that similar jurisdictions have rarely used surface rights boards. The Yukon, for instance, has been open for business since approximately 1997 and Nunavut from 2003. Between those, there has been one decision made in the Yukon.
The surface rights boards are being established, as we said before, as a tool of last resort. This board's efficacy stems from people negotiating their own agreements, with their own terms, before they even have to get to a surface rights board.
Senator Unger: Ms. Vézina, you just answered a question that I was going to ask, which was how often it is expected that the boards will meet.
However, I would like to know about the auditing process. Why did the government determine that it was no longer necessary to have the Auditor General conduct audits? What would the benefit be to the external audits or the audits that are being proposed?
Ms. Vézina: As I mentioned before, that is one of the amendments that we made for the Yukon, as well. That was actually a recommendation made by the Office of the Auditor General, which said that, because there are several boards, it was becoming overwhelming to have to need to audit, and it was not really necessary; we could have an audit done by an auditor, chosen by the board, that would then be submitted. However, it was really not necessary that it go to the Auditor General.
Senator Unger: Is it expected that this will help facilitate affairs in a more timely fashion?
Ms. Vézina: Yes, and cut down expenses.
Senator Unger: Thank you.
Senator Lang: It is important to highlight this particular area because the board was finding that the requirement to go to the Auditor General to have an audit done every year was extremely expensive. I think half the amount of money that was budgeted to run the board was paid towards doing an audit every year, and the board's only function was to pay the members of the board, with few other expenditures, the way I understand it.
The point I want to make is a broader point, that this is an area that the Government of Canada can look at generally for auditing across the board, as far as these committees, commissions and boards are concerned. If we give these boards and commissions the authority to go out for an initial private audit, it is a lot less expensive and more efficient, and if something is highlighted, then the Auditor General may be called in. I think right now the Auditor General is being asked to do too many things, and, quite frankly, it is very expensive for the taxpayer, and I do not think we are necessarily getting the results we need.
Senator Sibbeston: I have two points. The first is with respect to your participation funding. I appreciate there is nothing in the act dealing with that, and it perhaps could be dealt with in regulations.
Will the government plan to provide participation funding for organizations and so forth, particularly in Nunavut where there are planning commissions and where there may be people who want to intervene and take part in any major decision?
Ms. Traynor: At this time, we have only the regulation-making ability in the act. We decided at this point to leave it at the regulation-making ability until we could decide whether or not the procedures of the board were adequate in involving the public and ensuring that their views are well accounted for.
From time to time there have been cases where the minister felt he would like to provide funding for certain projects, and he has done so for a couple of the projects in Nunavut. Right now it is being done on a case-by-case basis.
We do not have a sustainable, secure source of funding for participant funding. If we were able to identify that, then perhaps we could at that point develop a regulation. At this point, however, the minister continues to make those decisions on a case-by-case basis.
Senator Sibbeston: My other point is that I believe I heard officials say the legislation is couched in terms that this will create employment and jobs in the North.
While I appreciate this may be the case in Nunavut, as you are setting up planning boards and so forth, in the Northwest Territories where you are planning to set up a surface rights board, considering that the board may never be used — it will only be used when disputes arise. At the moment, legislation in the North in which there are arbitration provisions to deal with disputes has never been used, so the likelihood of this surface rights board being used is not great.
Can you explain how you can justify your statement saying that this legislation will somehow or other create jobs and opportunities in the North? You will be hiring nine people to sit on the board and maybe a bit of staff, but besides that?
Ms. King: I referenced it earlier and perhaps I can clarify now. Meeting our obligation to establish this board would contribute to completing the regulatory system and providing the certainty that investors and participants in development can count on as they make investment decisions going forward. In that way, by providing that kind of clarity, transparency and certainty, it offers the opportunity for greater confidence in investment in the Northwest Territories.
Senator Patterson: Further to Senator Sibbeston's question about jobs and growth, I would like to ask Ms. King — and I understand you have a background in geology — if you can give us a general picture for the benefit of the committee and viewers of the resource development potential in the three territories, please.
Ms. King: I can. I realize my comments were very specific to the bill. Thank you for the opportunity.
I will take a moment to note that Canada's North is recognized worldwide as a world-class reserve of resources, whether minerals or oil and gas reserves.
There are estimates of $38 billion of new investment potential, given what is known about the geological potential for that kind of project development in the North, so enormous potential, some would say underexploited. There is an opportunity to create thousands of job and billions of dollars in new investment, much of which would go to support northern residents. This is a tremendous opportunity in the North.
This bill again is intended to provide the certainty, clarity and confidence to investors from around the world who are looking globally, in quite a competitive environment, as to where to invest their resources now. It is well understood that Canada's North has those very significant resources. This bill and future regulatory reform is intended to provide that certainty and clarity to bring that investment to Northern Canada and realize the potential of those mineral and oil and gas reserves.
Senator Massicotte: Supplementary.
The Chair: When Senator Patterson is finished.
Senator Patterson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If Senator Massicotte's supplementary is on the resource development potential, I am happy to yield to him because my next question is unrelated to that.
Senator Massicotte: Is the figure of $38 billion feasible based upon current prices and environment?
Ms. King: It is based on current understanding and awareness of investment projects. We know there are cycles in investment projects as well, so it is based on current knowledge and current projects.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
Senator Patterson: Following on Senator Mitchell's questions about devolution, I want to mention that devolution is giving the NWT responsibilities in resource development. It is significant historically and in the constitutional evolution of the territories.
The agreement with the NWT requires that the NWT mirror federal legislation, and there has been work on reforming the regulatory process in the NWT; you mentioned the McCrank report and subsequent consultations.
For the benefit of the committee, I would like you to elaborate more on that, as the legislation may come to this committee. There is a tight timetable; it all must be done before April 1, 2014, the federal reform and the NWT mirroring.
What other legislation is the government looking at reforming as part of this process? What might we expect to see in the short year ahead?
Ms. King: Thank you for the question, and yes, we do anticipate a busy year. The senator is correct in noting that we contemplate completing regulatory reform with respect to legislation particular to the Northwest Territories in advance of implementing devolution on April 1, 2014. Yes, perhaps this committee may see discussion of regulatory reform pertaining to acts like the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, for example, and then as we work through implementation of devolution, the GNWT would be able to mirror the appropriate parts of that legislation and take on those responsibilities as envisioned through devolution.
The Chair: That is the end of questions. Thank you very much. Sorry, go ahead.
Ms. Traynor: I still owe Senator Massicotte an answer to his question, and I have that now, if I may. It is just the minister who grants an exemption to a land use plan. He has 120 days to grant or refuse.
The Chair: Thank you for the good presentations, questions and answers. They will help us to understand the bill a little better.
We will move next to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, which was referred to the committee on March 27, 2013.
Senator Massicotte: Before we proceed, may I ask for direction from the chair? Having a brief debate on the consultation with the Mi'kmaq will not affect my agreement with the proposed amendments to the bill, but I would not mind knowing whether we will discuss that before clause-by-clause consideration or after. In essence, if you want to hear me out, we can look at the information we received from the minister relative to the times they consulted with the Mi'kmaq and at the response from the Mi'kmaq. I think it is clear that the Mi'kmaq were not consulted on the bill. I suspect that out of courtesy, if not out of constitutional responsibility, they should have been consulted on the bill.
I do not want to go so far as to say ``constitutional,'' but if nothing else, for the sake of proper advice and working with someone, they should at least be told. Further to the advice we got and the work we are doing, we are tabling proposed legislation. I am not saying they should approve the bill, but they should have been consulted. There is a list of meetings and advice form the minister, but they never received that advice from the minister. I recommend that we agree to the bill at clause-by-clause but that we send a letter to the minister as a courtesy reminder that in terms of a working relationship, they should consult in the future.
Senator Mitchell: That is a very relevant point made by Senator Massicotte. In the context of the meeting on Bill C- 47, I pursued officials who said they sent drafts of the proposed legislation to various groups. They specified that they had sent it to the four major Aboriginal groups concerned, demonstrating quite a different process of consultation in that case than appears to have been the case with Bill S-15. It begs the very question of why they would do it there but not Bill S-15.
Senator Massicotte: I am not sure if we should say they have not consulted. I would simply remind the minister of the need for consultation and indicate that we have some concerns that that was not adequately done, as a minimum requirement out of courtesy.
Senator Mitchell: I agree.
Senator Lang: I do not know if I necessarily agree with that, and I am going to tell you why.
First of all, on the first point that was made by Senator Mitchell, the process that he referred to and the witnesses referred to earlier was a requirement that had been negotiated under a land claim agreement, and subsequently those interests were recognized, so it therefore became part of the process. In this case, the interest has been identified by the Mi'kmaq, but it has not been totally and absolutely accepted by all the parties. I think you have to be very careful in respect to where we are going in respect to interest and how far that interest goes until it becomes fully recognized by all parties. That is one aspect.
The other aspect that I think is important and I think Senator Massicotte is perhaps not bringing to the fore is that there was a letter of support to proceed with the park a number of years ago by all the parties, including the interests referred to for part of this discussion. It would seem to me that everybody agreed that there a park would be established on Sable Island.
I want to go to one other point. It is not a park. It will be a reserve. The reason it is not a park, the way I understand it, is because of the outstanding interests that may have an effect with respect to Sable Island. Also, because of the way the legislation is written, there is time and an opening for that interest to be discussed and debated to see whether that interest is valid.
We have to be very careful here on the question of consultation. I look at that list of consultation. If you had gone to every meeting, that would be a job. Once again, I also ask what the definition of ``consultation'' is. Be very careful with this. I am sorry, Senator Massicotte —
Senator Massicotte: I do not want to define it. Look at the agreement signed on August 31 by the federal government and the Mi'kmaq. It goes on to the obligation of consultation beyond the United Nations resolution. I do not want to define ``consultation'' because the Supreme Court will have to do that one day. If you look at the meetings that were held, they do not dispute the objective. Out of politeness and courtesy, if you are tabling legislation, if nothing else, not to scare your team partner, you should give a heads up that you are tabling this legislation, and if you look at the meetings they had, which are quite detailed, it never does that.
The Chair: I think we do have to be careful here a little bit, Senator Massicotte, because different people think different things about what consultation is. The information we were provided, at least that I recall, was that Parks Canada did send them numbers of letters and had numbers of meetings with them. Whether everyone considered that consultation or not, that is always the question. They asked if the First Nations had any concerns about creating a park or a reserve under the parks act. They have documented to us that they received confirmation. ``We have no problem with that. We would like to move forward with it, but we want to be considered in any consultation that takes place afterwards about what happens with the park.'' I guess that could mean any number of things that take place, which I assume Parks Canada will do. I do not know how you say that is not consultation when they confirmed that they agree with it. That is where I am having a little trouble also.
Senator Massicotte: On August 9, 2010, the government did send a letter to the Mi'kmaq, and there is no dispute that they agreed with the vision and intent to make it a reserve. There is no problem with that. I think, though, that if we are in business together and we are working together consulting, when you pass legislation, which is basically a unilateral form of action, I think they should receive a heads up, like they received other heads up. If you look at the list of things, they received a heads up on everything, out of courtesy. I do not think the letter should try to define ``consultation,'' I agree, because that is touchy, but we should remind the minister of the need to consult, without saying he did not. We have some concerns that they should have gotten a heads up on the tabling of the legislation. I am not saying they must approve of the legislation. I do not want to define it, but I think they did not go as far as they should.
Senator Mitchell: There is an agreement, Senator Lang, with the Mi'kmaq, in addressing your point about this agreement under the land claims negotiations in the North. There is an agreement with the Mi'kmaq on consultation.
Senator Lang: We were not involved in these discussions, but I want to point out that in the information we have, November 13, 2012, which was not that along ago because this is April 2013. For the record, Parks Canada leads Nova Scotia and the Mi'kmaq through a high-level overview for the post chapter for the final agreement on parks, which includes the provisions for the establishment of new national parks in Nova Scotia. The intent is to negotiate provisions related to Sable Island that would, if adopted, result in changing Sable Island's status from a national park reserve to a national park, thereby continuing the involvement of the Mi'kmaq in the designation process.
I really take exception to the point where we can give criticism about consultation to the point we quite frankly do nothing, and I am talking in a general sense, not this particular bill. We have to be very careful with this word ``consultation'' because it all of a sudden takes on the connotation of a veto if a party does not get all the provisions they have asked for. In our haste to accommodate all the various interests, we have to be careful not to put the general public's interests to the side. At the end of the day, this particular bill and all other bills are there for the general public as well. It is not one interest group versus another.
Personally, I will say, looking through this, I am satisfied that over five years, and been longer than five years, I am sure, in other quarters, that there has been debate, and perhaps the member from Nova Scotia can tell us, going on forever about the possibility of a park on Sable Island. This is not news.
The other side of the coin too is that there are all these public meetings. If someone chooses not to go to a public meeting and put their position forward as an individual or an interest group or a concerned stakeholder who perhaps feels they have not been consulted, that is a forum that can be utilized as well.
I say, as a member here, I feel that consultation has taken place.
Senator Patterson: I think this is a worthwhile discussion. It was probably the only issue that emerged where there might be some concern in our consideration of this bill, which otherwise seems to have been a model process of tripartite development — two governments, industry and the Mi'kmaq.
As I understand it, there was agreement on the part of the Mi'kmaq that there was a broad framework agreement in place that did involve them in the consultations leading up to where we are today. They did agree that they were, as we speak, participating in negotiations for a contribution agreement that will allow them to participate in the development of the park. I think archaeology was mentioned as one of the areas of concern. I believe the witnesses agreed that they expected, through the contribution agreement, to be able to participate in the actual movement from reserve to park, as respected parties.
The question Senator Massicotte raises is about actually seeing the proposed legislation.
One thing I have learned is that some government departments feel constrained about being able to share a bill when it is about to be presented for reasons of privilege and confidentiality. That certainly came up with Bill C-45, which was considered to be a budget bill. There are parliamentary traditions around budget bills and budget secrecy. There was a lot of concern about lack of consultation on a budget bill; and the government view was different from that of some of those concerned.
In this case, Senator Massicotte is bringing that same issue forward. Was the final version of the bill shared with the Mi'kmaq before it was tabled in Parliament? Before we think of criticizing the minister or even making an observation, it would be useful to determine the constraints placed on a legislator about sharing draft bills before they are introduced in Parliament. Perhaps there is an important parliamentary privilege issue that impacts on this discussion.
The Chair: That is an interesting take on it.
Senator Massicotte: I would go further and say that maybe there is an impediment, appropriately so, not to share the bill. That would not be offensive to me. In that case, to be at least courteous without consultation, they should have been given a heads up and told that the bill would not be shared with them and the reasons. Out of simple courtesy and for the sake of good relations, the other party should have been advised. It is a significant step to introduce a bill. It is not simply a meeting or having coffee with someone; it is a formal, significant step. Out of basic courtesy, if not for consultative reasons, they should have been advised that the government was introducing a bill.
The minister did not respond to my question and the deputy minister did not respond to my question. We can look at the list of the things they did do, and it is not in there. Yet, they gave many heads-up scenarios in other situations. They can say, ``The minister is meeting us in your area.'' Give them a heads up so they can be there. They should have been told that the government was tabling a bill, even if they did not show it to them.
Senator Sibbeston: I concur with the statements of Senator Massicotte. We should err on the side of caution and not be too worried about what a letter to the minister would do. It would be simply a letter asking the minister to please consult properly, in particular where Aboriginal people are involved.
I would like to say something with respect to what my good friend from the Yukon said about the public process and the opportunity for native people. It is like saying that native people are like all Canadians in their responsibility to take part. However, the reality is that they are special; they were here first and it is not that easy. Native people are different from non-native people, so there must be special consideration given to them. This is at issue here.
Let us err on the side of caution and send a letter to the minister to say that we are concerned about the extent of consultation and that, in the future, there should be proper consultation with Aboriginal people because it will become more important as time goes on.
Senator Lang: I do not know how you could discuss a contribution agreement and not be aware that proposed legislation is coming forward to designate that as a reserve and then a park. Obviously, some discussions must have taken place, otherwise you would not be negotiating a contribution agreement. Common sense tells you that. I would say that there is further consultation that has not even been described in this particular series of events.
I want to make this point on observations. My understanding is that there should be a consensus if there are to be observations. Obviously, there is no consensus here. There is nothing stopping Senator Massicotte from writing his own letter. I would not support a general letter from the committee.
The Chair: The Library of Parliament researcher just gave me a little advice.
On February 8 Parks Canada advised or provided a heads up regarding a ministerial event to take place the following week announcing a milestone in the process. I am not sure whether they said it was proposed legislation to be tabled, but they gave them a heads up; and there has been lots of discussion that there was going to be legislation. They were given a heads up, in a sense.
Senator Mitchell: That was four days before.
The Chair: Four days before, yes; and that is not bad.
Senator Mitchell: It was two years after the process of drafting had started.
The Chair: I will not have this back and forth with you. It was deposited February 12, four days previous. I do not know if you are meaning that should have been done an hour before or weeks before.
Senator Mitchell: Years before.
The Chair: Senator Mitchell, you cannot do that. They did let them know.
Perhaps to sum this up in some way, I will ask for some advice after this meeting. We could draft a letter, and it would have to be with the agreement of everybody at the table, that asks the question about how it is done. Senator Patterson brought forward a valid point. We should find out from the minister what the procedure is — not saying there was no consultation because I do not agree with that. Senator Massicotte, that is where you are coming from as you are talking about letting them know. I am saying that on February 8, they did let them know that a significant event was going to take place. I do not know how they do that, so let us find out. That way, next time we have a piece of proposed legislation before the committee, we can look at it. If everyone is in agreement, I will get some advice from the clerk and try to draft something that meets with your agreement, not talking about consultation but about how people are advised when a piece of proposed legislation is coming forward.
Senator Massicotte: — when you have an agreement to work together. What does the last sentence mean? In French, it says that Parks Canada would not be able to indicate when any legislation would be deposited.
The Chair: I do not know the answer to that.
Senator Massicotte: I wonder what that means. Maybe we could ask that.
Senator Sibbeston: I appreciate what you are saying and that you are trying to resolve this. Any time it involves Aboriginal people, I wonder whether special consideration is given to the process to consult and what that is.
The Chair: I will not talk about consultation, I can tell you that right now. If we draft a letter, it is exactly the question that Senator Massicotte asked about how people are informed that it will take place, not about consultation.
Senator Sibbeston: I suspect that the Department of Justice will reply, and they will not give you a satisfactory answer.
The Chair: Are you saying we should not write?
Senator Sibbeston: No, write the letter, but I can tell you that the Department of Justice will write back and we will not be satisfied with it. When AANDC consults with Aboriginal people, there are times when they come to the table and sit together as they did with the specific claims. That happens when they have a task force dealing with proposed legislation and they work together from the beginning to the end. That was the extent to which AFN and AANDC consulted in certain cases.
In the case of Nunavut, they consulted thoroughly. The government took special consideration and involved First Nations right to the bitter end, as it were. I do not know whether Parks Canada has a good history of consulting. We need to tell them they have to do a better job of consulting.
The Chair: I will end this discussion soon. Senator Lang will be the final speaker.
Senator Lang: Mr. Chair, I am prepared to accept putting a letter, but I want to make it clear I am not agreeing to that letter until I see it.
The Chair: That is what I said: A letter will have to be agreed to by this committee. I will bring that letter back to this committee, if we can develop a letter that works with what I understand Senator Massicotte to be asking. That would have to be done through the committee. Is that okay?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you for that discussion; that is great.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Can I bunch some of these up? Shall clause 6 to clause 12 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 13 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We have an amendment to clause 13.
Senator MacDonald: Clause 13 of Bill S-15 proposes to amend subsection 4(1) of the Canada National Parks Act for two reasons: first, to correct the discrepancies between the English and French versions, and second, to address a concern raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.
During the testimony before the committee, we heard that the proposed amendment could lead to potential misinterpretation. Therefore, the motion before you proposes wording that is clearer and that accomplishes the two purposes of the original amendment. The first part of the amendment proposed in this motion restores the original English version of subsection 4(1) of the Canada National Parks Act and amends the French version to make it align with the English version. In other words, the current English version of subsection 4(1) of the Canada National Parks Act remains as is, while the French version is adjusted to match.
The second part of the proposed amendment addresses in a more direct way the concerns raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. That committee argued that the wording of the subject of this act and the regulations in subsection 4(1) of the act restricts the ability of the minister to use sections 23 and 24 of the Parks Canada Agency Act to set fees in national parks.
To address this issue squarely, this motion adds a new subsection 4(1.1) to the Canada National Parks Act. This new subsection clarifies that the minister's authority for setting fees under the Parks Canada Agency Act will apply in national parks.
Honourable senators, I would ask you to support the adoption of this motion.
Senator Massicotte: I think the sponsor of the bill should read the proposed paragraphs, particularly the French copy. I would like to hear him read that.
Senator MacDonald: Sure, I will do that.
I move:
That the Bill S-15 be amended in clause 13, on page 6, by replacing lines 3 to 11 with the following:
``13.(1) Subsection 4(1) of the French version of the Canada National Parks Act is replaced by the following:
[Translation]
4.(1) Les parcs sont créés à l'intention du peuple canadien pour son bienfait, son agrément et l'enrichissement de ses connaissances, sous réserve de la présente loi et des règlements; ils doivent être entretenus et utilisés de façon à rester intacts pour les générations futures.
[English]
(2) Section 4 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.1) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act limits the authority of the Minister to fix fees under section 23 or 24 of the Parks Canada Agency Act.''
The Chair: Senator Massicotte, let it never be said that we do not deliver. I give Senator MacDonald an A for effort.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator MacDonald, ``That Bill S-15 be amended in clause 13, on page 6, by replacing lines 3 to 11 . . . ``, as read by Senator MacDonald.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We will now carry on with clause by clause.
Shall clause 13, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 14 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 15 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 16 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report the bill, as amended, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I believe that finishes that.
Senator Massicotte: I wonder now if the chair will read it in front of the Senate.
The Chair: You had your choice the first time you moved it, and you made it. I appreciate that you asked Senator MacDonald to do it.
(The committee adjourned.)