THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 17, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 6:54 p.m. [ET] to study Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Senator Paul J. Massicotte (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Paul J. Massicotte, I’m a senator from Quebec and chair of this committee.
This is a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other participants attending in person to consult the cards on the tables for information on the guidelines for preventing audio feedback incidents.
Keep your earpiece away from all other microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker affixed to the table for this purpose.
Thank you all for your cooperation.
I would like to ask my committee colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec.
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Prosper: P. J. Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kmaq territory.
Senator White: Judy White, Ktaqmkuk aq Lapato’lk, better known as Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Petten: Iris Petten, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Francis: Brian Francis, Epekwitk, Prince Edward Island.
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez, Quebec.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Manitoba.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome colleagues and everyone viewing our proceedings across the country.
Today, the committee continues its examination of Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
With us today are Jessica Ginsburg, barrister and solicitor, and Patrick Butler, senior energy and mines advisor, from the Kwilmu’kw Maw-Klusuaqn, and Sidney Peters, chief and co-chair of the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs.
Welcome, and thank you for accepting our invitation. You have 10 minutes for your opening remarks.
Ms. Ginsburg, you may begin, followed by Chief Sidney Peters.
[English]
Jessica Ginsburg, Barrister and Solicitor, Kwilmu’kw Maw-Klusuaqn: With the committee’s permission, I would like to offer Chief Peters the opportunity to precede my remarks.
The Chair: Sure.
Sidney Peters, Chief and Co-chair, Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs: Kwe’! Good evening, members of the Senate and guests. I am Chief Sidney Peters, Chief of Glooscap First Nation as well as the Co-Chair of the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs. I am pleased to be here today and appearing in front of you to provide our statements.
As you mentioned, I am joined by my two technicians, Jennifer as well as Patrick, who will help out with any of the real technical questions. As you know, being a leader, sometimes we don’t know all the details of stuff, and they are here to answer any of the real specific questions.
I wanted to note that, of course, in 2010, we established a working relationship with the provincial and federal governments through our Terms of Reference for a Mi’kmaq-Nova Scotia-Canada Consultation Process which was developed and subsequently implemented through the Made-in-Nova Scotia process under the direction of the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs. Presently, Membertou First Nation is the only Mi’kmaw community in Nova Scotia that is not part of our assembly.
Under our consultation process, KMK has coordinated, facilitated and participated in consultations with the federal and provincial governments on hundreds of projects and initiatives that may impact our rights, including fishing rights, as protected under section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act. We are here before you today because the activities to be authorized under Bill C-49 have the potential to adversely impact our section 35 rights.
The provincial and federal governments have had ample opportunity to raise Bill C-49 in discussions with the Mi’kmaq but have failed to do so. In light of the lack of consultation by the Crown, as well as the lengthy and highly technical nature of this bill, we appreciate being given the opportunity to raise our concerns with you today.
The first item that I want to raise with you today is the duty to consult. The Crown has a duty to consult on decisions about our resources when such decisions may have potentially serious impacts on our Aboriginal rights and title. Bill C-49 is structured as a long series of strategic planning decisions, culminating in authorization to carry out work on offshore renewable energy projects. The bill provides no consultation, or inadequate consultation, during the regulations, directives, principles, offshore renewable energy recommendations, calls for bids, submerged land licence and authorizations.
We would like to see the following changes made: The consultation process should cover off all the key decision points within the strategic planning process, and the bill should be structured to support the fulfillment of these consultation obligations prior to final decisions being made. The planning process begins with regulations, then proceeds through directives, principles, offshore renewable energy recommendations, calls for bids and submerged land licences, culminating in any authorizations that are not otherwise consulted upon through the Impact Assessment Act process.
The bill also needs to address regulator-led environmental assessments, regional assessments and strategic assessments. We feel that there should be clear triggers and factors guiding the exercise of regulator discretion and process requirements, including consultation at appropriate junctures.
Closely related to the theme of duty to consult is what information the regulator is permitted to share in fulfilling its duty. Clause 122 of the bill speaks to disclosure of information, as does clause 19. We want to see an exception be added to clause 122 or clause 19 providing that, as with other levels of government, Indigenous governments are entitled to access information for the purpose of section 35 consultations without first requiring consent from the party who provided it. If documentation that informs impacts to our section 35 rights is deemed by a proponent to contain confidential information, the appropriate response is to negotiate a confidentiality agreement with the Indigenous group being consulted, not to limit the disclosure of key information.
We are aware that the totality of the potential impacts of offshore renewable energy on fishing rights is not yet known. These are new and emerging technologies, and their impacts on ocean species are still being studied worldwide. The impacts could range from safety and navigation concerns to areas becoming inaccessible or off-limits to our harvesters, as well as the displacement of ocean species or changes to water conditions, for example.
Given these uncertainties and given the core importance of subsistence, our livelihood and commercial fishing, it is particularly disappointing that there were no conversations to discuss this prior to the introduction of the bill. We have heard loud and clear that the participation of our Mi’kmaw communities in Nova Scotia is essential for the long-term success of the offshore renewable energy sector. Our involvement is integral to addressing historic issues, managing current resource challenges and developing co-management structures.
Canada’s history of development has frequently led to significant economic disparities for our communities, infringed upon our rights and created power imbalances and social tensions within regions. These challenges persist in the fisheries sector, and I don’t have to overstate the ongoing tensions that exist between Mi’kmaw and non-Indigenous fishers, as well as with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Assessing, addressing, accommodating and compensating us for the impacts to our rights-based fisheries requires a multi-pronged approach. Part of this approach must include the Crown fulfilling its duty to consult, beginning with the earliest decision points in the strategic planning process before decisions are made.
One of the principles set out in the bill speaks to giving importance to the consideration of effects on fishing activities during the submerged land licence issuance process. While we support the sentiment behind this principle, especially considering potential significant economic reconciliation opportunities for our communities through offshore wind development, we continue to expect Canada to uphold its constitutional duty to consult under the Mi’kmaw-Nova Scotia-Canada Terms of Reference. Legislation such as this is integral to both the protection of our rights and resources and to the advancement of our economic participation as First Nation communities.
There is a need to ensure the bill’s compensation scheme addresses all types of losses, not just those occasioned by damages from debris or negative substances. These losses could include displacement of fishers or displacement of fish from traditional fishing grounds, as well as losses resulting from the use of new technologies, as these consequences are still unforeseen.
Before I turn the microphone over to Jessica Ginsburg from KMK, I want to thank the members of the Senate for the invitation to appear here today. It is important to the communities we represent that we have an opportunity to bring forth their concerns and know that the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia are represented in these discussions. Thank you. Wela’lioq.
Ms. Ginsburg: Hello. My name is Jessica Ginsburg, and I am barrister and solicitor with Kwilmu’kw Maw-Klusuaqn. I appear before you today not to voice opposition to Bill C-49 but to advocate for a bill that respects the Mi’kmaq’s constitutionally protected rights and that strikes the right between promoting development opportunities and promoting our fishing communities. As noted by Chief Peters, this is a lengthy and highly technical bill, as you all know, and it was important for us to complete our review in order to understand its impacts and consequences.
We appreciate having the opportunity to come speak with you today. Unfortunately, it does not appear that we will be afforded the same opportunity at the provincial level. As we speak, the Province of Nova Scotia is rushing through its mirror legislation under Bill 471, the Advancing Nova Scotia Opportunities Act. Bill 471 passed second reading on September 12, only two days after it was introduced, and, unfortunately, the only day allocated for the Law Amendments Committee to receive submissions was yesterday, which conflicted with our trip here to speak with you today.
I will pick up where Chief Peters left off, with regional assessments. KMK has been heavily involved with the regional assessments of offshore wind in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland since they were launched in April of 2022. This bill does not accord weight to these regional assessments or account for the recommendations within its planning process. This omission undermines and undervalues all the time and resources that we have dedicated towards the regional assessments, and it suggests that a compartmentalized approach is being followed by the various federal and provincial government departments working on offshore wind.
We are seeking an amendment that would only allow calls for bids to be made and submerged land licences to be issued in areas that have been recommended for development within the regional assessments. Currently, under the Impact Assessment Act and its regulations, government may exempt offshore wind developments from project-specific impact assessments following a regional assessment. Without according regional assessments appropriate weight within this bill, it is possible that these assessments could be used as a vehicle for circumventing project-specific assessments rather than as a vehicle for making better-informed, tiered decisions about offshore wind.
Next, I’ll speak to participant funding. This bill would add proposed section 142.022, which provides that:
The Regulator may establish a participant funding program to facilitate the participation of the public and any Indigenous peoples of Canada in consultations concerning any matter respecting the offshore area.
By contrast, under the Impact Assessment Act, the agency “must” establish a participant funding program for impact assessments, regional assessments and strategic assessments. There are other examples of mandatory participant funding programs, such as in the Canadian Energy Regulator Act. What’s more, courts are increasingly considering whether participant funding has been made available as a factor in assessing the robustness of the Crown’s consultation process.
Accordingly, we recommend that the participant funding program in this bill be made mandatory. This is particularly important in this context for three reasons: First, the development of offshore renewable energy is a lengthy, novel and highly technical process which will require communities to have access to significant resources and expertise in order to participate on a level playing field. Second, the section 35 Indigenous consultations should begin well before the impact assessment phase. Third, there could be regulator-led environmental assessments, regional assessments and strategic assessments that do not fall under the Impact Assessment Act.
The final theme I’d like to discuss is the principle pertaining to service contracts under proposed section 98.7. This section sets out three new principles, two of which pertain to the supply of goods and services. The first principle speaks to the ability of “Canadian corporations and individuals” to compete for contracts to supply goods and services in support of the offshore renewable energy industry. The second principle highlights the importance of developing measures to increase the participation of under-represented groups in the supply of goods and services.
This is a major area of interest and potential economic benefit for Indigenous peoples, and yet, despite the emphasis on participation by under-represented groups, limiting the language to “Canadian corporations and individuals” is not inclusive of the different types of Indigenous entities which might have an interest in bidding on this kind of work.
Accordingly, we are recommending the language of this provision be made more inclusive by adding the term “Indigenous organization” to the text of 98.7(a) and adding definitions for “Indigenous organization” and “Indigenous governing body.”
This has been done in other bills and acts. For example, Bill S-273 was amended to include these terms within the definition of “person,” in the context of agreements pertaining to the design, construction or operation of the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System. These terms also appear in legislation such as in the Department of Indigenous Services Act.
I’ll stop my remarks here. I thank the committee for allowing us to come address you today.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Ginsburg.
We have a lot of questions for you. Obviously, we have a lot of enthusiasm for the subject matter. It is quite complicated, and we appreciate your perspective very much.
Senator White: Thank you to the panel, and wela’lin, Chief Peters. It is always good to have a chief and elder amongst us. I’m honoured to have you here with us today. As you all indicated, there is certainly a lot of interest from the Province of Nova Scotia, as well as the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and some Mi’kmaw communities as well.
Given the concerns about the consultation process, which you have adequately outlined, do you think that there is a way forward where this bill could pass in its current form with a pathway to ongoing, meaningful consultations at a later stage? Is that something that you think is possible? If so, what would it look like? If not, well, that’s fine too.
Mr. Peters: Thank you very much for that question.
The question I would ask back is: If the legislation has gone through as it is, how does that impact regulations, and how does consultation impact the bill? The way I have always understood it is you have your legislation, and you have your regulations after that. But if it is passed, then how do we actually consult after the fact? That is what I don’t understand.
It is unfortunate, to be honest with you. It is frustrating for us. It is frustrating for the Mi’kmaw people to think that we spent a lot of time under the Made-in-Nova Scotia Process, meeting with the province and meeting with the federal government. How this went through, from what I understand, is there were letters that talked about engagement, but engagement is not consultation. How it went to this level, I don’t know. I am kind of frustrated as to how it got this far without us knowing, as a nation in Nova Scotia, without really truly understanding.
We truly understand how important economic development is for our communities, but we also need to have the opportunity to consult on this. It is not all about economic development. This is where, I think, things have gone astray.
I would like for my nation, or from the assembly level, to ask for that opportunity to consult. That’s all we’re asking. We’re not asking to delay it or whatever. All we’re asking for is the opportunity to be consulted on and given that opportunity. That’s all we’re here for.
Senator White: Thank you.
Minister Wilkinson did provide a long list of Indigenous communities and organizations that he said were contacted. Obviously, there were some gaps in that you have a whole province — basically 12 communities — saying that they weren’t. On a go-forward basis, not so much for this legislation but forward thinking, how can we make the government’s strategy more effective? Obviously, what you’re saying here is that it didn’t work.
Mr. Peters: In the chief’s office, we’re getting letters almost on a daily basis in regard to consultation. We get letters: “We want to consult on putting a culvert in a driveway,” or whatever it is. Leadership looks at it. We do have our office — the KMK office, the assembly office — that tries to look at these, and we have gotten hundreds and hundreds of files that they are working on.
The thing that really worries me or bothers me is a play on words. Is it engagement? Is it consultation? What is it? True engagement or creating that relationship is we should be saying, “Yes, we really want to consult with you.” There is the duty to consult, and that’s all we asked. We’re getting a lot of letters coming out, saying, “We’d like to engage with you.” What does that really mean, “engagement”? Is it really consultation, or are we just going to have a discussion and bring everybody together?
With a bill like this and how important it really, truly is, I think we should have had that opportunity.
Senator Petten: Thank you so much for being with us this evening. It is nice to see all three of you again, Chief Peters, Ms. Ginsburg and Mr. Butler. I was so thankful that I was able to speak with you when I was in Halifax in August, and I want to thank you for your submission and comments here tonight.
In August, one of the things that we discussed was around the economic opportunities — which you just mentioned — that this bill will provide, and I am wondering if you could share some thoughts about how the Mi’kmaw have been involved in that process so far and whether there may be interest in being involved in offshore wind projects in the future.
Mr. Peters: As you know, each community works independently, and there are organizations or companies that approach them and talk about opportunities and whatever it is. It might be close to their community or whatever. They don’t necessarily always share that information or what companies they are working with.
We, as the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs, allow our communities the opportunity to do that, because a lot of the communities are really finding it difficult, and they need those opportunities to work with various companies. Do they always let everybody know? Not really. If it is a great opportunity and there is money to be had, usually they will go and seek it. That’s what happens.
Here, for example, I know that you have seen letters or whatever. There are three communities that have been working with a company, and that is fine. We’re not against renewable energy or any of that. What we’re really concerned about is just the opportunity, and why weren’t we consulted? Because the other thing about engagement and consultation is that, well, consultation is on the record. Engagement is just, “We engaged,” but it is not on the record.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, witnesses, for your presentations, your presence here and for forcing us to bring you here when we should have done it before. That’s an important thing to recognize.
With respect to participant funding and baseline consultation, do you see those possible amendments to the bill as something that is squarely focused on Nova Scotia, or do you see it for both offshore petroleum boards? It is okay if you haven’t. I am just wondering if you have given consideration to Newfoundland and Labrador or if it is just for Nova Scotia.
Mr. Peters: Jessica can probably answer it in more detail than I would, but, to me, as the Mi’kmaw nation, it is important that we work as a nation, not specifically just with one particular region. That’s what we try to — I’m not saying “preach,” but we try to understand how important the Mi’kmaw nation is, but as a Mi’kmaw nation, we need to really all work together on this.
I’m not here just for Nova Scotia. I think that consultation is important right across this whole country. It is not just for Nova Scotia. I think consultation has to happen in Newfoundland and Labrador, in New Brunswick and in P.E.I.
I’ll pass it over to you, Jessica.
Ms. Ginsburg: Yes. I would say that from a legal perspective, the same challenges in the course of consultations are faced by Indigenous communities across the country. As I mentioned in my remarks, when the courts are looking at whether the Crown has fulfilled its duty to consult, particularly on very technical types of developments that often necessitate particular expertise that wouldn’t necessarily be in-house with Indigenous organizations, the courts are more and more looking at whether there was a level playing field, and part of that is, was there an economic level playing field? Was there participant funding? It is a factor, and that would be a factor for any assessment anywhere. Where there is a challenge to whether the Crown fulfilled its duty to consult, that could be a factor that is raised. Really, from a principle basis under the law, I don’t see any reason why it would be different in another part of the country.
Senator D. M. Wells: You mentioned that included in the legislation is proposed section 98.7 with respect to the supply of goods and services. You may be aware that under the Accord Acts, there are four categories for which the boards are responsible: health and safety, resource management, environmental and industrial benefits. Do you see Indigenous entities — and I’m not sure if I should call them “companies,” because I don’t know how they are structured, but I know in the proposed legislation, it says “Canadian corporations and individuals.” Would Indigenous entities that want to partake in the economic benefit of offshore activities not be covered under “Canadian corporations,” or are they something different?
Ms. Ginsburg: They could be something different. Some communities would have a corporate entity, but sometimes it could be a band. There have been questions as to whether bands are considered legal persons for various purposes. A band is just one example. There could be other types of business structures as well, and there wouldn’t necessarily be a corporation involved. If it were a corporation, it would fit, kind of, in a neat box, although, given the goal of the principles to be inclusive of under-represented groups, one would hope that it would also be inclusive of the different types of structures that those under-represented groups may assume.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: Thank you so much for your very important and interesting presentation. It clarifies, and it also gives more detail and helps us understand these consultations with Indigenous people, when they are meaningful and when they are, as you mentioned, just engagement. It is not the first time that we have heard that communities are overwhelmed with mail and questions, but that in no way means due consultation.
In studying this case, I arrived to this not conclusion but understanding. Since 2010, you have had a dozen communities that have had an agreement with the Nova Scotia government in order to be consulted, and it is called, “Terms of Reference for a Mi’kmaq-Nova Scotia-Canada Consultation Process.” You have had this is in place since 2010. We here, in this committee, studied the modernization of the Impact Assessment Act, and there are several provisions in that bill also that enforce the need to consult communities. I was so happy that, in 2021, on the solstice day, June 21, we adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, legislation here. I can see there are three big pieces of legislation that are there to support this meaningful, inclusive consultation.
I wonder if we are confusing an impact assessment of this bill with an impact assessment of a specific project. I think that eventually, when one of these promoters finds the exact place where they want to develop a wind energy project, there will also be another occasion to consult. Isn’t that the way it should work?
I understand your point that regional and strategic assessment must be included, so second question is this: Should that be included in the energy regulator? Should we tell them, but not at this point?
Ms. Ginsburg: With regard to your first question, as you mentioned, there is the modernized Impact Assessment Act, and then there is impact assessment at the authorization stage. It is not for all authorizations, but for some authorizations, and they can be expected to proceed under the Impact Assessment Act unless they are exempted, which is also a possibility.
However, in duty to consult, there’s a requirement to consult on strategic-level planning decisions. Authorizations — if you picture it as a pyramid — are the bottom of the pyramid. This is not in any way to minimize the authorizations, but the decision-making chain begins above them. Certain decisions are constrained or are already made by the time you reach the authorization stage. In our written submissions, there is a little diagram. You have regulations, directives, principles, offshore renewable energy recommendations, call for bids, submerged lands licenses and then the authorization. It is a very long list.
One of the seminal duty-to-consult cases is Haida. That didn’t involve the permitting stage, which would be more equivalent to the authorizations. That involved the licensing stage. In that case, one of the things it stood for was the importance of consulting higher up, because some of those constraining decisions had already been made. Even though the Impact Assessment Act may get triggered at the authorization stage, it doesn’t eliminate the need to consult through other means higher up in the decision-making chain.
Would you remind me of your second question?
Senator Galvez: I understand your answer.
Ms. Ginsburg: Yes.
Senator Galvez: What I understand is that you need reassurance that the synergy of the decision will always include you, but include whom? The community that is beside the project? Or do you want all the communities? Please tell me.
Ms. Ginsburg: To get to your point about reassurance, which relates to your question regarding whether it would be okay to pass the act as it is, I see the two as being related. I would like to take a moment to speak to that. The act as it is currently drafted has things in it which would make it very hard to consult in the way we are requesting and recommending.
Regulations shouldn’t be used to amend acts. If it is in the act and it is a problem, it is in the act. As an example, the act already sets out what the principles are. There is a section on principles. They are already identified. The principles influence subsequent decisions. Those aren’t going to be changed later. They are in the act, or I should say in the bill. If we want to influence the principles, now is the time that we have that opportunity.
Another section of the bill provides that license terms and conditions, as well as amendments to licenses, can be privately negotiated between the license interest holders and the regulator. That is in the bill. That is not a good example of consultation. It provides that there can be this agreement between these two parties.
If there are problems like that, in my mind, that’s not something to address at the regulation phase; that is something to address right now before it becomes entrenched.
I now remember what your second question was. You asked about the regional assessments and what we’re recommending. It is a bit confusing. We have regional assessments within the bill that the regulator could carry out, and we have regional assessments under the Impact Assessment Act. They are called the same thing, which is unfortunate because they are not the same.
The ongoing regional assessments to which we have dedicated so much time are under the Impact Assessment Act. We would say that part of these regional assessments is doing a lot of legwork in terms of looking at conflicting land or ocean uses, such as between the fisheries and potential offshore wind developments. They are doing the scientific work, the legwork. The bill does not acknowledge or have a role for them at all. There is no mention of them.
We are recommending that the call for bids and licenses should not be issued in areas that have not been recommended for development within these regional assessments. In terms of where in the process they should be fitted in, it is at a relatively early phase when you are getting to the call for bids. There shouldn’t be calls for bids in areas that are not recommended under those regional assessments for development. I hope that answered your question.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: I start by saying that there was no consultation done with the Mi’kmaw chiefs, and now we have this bill. The only way you can resolve the concerns you have is by making requests through amendments. You are asking for an active role as rights holders and organizations that speak on behalf of social, cultural and environmental values that you have, because you are a water-based people. Right?
When we look at the devastation across the land caused by extractive companies, there’s so much put into mitigation. Many of them do not do it anyway. When you are looking at the amendments you have brought forward, you are looking at prevention, because we shouldn’t always be mitigating. Right?
There are court decisions that have required actions to protect fish. It almost seems like First Nations are always forced to go to court, and they don’t have that money.
My question is this: You are asking through amendments for an active role. Right?
Mr. Peters: It was known in 2010 when this Made-in-Nova Scotia Process all came about. This was one of the issues. We were tired, as you said, of going to court. It is expensive. That is when this whole process started with the tripartite with the federal and provincial government. We would sit down and have these discussions. Part of it had to do with consultation. It is not like it is something new.
I will be frank. Some of the frustration is because becoming a political leader or technician involves understanding how the process works. The government of the day is well aware of how the process works. It just didn’t happen. That is why we have this process in place. That is where the legislation is important as well. We need to do our homework before the legislation goes through. All we are coming forward to say is this: We would have liked to have that done prior to the drafting of the legislation.
It is nothing new. The duty to consult has been around for a while. I don’t know where or when the ball dropped, but we are in this situation. It is important that we still come forward and make sure that the government of the day and Senate understands that it has failed us as a nation in this particular one. Believe me, we are the same as you. I am sure that everyone is getting calls and heat from whoever to say that it is important that this goes through. It would be a real, true and tremendous benefit to the Atlantic region. Having said that, there is a fundamental process, and our rights are so important to us. If we continue to allow it go, and go and say we will talk about it after the fact, it is so frustrating for us. Believe me, it is not just the federal government. The provincial government has not come to the assembly to talk to us. We have even asked the provincial government, Can you provide the report that you presented?
I will be honest. We were having a meeting with all of the ministers for the province of Nova Scotia when the Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables, Mr. Rushton, came to the Senate here and spoke. The premier and I were co-chairing a meeting, and I had no idea that that was taking place. When they heard that we wrote a letter, that is when people were really upset. I wish that the premier would have talked to me and said, “What are you doing? I thought that you were all on board.” I said, “We did not even know about this taking place.” Unfortunately, it is not a good relationship that we have there. It frustrates us as a nation. It frustrates us on the federal side to say, “How come?” I know that everyone is pushing it. That is for sure. We know what the impacts could be here. We want to give that opportunity to be consulted and provide our points of view on it. That is all that we are asking for.
Senator McCallum: When you look at the concerns you have, especially with the cultural part, there is tangible and intangible cultural heritage that goes with that. I will give an example because I don’t know your area.
In Manitoba, we are working with hydro and the impact they have on the sturgeon, so that is the tangible cultural heritage. They are becoming extinct. With that sturgeon and the close connection the Crees have with the sturgeon, there is value that they give. One would be knowledge translation about the cultural way of life, from the elders to the young. There is the governance structure that comes from the land, the water and that. The other one would be the diet that comes with it and the food.
UNESCO has a system where you can put in to safeguard all that we are losing, because it is not only losing fish. You are losing more than that. What we are looking at now is that it is a form of genocide because it is changing the structure of your lives as the rights holders in that territory. Right? When you look at what is happening in your area, do you see the impact that it has on your culture?
Mr. Peters: Yes. There is a lot of development that has been happening around the country and even in our own. As I mentioned before, some of the communities are working with many companies with that. We have an economic development benefits committee that works with companies to help them and help the community. Many communities are getting benefits from these companies to do exactly what you are saying. They are helping with cultural aspects, research and investigations. There are many benefits that are coming from that. That, of course, is after the fact. Then we talk about what is the impact benefits that we can talk about as organizations nation-to-nation to try that. A lot of that is happening. A lot of good benefit stuff is coming out of that. But that is after the fact of moving forward on this. Many times we are not involved with who gets the contracts, but many of them are coming to us and saying, “Do you want to be a part of it? It looks good if we have a First Nation community with us.”
It would be interesting, to be honest with you, to do a real, true study and say what really and truly are the benefits coming out of this for our communities. That is why, within the KMKNO office, we have a benefits committee that works on MOUs to try to be somewhat consistent to ensure that, somehow, the nation is really, truly benefiting. It is not just one community. We try to look at it as a nation. Some communities that are next door might benefit more than others. But having said that.
Senator Francis: My question is, how will fishermen, especially Mi’kmaw fishermen, whose rights to fish are affirmed by the Supreme Court’s Marshall decision, who lose access to offshore areas for the development of offshore energy projects be impacted if they are not compensated? How do you propose fishermen be compensated? Do you have an amount in mind or a scheme? Anyone who wants to answer that, feel free.
Ms. Ginsburg: There is a very good indication that the fishing communities would be impacted, as we have seen from other jurisdictions and intuitively knowing the scale of these developments and the intersection of the locations with fishing areas. It is subsistence, moderate livelihood and commercial fishing. The impacts are to be expected. The response to the impacts are not a straightforward answer, as I’m sure you have heard from others from within the fishing community.
It is a real shame that these discussions did not happen sooner, because if there had been more of an opportunity to discuss the compensation scheme, I expect it could have been drafted differently from the outset. Part of the approach has to include the Crown fulfilling its duty to consult. That is part of the purpose. The duty to consult is aimed at addressing and accommodating impacts to rights, such as fishing.
The regional assessments, as I touched upon earlier, are also looking at impacts to fishing. It is ironic and confusing, quite frankly, that there hasn’t been an intersection of the discussions of this bill with the regional assessment committees and vice versa, that the regional assessments do not appear within this bill. That is a confusing omission.
We are also recommending that one of the principles that speaks to the importance of giving consideration of effects of fishing activities during the submerged land license issuance process be broadened to not just apply during the submerged land license issuance process but throughout, as I was discussing that chain of regulatory decisions.
As you say, the compensation scheme is very narrow and would not address the displacement of the fishers themselves or the possible displacement of the species that they are fishing. Really, that compensation scheme is inadequate. Had there been further discussions, it would have hopefully been drafted differently from the outset.
Senator Prosper: Thank you, witnesses, for joining us here.
I want to get into the reference to this term “a long series of strategic planning decisions.” That is a major component of this bill.
Chief Peters, you mentioned that the bill provides no compensation or inadequate compensation during the whole process of going from regulations to directives to principles to recommendations to call for bids to submerged land licences to authorizations.
There have been some suggestions or questions related to, well, is it possible to address some of the core consultation rights-related matters at the lower end of the spectrum, that is, when all the other decisions are being made or components are being outlined within legislation, that somebody can come and say, “Well, you can have your issues addressed at an authorization stage.” One feeds into the other.
Maybe this is a question for you directly, Ms. Ginsburg. What would say to those who come about and say, “We are going to consult; let’s consult on recommendations.” We will just keep it specific to that. Can you outline the problematic nature of that if it is also not considered to have consultation on all these other components within this strategic planning process?
Ms. Ginsburg: Absolutely. You raise an interesting example out of the list. You start with the renewable energy recommendations, which is an interesting one because they are actually decisions of the ministers. Even though the bill indicates a reliance on the regulator for fulfilling the duty to consult, these key decisions are decisions of the ministers. They are recommendations from the regulator.
In terms of thinking about, well, what do the recommendations do? They feed into the licences. That is the next stage. They feed into a lot of the decisions that follow. There is a 60-day period, in most cases, for the ministers to decide on the recommendations. You think, first of all, these are recommendations that come from the regulator to the minister in the bill — not in a regulation, but in the bill — that sets out a 60-day period. If the ministers are concerned that their duty to consult — they are the decision makers — has not been fulfilled, then 60 days is not going to cut it in terms of remedying that. There are opportunities where there could be extensions given in certain circumstances.
Right off the bat, there is a concern in my mind that there is reliance on the regulator for consultation, but these key decision points belong to the ministers and there is a time frame attached to them. Right off the bat, that is where my mind goes.
Once you move down from the recommendations, you think about there’s a whole bunch of the other decisions that are subject to the recommendations. If you think about it, as I said, as a pyramid, if you have consultation on the recommendations, which is a big “if,” does that meet your duty to consult on all the subsequent decisions? Well, it probably doesn’t.
The reason I say that is: Will the recommendations cover off all of the details in the licences? I would suspect not. We don’t know what the recommendations look like, but I suspect it doesn’t get down to the level of detail of what a licence term and condition look like. It might, in broad brush strokes, touch upon some of that, but there would be other details that likely only take place when you are talking licence decisions.
So yes, you want to consult on the recommendations because a whole bunch of subsequent decisions are subject to the recommendations. If you don’t consult at that level, you have constraints already in place on the lower-level decisions. But consulting on that one level is not enough because it likely won’t cover off all the details that come into play on the lower-level decisions.
I don’t know if that was clearly explained.
Senator Prosper: Yes, and thank you for that example, because, as mentioned earlier, you want these consultations to be meaningful.
What would be the remedy? We are talking about a process that has been around since 2010. Everybody knows about it. They failed to utilize that process. Looking at the strategic planning, these long series of strategic planning decisions, what would be the appropriate remedy for consultation for section 35 purposes? Would it be, for example, as we go through regulations all the way down to authorizations, a specific consultation element within that, within this particular piece of legislation?
Ms. Ginsburg: I would say yes.
The process itself, at the very least, has to make room for consultation. There shouldn’t be, in my view, decision points such as the terms and conditions of licences that, right in the bill, are explicitly between the regulator and the licence holder, an agreement reached. That is the language of the bill. An agreement reached between the regulator and the licence holder. That does not signal consultation. That signals two parties in a room together deciding on something that could potentially have an impact on section 35 rights.
We had the question earlier about the modernization of the Impact Assessment Act and about the passage of the UNDRIP Act. There are modern bills coming forward from the federal government which reflect a modern era of consultation.
This bill was modelled very closely on the act that already existed. It could have been written quite easily to say, yes, there is a consultation. There is notice in advance of this decision being made, and not just notice after the decision has been made. There are many places in the bill where it is explicit in saying that notice is provided after the decision is made.
I’m not saying that this would fulfill the duty to consult, but there wasn’t even that step of saying that notice is provided beforehand. It would have been very easy — at least a way of inserting a pause in the process, that could have signalled, yes, we intend to consult. But there weren’t those pauses inserted. With very few exceptions, there weren’t those pauses or signals that notice should be given before decisions are made.
Senator Galvez: Thank you so much. The more you talk and the more we exchange, the more we understand. You are right. You are right in the sense that this bill is an old piece of legislation and that there are more modern pieces of legislation that consider in a better way, more holistically, our relationship with Indigenous people.
The way that I understand it is that this bill is not an impact assessment. This bill is just to say now we are open for other types of energy projects. Apart from the oil and gas projects, now with this bill we are opening the door for wind projects, specifically that, in this area.
The way I see it is that you are talking about which bill has more power or more precedence when the actual project will come. I have difficulty in seeing that this bill will be taken as the state of the art, and it will rely more on the more recent bills when it comes to a specific project.
In the end, my question is the following: Is there a way that you can formulate this request that you are telling us about for the regulator to take into consideration your strategic and your original assessment that can be inserted as an observation or, even more — maybe, I do not know, chair, colleagues, maybe we can address a specific question regarding this issue to Minister Wilkinson. We can say, give us assurance that this strategic planning in this regional assessment — it is saying that they are two different things, because you mentioned they are two separate things. So getting assurances that when it comes to a project, the Impact Assessment Act and UNDRIP will be the one preponderant superseding legislation to follow.
Ms. Ginsburg: The bill is structured in a way that, at the authorization stage, which I think is the stage you are referring to, there is the possibility that the Impact Assessment Act would apply. There shouldn’t be a conflict between the two. It is just that the Impact Assessment Act, when it applies, would be very late in that sequence. It would be at the last step, the authorization stage, which in my scheme is at the bottom of the pyramid. It won’t apply all the time, and there might be exemptions and there might be types of authorizations that don’t trigger it in the first place. But aside from that, assuming — which is a big assumption — that it applies at the authorization phase, it doesn’t fix what comes above the authorization. It doesn’t fix the decision points that lead up to authorizations.
I don’t know how that would be fixed. Assurances don’t go very far when the bill itself is structured in a way that doesn’t appear to leave room or signal an intention for consultation. As Chief Peters has indicated, even the leading up to the introduction of the bill has signalled a lack of intention to consult. Combined with the fact that the bill itself does not signal an intention to consult and, in fact, has really problematic decision points along the way, it would be hard for me to imagine what that assurance would look like.
Senator McCallum: I wanted to go to the part about participant funding, where it says:
The Regulator may establish a participant funding program to facilitate the participation of the public and any Indigenous peoples of Canada . . .
When I look at the recommendation that was made by your group, the language is not inclusive of the different types of Indigenous entities that might have an interest in bidding on such work. You have recommended Indigenous organizations and the governing body, but we have a problem of identity theft and fraud. We have organizations — I think you know who I am talking about — that say, “We are an Indigenous organization,” and there is no verification process. Right? So there is identity fraud, and the government usually goes to people who agree with them, saying, “We have consulted, and this group supports us.” That group may not even live in your area. Does that mean that I could go and say, “You know what? I think this is what we should do”? Do you have a problem with the phrase “any Indigenous peoples”? Do you have a problem with identity theft and fraud?
Mr. Peters: Thank you very much for that question.
Do I have a problem with “any Indigenous peoples”? Again, going back, who identifies who Indigenous people are across the country? It is something that we are running into in each and every one of our communities. We’re fighting that at our assembly level. Who should determine who we are? It should be us determining that, not the federal government determining who we are. That’s part of the issue. We’re starting to find that as people are marrying outside the Indigenous world and then when things happen, when benefits and land claims are coming down, who benefits from that? That’s when the issue occurs.
One of the things that we’re working on — and we’re working on the employment situation across the country — is who is Indigenous and who is not Indigenous? We see all kinds of scholarships at universities, and anybody and everybody seems to be identifying that, yes, they’re Indigenous. This is something that we’re working on, and we need to continue to work on that.
Having said that, it’s up to us and self-government to come back and say it’s up to us to determine who that really is. Through some of this other stuff is where we, as a nation, need to say who we feel is really, truly Indigenous. To be honest with you, there are a lot of companies out there who say, “I’ll hire one or two of them and say we’re 50% Indigenous.” Really, at the end of the day, honestly, who is truly benefiting in that situation? That is something that we, as First Nations, really have to start to take control of and start to even educate people on the outside as to how important it is for our rights not to just be passed around.
I’ll let you answer the more technical part of it.
Ms. Ginsburg: Just to be clear, the amendment that we’d be proposing is to change the “may” to a “shall” — “shall establish a participant funding program,” so it is not “shall provide money to any Indigenous group.” It is “shall establish the program.” Although I don’t think any program could completely circumvent the types of identity theft problems that you are identifying, one would assume that the program itself, in order to receive the funding, would have criteria and tests to be met. Our request is that there should be a requirement for a program, and hopefully, it is designed well so that the money goes to the right communities.
The Chair: Let me repeat where I think we’re coming from and say it differently to ensure that we get the same answer.
Our starting point is that the project that has been proposed is phenomenally good. I’m a businessperson, and I look at what it could do to your future financially but also to satisfy climate change, and it is a phenomenal opportunity. We’re trying to make sure we don’t prejudice that, because I think everybody agrees with that.
We’re trying to find a solution with what we can do when it comes to decision-making. If we don’t make any amendments to the bill per se, then we don’t have any delays. We have the right to basically add observations. We’re all trying to think if there is a back way for us to get the observation we need to provide some level of responsibility to the minister and still pass the bill as is. In other words, it’s an addition to the bill as an observation, but the observation needs to be tough enough to warrant specific action and specific results.
If we use that approach, and we’re very flexible with what the observation is going to say, can we get there without delaying the project per se? Is there any possibility that we can get to the right results using those tools?
Mr. Peters: Again, to be honest with you, we have run into this many times with governments in moving things forward, saying, “Okay, let’s let it go, and next time we will take a look at it and we’ll approve it.”
But to me, again, we’re coming back to you guys and asking you to consult. Here we are, all of us, at the eleventh hour, where we have to make a decision, because there are people pushing us behind the scenes.
You are right, senator. How important is this particular project? It is a project, of course. It is only one project, but the way the legislation is going, there might be other projects happening down the road.
But how do I feel comfortable in ensuring that if you mention, “Oh, we will take this into consideration as observations” — but at the end of the day, how do we 100% guarantee that these observations are actually followed through or really taken into consideration? I don’t know that right now.
The Chair: It is what you just said. How do we get a follow-up? How do we motivate the minister to even follow up? We could have an observation saying that this is an atrociously serious matter. There is a sense of default by you, the witnesses. You are disappointed. Therefore, in the observation, you then say that the minister should respond; every 90 days, a written comment from the department would say, “Well, here’s the progress we made to achieve the agreements and the amendments you wanted to see.” We could go that way and make it public. The report must be public. The report must be serious and detailed enough that there are results. Does that help us get somewhere?
Ms. Ginsburg: It is an ironic situation that we find ourselves in, a lack of consultation and even a lack of communication, even at a relationship level. There have been meetings for years on the subject of energy, yet it hasn’t even been raised in those meetings. So with the fact that there is a lack of consultation leading up to a problem of consultation on the bill, and we are in the position of being the “delayers.” I’m using air quotes because that is not our intention, of course. But to then say, “And it will be remedied on a good-faith solution,” the whole thing kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth, if I could put it that way.
The Chair: You are upset. I appreciate that. You have reason to be. We’re not going to take away from that. That cannot be. At the same time, we don’t want to punish you for the fact that you are kind of pissed off with the other guy, so I therefore say, “Hmm, is there not a way” — in other words, bite your tongue, but we have got to get this project done and have enough accountability through the observations that the minister has to respond to you. I’m not a doctor trying to save the patient; I just want to ensure we get the right decisions at the very end.
Mr. Peters: I just don’t know who the other guy is. Who is the other guy you mean?
The Chair: I’m not sure.
Mr. Peters: Okay. I wasn’t quite sure — “piss off the other guy” or whatever.
Yes, it is a critical time for all of us. It really has put us all in a situation where we did not need to be here. We all know that if it were followed the way it was supposed to be — but having said that, as you mentioned, no matter where it goes, we’re either going to please some people or get some people really upset with us. That’s always the way at any of these tables we go to. Do we want to try to work it out? Yes. We as the Mi’kmaw people want to do what is best for everybody. We want to help out, and we know how important it is, but we are just so tired of being taken in a sense that, “Well, sorry we didn’t consult with you.” No, there was a way.
Even since we heard about the bill going forward, the minister has never, ever reached out to me. The province has not reached out to me to say, “What can we do, and how can we make this better?” We have had since June to say, “Let’s do something.” I just don’t understand. How come they wouldn’t reach out to us as a nation? They reached out to a few First Nations, yes, but even when you read the letters that were sent on behalf, it talks about economic development. There is nothing really about consultation. I read the letter Terry wrote about consultation, and I asked, “Well, what did you consult on? Can you share that with us?” That’s all we’re asking. Share it with us so that we know that this bill — and you might have covered it under your review. We never had a chance to review it until that time that we got involved with it.
Can we do something about it? I hope we can, but whether observations like you mentioned will work or not, we don’t know. How do we, down the road, ensure that consultation truly happens? It has not been happening, and that’s the frustrating part. Then it boils down to not a technical thing but it comes to the political side: “Okay, you have to make a decision politically. Is it the right thing?”
Senator Prosper: I’m just trying to grapple with that term, a tough observation. I really can’t think of an observation tough enough to really get some real traction when the fundamental issue here is respect and a recognition of the law that exists on this land. If I were to pair up a tough observation with amendment provisions within a bill that respect section 35 rights, I would think it would be the latter.
The question I want to get to is this: This legislation contemplates a delegation of a section of the right, the duty to consult, that duty of the Crown. Ms. Ginsburg, you mentioned that there is no intersection with regional assessments. Chief, you mentioned in your notes a certain caution with respect to regulator-led environmental assessments. It seems to me they have the duty to consult, but they are conducting their own assessments here. Wherein lies their true duty here?
The thing I want to focus on, Ms. Ginsburg, is this: In your statement, you talked about according the regional assessments’ appropriate weight within the bill, it is possible that those assessments can be used as a vehicle for circumventing project-specific assessments rather than as a vehicle for making better-informed, tiered decisions about offshore wind. Can you expand upon that?
Ms. Ginsburg: Yes. Ideally, the regional assessments that are ongoing have a lot of good information and are studying a lot of topics. There has been a good involvement of the Mi’kmaw community. Ideally, they would, as you talked about, feed into the bill and be mentioned in the bill and govern where a call for bids and licences could proceed. That’s the best-case scenario, or a strong scenario.
The problem or the worst-case scenario is that in the physical activity regulations under the Impact Assessment Act, section 2(2), it says that for the purpose of the definition of designated project in section 2 of the Impact Assessment Act, the physical activities that may be designated by the Minister under paragraph 112(1)(a.2) are those referenced in sections 34, 44 or 45 of the schedule. So, in the actual regulation under the Impact Assessment Act, there is currently a subsection that references offshore wind, essentially. Right now, offshore wind of 10 turbines or more triggers an impact assessment, but right in that regulation, there is a subsection that says that offshore wind can be designated for an exemption.
It is hovering there like a threatening possibility. It is kind of a convoluted section of the Impact Assessment Act, but essentially, if those projects receive regional assessments, they could become eligible for the exemption, I guess the idea being that if there is a regional assessment, you don’t need to do the project-specific impact assessment. That’s the worst-case scenario, that the regional assessments are used as an excuse to get out of doing the authorization-level assessment. That would be the worst-case scenario if the regional assessments don’t actually carry any weight in the bill but lead to exemptions under the Impact Assessment Act. That’s what I was referencing there. Again, it is a bit of a trust exercise, but there is a signal that these specific projects might be earmarked for future potential exemptions.
Senator McCallum: I don’t know how to say this. I am actually very upset that we have put it on the shoulders of the chief, saying, “How can we speedily pass this bill?” That seems to be the main concern, and we’re asking him to trust the system that continually ignores the duty to consult and the section 35 rights that have already been violated here. With an observation, there is no accountability. You are asking a group to trust a group of federal and provincial people that have drafted a bill without consulting. Now you have asked if an observation be — our job as senators is to bring the people that are not represented in the House of Commons and their voices here to fight for their rights. That’s our job as senators. When you came in, you have asked us about these amendments being made, and we have to do it. I just want to apologize that you were put in that position. I don’t support it, and we need to fight for your rights.
Senator Tannas: I wanted to pose a question to you, Ms. Ginsburg, and possibly the chief as well. We talked about observations. They are kind of the consolation prize that we use here in the Senate when you don’t get what you are asking for. An amendment is the big, heavy thing that we can do legislatively that we don’t do that often, and we sure don’t do that often when there is pressure coming, like there is.
I have been here long enough to have seen this situation before, and I’m reminded of the marijuana bill where the government actually provided a legal undertaking to Indigenous people that they would do X, Y and Z if you would stop thinking about purely an amendment. They would actually agree to govern themselves — and I keep thinking about the ministerial declaration of an exemption, such that the Impact Assessment Act doesn’t apply, and that’s where there are a lot of safeguards already in, because we have talked about it being a more modern bill.
Is there something there, Ms. Ginsburg, that you could see where there is an undertaking or an agreement between the federal government and the Mi’kmaw on this particular circumstance that could be better than the observation and less damaging than the amendment but would give you the legal assurance that we talked about that you could seek enforcement on if you needed to? Is there anything that you can imagine that would be like that?
Ms. Ginsburg: We have identified, to be fair, a number of areas of concern, and some of those areas of concern are entrenched in the language of the bill itself. In those areas, the language of the bill is the problem. There could be other areas, such as if there was an undertaking. I wonder if that is possible when it comes to the exercise of a discretion and which areas you could do that in, and I haven’t given that thought in advance.
Absolutely, if there was an assurance that offshore wind would not be exempted under the Impact Assessment Act, that’s great, but just to be absolutely clear, that does not solve a lot of the problems in the bill itself. Does that sound like a positive thing? Yes.
Senator Gold: Thank you for coming, and I’m glad we gave you the opportunity to prepare and be here with us. I’m the Government Representative in the Senate, just so you know and can evaluate what I am saying through that lens.
I do want to begin by saying that I understand the frustrations that you have. I understand that having received a letter or two some years ago didn’t have the effect or the impact that it had, perhaps, on some of the other nations who did get involved in this, as you referred to.
I just want to say something about this general question about observations, and I am speaking now on behalf of the Government of Canada.
As Senator Galvez pointed out at the beginning, the bill itself refers to section 35, and UNDRIP is a framework legislation that obligates us, as does the other legislation to which reference has been made. That means, as a matter of law, as you know Ms. Ginsburg, that everything that flows from the bill, decisions and regulations, have to respect those rights as not created by but as recognized by or affirmed by section 35.
In that regard — this is perhaps too legalistic by half, and you’ll forgive me — there is no delegation of the duty to consult in this bill. There is a recognition that they may rely upon the regulator, but the government retains the absolute obligation under section 35, regardless of what the regulator does. That is just a free-standing duty that flows from the inherent rights that are recognized in section 35.
To the point of observations, the government takes them very seriously, and has. Indeed, were we to take that route, the recommendations could include all the factors that should be and could be weighed in the regulatory process in the creation of regulations and so on and so forth, which would provide some flesh to the duty to consult that is embedded in our law, notwithstanding that the steps in the act don’t specifically mention it every step of the way.
All to say that, again, thank you for being here and thank you for raising the concerns, but the government would and does take seriously everything that the Senate does, and that would include observations. I can’t make any undertakings on behalf of the minister about letters that Senator Tannas pointed out, who was correct that it has proved to be effective, at least in the past, and is something I’ll certainly explore from my end. Again, thank you, for being here.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I must advise you that we only have two or three minutes left. Apparently, there is no flexibility. It is a hard stop. I want to thank you very much for being with us today. I think we had a very good discussion. We certainly understand the issues you have, and we understand the issues are important. We also understand that you have reason to be frustrated, because there is a fundamental problem with the whole trust relationship and reliance upon it. That’s not going to get corrected in a week, no matter what we do, but we will do our best at what we do, which is basically deal with legislation. Thank you very much for being with us. I think you had a significant impact on our committee.
Senator McCallum: Can I just make a comment? When Senator Tannas spoke, he spoke about an amendment in a negative way, when an amendment is damaging. I never see amendments — well, sometimes they are frivolous. That caused me concern. When Senator Gold spoke, he was asking for an observation. This comes from a group who already violated the rights because they did not consult. They are saying, “Well, let’s trust them once again.” Do you see the amendments that you have put forward in a negative way?
Ms. Ginsburg: No.
Senator McCallum: No? Thank you.
The Chair: In preparation for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-49 on Thursday, September 19, 2024, members who wish to propose an amendment should consult the assigned legal counsel from the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to ensure that amendments are drafted in the proper format and in both official languages.
(The committee adjourned.)