Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 5 - Evidence - Meeting of May 5, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, to which was referred Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act, met this day at 9:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call this meeting to order. Good morning, I would like to welcome all honourable senators, members of the public and all viewers across the country who are watching these proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
I am Senator St. Germain from British Columbia, chair of the committee. Our mandate is to examine legislation and matters relating to Aboriginal peoples of Canada, generally.
[Translation]
Before dealing with the heart of the matter relating to Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act, let me introduce the members of the Committee present today.
[English]
We have with us on my left the deputy chair, Senator Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories. Next to him is Senator Brazeau from the Province of Quebec; Senator Brown from the Province of Alberta; and Senator Raine from the Province of British Columbia. Sitting next to her is Senator Lang from the Yukon; Senator Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick; and Senator Hubley from Prince Edward Island. On my right are Senator Peterson from the Province of Saskatchewan and my good colleague from the Province of British Columbia, Senator Campbell. Last but not least is Senator Fairbairn from the Province of Alberta. Welcome, all.
Today, the committee is continuing its consideration of Bill C-5. This bill aims to clarify and expand the existing regulation-making powers and to add new ones, particularly with respect to licences, permits and leases for the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas on reserve lands, and the determination and payment of royalties.
Last week, under the capable chairmanship of Senator Hubley, the committee heard from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. His parliamentary secretary was with him as were department officials and officials from Indian Oil and Gas Canada.
I should add that, during last week's meeting, the absences of the chair and deputy chair were called into question and brought up by a senator who said, ``. . . I want to raise the strongest of objections to having a meeting of this committee without a chair or deputy chair. . . . I want it very clearly on the record that this is unprecedented and unacceptable.''
The clerk informed the committee that the chair and deputy chair were unavoidably absent. I feel obligated to advise and correct the record that it is not unprecedented to have another member of the committee elected to sit in the chair's place. Pursuant to rule 11 of the Rules of the Senate, the clerk of the committee presided over the election of the acting chair. This rule derives its strength from rule 1(1) of the Rules of the Senate:
In all cases not provided for in these rules, the customs, usages, forms and proceedings of either House of the Parliament of Canada shall, mutatis mutandis, be followed in the Senate or in any committee thereof.
That has now been clarified. Moving on to the business at hand, today we have before us four representatives from the Indian Resource Council, IRC, which represents the oil- and gas-producing First Nations. We have Mr. Errnol Gray, Chair of the Indian Resource Council; and Mr. Roy Fox, President and Chief Executive Officer. We also have Mr. Delbert Wapass, Vice-Chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations; and Mr. Wayne Faithful, Councillor of the Frog Lake First Nation.
Welcome, all. Gentlemen.
Errnol Gray, Chair, Indian Resource Council:
[Mr. Gray spoke in his native language.]
Good morning, Mr. Chair and senators. I would like to make a few introductory remarks on behalf of the board of directors before turning the presentation to our president, Mr. Roy Fox. I would like to start by introducing the delegation representing the Indian Resource Council appearing before you today. My name is Errnol Gray. I am from the Aamjiwnaang First Nation, and I have been on the IRC board of directors for 22 years. Roy Fox is president and CEO of IRC. Delbert Wapass is vice-chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, and Wayne Faithful is councillor of Frog Lake First Nation and a board member with the Frog Lake Energy Resource Corporation.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today as you study Bill C-5. Our presentation is similar to what we presented to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on March 3, 2009, with a few important updates.
The IRC has been an active participant in the development of this legislation. We have a vested interest in the passage of this bill, and we hope that we can assist you in doing so quickly. We recognize that this is federal legislation that is much needed to enable efficient and effective regulations of the industry activity on our lands.
The Indian Resource Council, with a national membership of over 130 First Nations with oil and gas rights and interests, advocates on behalf of its members for changes to federal policy that will enhance the Crown's stewardship role in the management our resources and, at the same time, improve and increase economic development opportunities in the oil and gas sector for First Nations and their members.
We have provided information about the proposed amendments to our membership as wisely as we could and garnered their input to the best extent possible. IRC has worked with Canada to develop a long-term approach to the modernization of the Indian Oil and Gas Act. We have a steering committee to manage the process and two joint technical committees in place to work on the specifics of this bill and its accompanying regulations.
The work of the first joint technical committee is reflected in this legislation. This committee has started to develop the regulatory regime that this legislation will authorize.
Mr. Chair, we have been working on this bill for over 10 years and have heard many issues and concerns from our members. Some of these concerns have been addressed in this round of changes; others will be addressed through the regulatory process and the continuous change process that we have agreed to with the minister. The bill in front of you reflects a compromise between the IRC and Canada.
The second joint technical committee focuses on what we describe as the ``continuous change'' process. This committee has the responsibility of discussing the issues that have not been fully addressed in this bill. These issues include future Indian Oil and Gas Act modernization or changes; issues related to First Nations management and control of their oil and gas resources; and economic and business development and other issues that will definitely be raised by First Nations as we embark on the next round of changes.
We are here today to formally express our support for this initiative, to speak to you about our agenda for continuous change in the management of oil and gas on Indian lands and, most importantly, to answer any questions about Bill C-5 and our involvement in the initiative.
Before handing over the rest of the presentation to Mr. Fox, I would like to reiterate that this is a compromised bill. We are aware of lobbying efforts by some for more amendments. If you decide to proceed with the amendments today, we would then ask that you study all the proposed changes we have suggested in the past; there have been at least 30 of them. It will be unfortunate if you decide to go this route because you will delay the progress we have made by at least another 10 years.
Most of all, we have discussed all the concerns that have been brought up; we have taken them back and redrafted the bill 14 times to make amendments to address the concerns from First Nations people. With the continuous change process, we can deal with the rest of the issues brought forth by First Nations.
With that, I will turn the rest of presentation over to Mr. Fox.
Roy Fox, President and Chief Executive Officer, Indian Resource Council:
[Mr. Fox spoke in his native language.]
Thank you, Mr. Gray, for your leadership of the Indian Resource Council, and thank you, Mr. Chair and senators, for the opportunity to appear before you here today. I would like to share with you the perspective that the Indian Resource Council has with respect to oil and natural gas development on our lands and the work that we do.
Our role has been to ensure that our member First Nations receive the best possible return on their oil and natural gas resources, and that Indian Oil and Gas Canada, IOGC, manages these lands prudently as a trustee and fiduciary. We have tried many ways of meeting these important objectives over the years.
Initially, it was to ensure that the royalties that we received were fair and equitable. However, it has gone a little further over the years as we have come to realize the level of involvement that we can have on the business side and as it pertains to the development of our lands. Enhancing that involvement and direct participation has become a key objective of our organization.
Therefore, in taking greater control of our oil and natural gas resources, we are also talking about the ability to really participate in the business side of our industry for the benefit of all First Nations and their members. To do this, we need a legal regime that is modern and robust, with clear rules that everyone — industry particularly — understands. Bill C-5 provides for such a regime, which we believe will attract industry to our lands and create more opportunities and investments for our people.
The Indian Oil and Gas Act, IOGA, provides the framework for the management and stewardship of oil and gas development on our lands. The Indian Resource Council has been working in partnership with IOGC and INAC on the modernization of the IOGA since about 1999.
The purpose of these amendments is to provide Indian Oil and Gas Canada — our resource manager, regulator and fiduciary — with a more modern tool kit with which to perform these important roles. We believe that the amendments contained in this legislation will provide IOGC with the authorities required to enforce industry compliance on behalf of First Nations.
Our chairman spoke earlier of the work that our technical committees have been doing in support of this process. I would like to expand somewhat on the work of the first joint technical committee, or JTC1.
JTC1 is made up of representatives of both Canada and our member First Nations, representing most of the major oil and gas producing First Nations, who obviously have a vested interest in the proposed amendments to the act. We have had regular and consistent participation and input from First Nations since this process began in earnest in 2002.
These representatives have been drawn consistently from: the Four Nations of Hobbema, Lester Bull; the Tribal Chiefs of Alberta, Wilma Jackknife and Mel Abraham; Dene Tha', Kevin Akimnachie; the Blood Tribe, Bernard Fox; Siksika Nation, Thomas Manyheads; Stoney Tribe, John D. Snow; Saskatchewan-FSIN, Annette Lonechild and Harold Jimmy.
Since this process was re-engaged in the summer of 2006, this group has been involved in the most detailed aspects of developing a framework for the bill that we could all agree on, negotiating the drafting instructions for use by Canada in the preparation of this bill, and reviewing the final legislation prior to introduction in the last Parliament as Bill C-63, after at least 14 legislative drafts. This group was also tasked with the responsibility of keeping their First Nations and leaders apprised of the work, and bringing feedback to the joint committee. This was a cooperative process, where we agreed on what would be included in this package and what would be put off to a later date and process.
As in all similar situations and negotiations that involve divergent interests and needs, we did not get all of what we wanted here, nor did you, as representatives for Canada. However, what we did get was an agreement on some fundamental changes to our governing act that would benefit our First Nations.
We also agreed on a continuous change process and a regulatory amendment process that will address additional and valid concerns raised by First Nations. This work has already commenced and is estimated to take 12 to 18 months to complete. We intend to engage our members in a meaningful consultative exercise to ensure that their issues and concerns are heard and addressed.
In addition to working with IOGC and INAC headquarters on this initiative, we have worked hard to keep our members informed and involved in the discussions.
Obviously, the participation of affected First Nations is very important to the acceptance and validation of any new initiatives such as this one. While the bulk of our members are located in Alberta and Saskatchewan, we have also travelled to meet with interested parties in British Columbia, Ontario and the Atlantic provinces.
In addition, we have hosted two detailed symposiums for our members where all aspects of this package have been presented and discussed at length. We also responded to individual requests by First Nations to provide additional information, which we have done and will continue to do as the regulatory work progresses.
Finally, the membership of the IRC has discussed and reviewed the progress of this initiative at each of our annual general meetings over the last several years. Our membership has continued to support this initiative through passage of supporting resolutions at our AGMs. The support of our members for this package is genuine, but there is much more to do.
In reality, this set of amendments provides IOGC with modern tools and authorities, including enforcement tools, to regulate the activities of industry on our lands. As mentioned, the hopes and future aspirations of our members are being dealt with through a process of continuous change, where the IRC priorities are being discussed. Through these discussions, we hope that Canada will fulfill the commitments that have been made on issues that this bill fails to address.
Our proposals for enhanced capacity building and business development have resulted in the funding of a business centre, which will provide our members with a resource centre for advice, expertise and counsel when entering into business arrangements, as well as capacity-enhancement programs.
The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations has also established a complementary business centre that will provide much-needed service to First Nations in Saskatchewan that are just entering the oil and gas business.
In conclusion, the Indian Resource Council supports the amendments to the Indian Oil and Gas Act contained in Bill C-5.
Some of the issues that have been brought to your attention are not new to us; in fact, we have documented at least 30 issues and concerns during the course of our discussions of this bill. Not all of these issues have been addressed to our satisfaction, partly due to the restrictive nature of the cabinet authorities with which we were working. However, this is only the beginning of the modernization and change within IOGC, with more important work to follow.
We have met with some of our members who have ongoing concerns. We believe our discussions helped clear up some of the misunderstandings that were possibly due to misinformation or lack of information.
We have worked with Canada as partners in the development of this initiative, and we look forward to continue to work toward achieving our goal of creating our own First Nations oil and gas institution in the long term with our own First Nations mandate and legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your attention, and we look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for appearing before this committee this morning. As far as I understand it, the Indian Resource Council represents 130 First Nations communities who are or may be affected by the Indian Oil and Gas Act; is that correct?
Mr. Fox: Yes, we do represent about that many First Nations. Sometimes it is hard to say what the exact figures are, but that would be very close.
Senator Brazeau: You mentioned in your opening remarks that there was an ongoing process and level of engagement for these communities to feed into that process of developing this draft piece of legislation. Can you describe in more detail the level of support that you have had from your member communities?
Mr. Fox: Senator, in respect of the symposiums we held, we had good discussions at those forums. Concerns were addressed, and we ensured that representatives from Indian Oil and Gas Canada were at these meetings, as well as representatives of INAC in Ottawa. We wanted to ensure that we answered as many of the questions as we could, and we tried to deal with the areas of concern that were brought out. We had two of those sessions, and they were well attended. We have also had presentations on the modernization process for the last few years. Resolutions arose from some of those discussions at our annual general meetings. We did go to regional meetings with treaty areas, and we also went to specific First Nations who wanted to have one-on-one meetings. That was the extent of the discussions.
Delbert Wapass, Vice-Chief, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, Indian Resource Council: I am the vice-chief responsible for this portfolio in Saskatchewan, and I can say that, through this whole process, the IRC has been diligent and responsive to coming out to all our regions in the province and communicating this initiative on Bill C-5. As oil and gas is picking up in Saskatchewan, our membership and leadership were concerned and active in trying to find out what the bill is about and how it will affect us and what it means as we move forward.
Our leadership is very comfortable with the information that has been provided and the responsiveness from the Indian Resource Council. When called upon to come and present, they felt that there was confidence in moving forward. As such, I feel comfortable and confident sitting here, representing Saskatchewan. We feel that dialogue took place with the Indian Resource Council as well as Indian Oil and Gas Canada, that the information and communication has been shared and understood, and we are moving forward.
Senator Brazeau: I thank you for that, and I appreciate the fact that you have been forthright in saying that throughout this process you did not necessarily get exactly what you wanted, as with the Government of Canada. Whenever we are in a drafting exercise drafting legislation, obviously no party will get everything they want. I sense that what you are saying is that you have arrived at the conclusion that you are ready to move forward with this draft piece of legislation.
If this committee were to start tinkering with this piece of legislation, how would that affect the 130 communities and, more importantly, how would it affect partnering up with oil and gas companies who may wish to invest money in those First Nations communities so that the communities can grow economically and their citizens can reap the benefits of such partnerships?
Mr. Fox: Let me begin to answer that question. We mentioned in our presentations that we have spent a great deal of time on this. We have involved our member First Nations in the work that we have done over the last few years with respect to the modernization. As Mr. Gray said earlier, we had in excess of 30 concerns. We wanted to have those dealt with. Some of them were dealt with, and some were not. Some of our member tribes have agreed with the process, and a few still have concerns. However, we feel this is the best we could come up with at this time. Should it be decided that you want to have more discussion on further amendments or recommendations for amendments, then I feel that you ought to study all of them, not just a few. If that is the case, in the parliamentary system that you all work under as senators and members of parliament, then it could mean that perhaps this work would have all been for naught.
Mr. Gray: Even if Bill C-5 does not pass, the First Nations still have to go back and work with the present system. It does not stop any process that a First Nation may want to enter into with the industry, only it would be under the old regime. As Mr. Fox indicated, and as I indicated before, we are prepared to proceed with the bill now. Through continuous change in the coming process, we will be able to work that out, working with Indian Oil and Gas Canada.
Senator Peterson: Thank you for your presentations this morning. They were very fulsome and covered most of the questions that I had.
You did point out that the negotiations have been exhaustive. They have been over a 10-year period, which should have provided ample opportunities for all parties to come forward and present their positions and issues.
You also pointed out that we really never get the perfect agreement and that some outstanding issues always remain. In your opinion, does this proposed legislation reasonably meet the needs of the First Nations' oil and gas requirements, and that, moving forward, other issues that might still be outstanding can be dealt with when the regulations are worked out?
Mr. Fox: Yes, senator, the proposed amendment to the Indian Oil and Gas Act, in general, meets our expectations. It does not cover everything. It also should be stated that this amendment to the Indian Oil and Gas Act is a part of a total, continuous change process that we have embarked upon, as agreed with the federal government, of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
With the amendments needed to go ahead with the act, we hope to proceed now with amendments to the regulations. More important to us is that we will now be able to begin to take advantage of those business opportunities that arise with respect to the development of oil and natural gas resources on our lands.
For too long, we have been passive in that involvement. It is good to receive royalties and bonuses and so on, but our members feel it is time that we genuinely got involved with the business side, where the real money is. Therefore, you will find in the presentations and the information that have been given to you with respect to this situation that we are starting to take over those wells and those oil and natural gas properties situated on our reserve lands, formerly owned by outside oil companies.
I believe we have gone to the extent of taking over approximately 30 per cent of those properties. That is a part of the movement that our members are into.
The federal government has to continue to be a fiduciary, a trustee and a good manager. However, we also want the ability to participate on the business side. That is a part of the continuous change process, as we see it, and there are other aspects of that process.
Senator Campbell: First, to Senator Brazeau, this committee never tinkers.
I note that you have two joint technical committees, JTC1 and JTC2, and I am interested in this because it goes to your furtherance, down the road, of working toward a process.
The first committee you have is responsible for the examination of revisions in the Indian Oil and Gas Act, and that is to make a more effective manager and regulator of activities on Indian lands.
However, I am interested in the second committee, which is responsible for examination and development of issues that are not included in the current phase of revisions to the act.
Can you describe some of the issues that are being examined by your second joint technical committee, or JTC2?
Mr. Fox: Initially, JTC2 was more involved in the business side of the work in which we are involved. It was quite instrumental in the development of the business centre, initially, as well as looking at some of the issues that perhaps were not included in the work of the JTC1.
The work that will be done with respect to regulations is one area where we will also need the involvement of the JTC2. Some of the wording will be key in the development of the regulations, and this is part of the work in which the second committee would be involved. Initially, most of the work that the JTC2 has undertaken has been to look at the business side because we did not know whether the bill would go ahead. Therefore, we do have some issues that we would like to bring to the attention of the JTC2, depending on what happens here.
Senator Campbell: Would I be correct in saying that you want to move toward that business side? Is that one of the critical things that you want to do?
Mr. Fox: Yes, it is.
Senator Campbell: In doing that, I suspect, and would expect, that there will be further amendments to this Indian Oil and Gas Act down the road. As you put it, you are working with an ongoing process. Would that be fair?
Mr. Fox: Yes. I believe the Indian Oil and Gas Act, since its inception 35 years ago, has not been amended once. Similar pieces of legislation, for example, in provincial regimes, have been amended a number of times to remain modern.
Mr. Gray: With respect to some of the proposed changes with the JTC2, the First Nations and IOGC looked at a gap analysis; namely, what Indian Oil and Gas Canada is to be providing to First Nations and, on the other side, what First Nations want from Indian Oil and Gas Canada. We looked at economic development with respect to that, as Mr. Fox mentioned. We also looked at technical services that we, from the First Nations side, would be looking at and providing for our people across Canada.
Those are some of the aspects that we are looking at, basically, taking much of the responsibility from Indian Oil and Gas Canada.
Senator Campbell: Thank you very much for coming. It has been very interesting, and I appreciate it very much.
Senator Lang: I thank you for appearing before the committee and for giving such a forceful presentation.
I want to follow up on Senator Campbell, and I want to assure my good friend and colleague, I will not tinker.
A letter of comfort was tabled by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the House of Commons when this bill was being debated on the question of business opportunities. It assured your organization that, once the bill has passed, they will do everything they can to work in conjunction with your organizations and other identities to ensure that every possibility is looked at to take advantage of the business opportunities.
The question I have, Mr. Fox, is whether the letter from Minister Strahl, which was tabled, I believe, on May 26, 2008 in the House of Commons, is comfort enough for you to say that you have a commitment from the Government of Canada and you can proceed with the regulatory side of the bill here, move on and work toward business opportunities with the joint committees.
Mr. Fox: Yes, senator, I suppose it offers somewhat of a level of comfort to a reasonable degree, as best as can be expected. We have lived with the Government of Canada as our fiduciary, trustee and manager, not just in oil and gas but also in other areas. I believe you are referring to the letter dated May 26, 2008, that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Minister Strahl, wrote to our chairman, Mr. Gray. Minister Strahl includes most of the general areas of concern, and that the Government of Canada would be living up to what was included in the letter.
As well, Minister Strahl also spoke to the symposium we had that took place at that time. He communicated to the meeting via video conference, which, together with the letter, satisfied most of the concerns with respect to referential incorporation and some of the other key areas.
Therefore, the answer would be, yes, senator.
The Chair: Would you like to have this letter tabled as part of the record? Are we all in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Hubley: I had some concern with what you said in your presentation about not all of these issues being addressed to your satisfaction, partly due to the restrictive nature of the cabinet authorities with which you are working.
I would like you to comment on that and also whether there is something that perhaps we should know.
Also, are timelines attached to the regulatory process and to the continuous change process?
Mr. Fox: Perhaps I could answer the second question first. We did arrive at some agreed-to timelines with respect to the development of the regulations but not necessarily with the continuous change process. Initially, we had felt it may take from 18 to 24 months. Subsequent to that, people are now saying that it will take between 12 and 18 months before we come up with something.
I forgot your first question, senator. I am sorry.
Senator Hubley: You mentioned the restrictive nature of the cabinet authorities, and I am wondering if there is something we should know about that.
Mr. Fox: Throughout the process, we were dealing with a memorandum to cabinet — an MC — in which we were not able to participate very much. I do not think people are allowed to really participate, with the exception of the bureaucracy and the parliamentarians.
Beyond that, however, we were involved in the development of the amendments, but the rules that govern the development of bills or the amendment of bills in Canada, to some degree, prevented us from fully participating.
I do not know if that answers your question.
Senator Hubley: Yes, it does.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: First, do you have a percentage of women involved in this committee, and why or why not?
Second, does this Indian Oil and Gas Act legislation meet the needs of every First Nation, or does it vary in each First Nation?
Mr. Fox: Yes, senator, we have tried to involve our sisters in the work that we do. We have had over the past several years other ladies who have helped us in the work we are doing. Of course, the lady who is on the JTC1, Wilma Jackknife, is a lawyer. She has worked quite extensively with some of the Treaty 6 tribes in Alberta, as well as the Cold Lake First Nations in Central Alberta.
We look to the knowledge that our technical people may possess, and we seek some direction from the regions as to who we ought to involve in some of the work that we do. However, we also have other ladies involved in some of the other work we do. For example, in JTC2, we have Annette Lonechild. Ms. Lonechild was one of the original trainees with the pilot initiative a long time ago. As well, she went on to become chief of her tribe and is now a councillor. She has that expertise that we look to in doing our work. Therefore, we always try to involve the ladies as much as possible.
Given that the oil and gas industry is still controlled by the ``good old boys,'' it is sometimes hard to do that.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: It is time to make a change, I think.
Mr. Fox: We are trying to make a change.
Mr. Wapass: I would like to add to Mr. Fox's answer. I think what needs to be understood is that each region and province will select their representative. IRC acknowledges and respects who is appointed from those regions and from those respective provinces. In saying that, Annette Lonechild, from Saskatchewan, was supported by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations in the appointment to the Indian Resource Council technical committees, who then go back and reports to the 74 First Nations at our legislative assembly, 11 of which are chiefs and probably about 40 to 50 who are councillors.
Again, it is not really the role of IRC to say whether someone is a member; it goes right back to the different provinces and regions to appoint who they feel wants to represent them. That is how I understand it.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: These regions are from Saskatchewan and Alberta?
Mr. Wapass: It is right across the country.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: What about my second question?
Mr. Fox: I am sorry, I forgot that.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Does the Indian Oil and Gas Act legislation meet the needs of every First Nation of this country, or does it vary for each First Nation?
Mr. Fox: I do not think any piece of federal legislation will ever meet the total needs of the First Nations people in Canada or, for that matter, any other country.
However, we try to do the best we can with whatever circumstances there may be that would prevent us from having everything in the legislation. If we had wanted everything in the bill, the bill would have gone much further than it has.
Restrictions still exist. As I said before, we had in excess of 30 concerns on the proposed amendments at that time. We sat down and tried to work with what we could live with. Some of our member tribes still have concerns; I am sure that you will hear from some of them later today.
As I said, we see this as a part of a bigger picture, part of a continuous change process whereby more of our needs hopefully will be met, not just in the management of our resources but also in the participation of our First Nations corporate entities in the oil and gas business sector.
Senator Sibbeston: This is a fundamental question. I appreciate that you said that this legislation is the result of negotiations and compromise and issues still remain to be addressed in the future. However, if a body such as the Senate, after having reviewed the amendments that are proposed, considers that they are good amendments that will clarify or strengthen your hand, would you not welcome these changes at this stage?
Mr. Fox: If you look at all 30 of them, senator, sure.
Senator Sibbeston: That is taking the view that if there are any amendments, we should deal with all 30. However, consider that the Senate is a little wiser and a little less partisan than the group in the other place. I have had a chance to review and look very clearly at the amendments that Stoney Nakoda First Nations have advanced; in all cases, they will clarify and strengthen your hand.
How can you be against those amendments? They are not earth-shattering. In all cases, they are dealing with four issues that are outlined. Would you not welcome such changes? It would not necessitate opening up a can of worms, as it were, and you having to go back to your constituents, to your groups to get consent. These are just straightforward proposed amendments that will provide clarity and strengthen the First Nations' cases. Would you not welcome that?
Mr. Fox: If I understand the four amendments to which you are making reference, you will find that those are a part of the concerns we had as a group. We have been told, and led to believe, that if too many amendments are put on the table, it may mean the demise of this piece of legislation.
We are certainly not against the concerns that are expressed. Certainly, they are part of the concerns that we have; but we did spend at least two and a half years on this work, and the Stoney First Nations were fully involved in those discussions.
The Chair: Thank you, all four of the presenters. We appreciate your candid answers and openness to the senators' questions. It has been helpful.
Mr. Gray: On behalf of Indian Resource Council and the board of directors, I would like to thank you for your time this morning and your review of our comments.
Mr. Fox: Thank you, senators.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I will now call on the next panel of witnesses.
We have before us the First Nations chiefs of the Stoney Nakoda First Nations. Chief David Bearspaw represents the Bearspaw Band; Chief Clifford Poucette represents the Wesley Band; and Chief Bruce Labelle represents the Chiniki Band. Also at the table, we have Mr. Eugene Seymour, Coordinator of the Independent Lobby for Amendment to the Indian Oil and Gas Act — 1974.
In the audience, to help the chiefs answer questions, are legal counsel Douglas Rae and John Snow Jr., the director of oil and gas for the Stoney Nakoda First Nations.
I will ask you to keep your remarks short for senators' questions so we can get worthwhile questions and answers, which I am sure will flow from both sides.
Perhaps we can start with the Stoney Nakoda First Nations.
Bruce Labelle, Chief, Chiniki Band, Stoney Nakoda First Nations:
[Mr. Labelle spoke in his native language.]
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My fellow chiefs and I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak to you today. Thank you for making the extra effort in allowing us to be here.
Last month, we had the opportunity to make a presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, when Bill C-5 was in the House of Commons. At that time, our views were received courteously and with respect. However, we left with the feeling that members of the House of Commons committee did not fully understand not just our position but what Bill C-5 actually says.
The background information on Bill C-5 prepared by the department, we believe, is somewhat misleading. While the bill certainly contains some worthwhile provisions, many, if not all, of these provisions could have been handled simply through amending the 1995 regulations under the existing Indian Oil and Gas Act. In electing to amend the act, rather than just update the regulations, the government has exposed our oil and gas resources in ways that the existing 1974 act does not. Bill C-5 exposes our oil and gas resources to the risk of possible taxation by Canada, to the possible forced sharing of our royalties with other governments and to unwanted provincial interference. The regulation- making power under Bill C-5 permits the incorporation of provincial laws that tax or force a sharing of our royalties. Penalties and fines collected by Canada via its enforcement provisions will not be considered Indian monies — proposed sections 20 and 25 — but are monies collected for the benefit of Her Majesty. Under proposed subsection 4.2(6), penalties and other monies collected by the provinces may be kept for their own benefit, not ours.
We would have, therefore, preferred that the current regulations were merely updated rather than our having to deal with new legislation that enacts or permits the creation of regulations of such an ominous nature.
While much has been said about the fact that the present act dates from 1974 and is in need of updating, department officials have glossed over their failure to bring in substantive new regulations since 1995. There are no legal impediments to new regulations under the existing act. New regulations are not dependent on the passage of Bill C-5. Since the bill does not provide for future streamlining of the regulation-making process, even with the passage of Bill C-5, future amendments to the regulations will remain subject to the same delays and roadblocks that currently exist.
The concept of incorporating provincial laws and delegating their enforcement to provincial bodies is problematic in both principle and practice. How well this would work is dependent on the views of provincial governments. For this reason, we have asked that a new section 4.2(8) be added, recognition of the ongoing fiduciary obligations the Government of Canada assumed when it accepted the surrender of our oil and gas lands.
Department officials have suggested that the new administrative penalties provided for under Bill C-5 are not possible under the existing act, but these new administrative penalties, by virtue of proposed section 17, do not apply to the most important default, namely, a failure to pay royalties. In his comments to you last week, the minister appears to be under a misunderstanding in that regard. The fact that these penalties do not apply to a company that fails to pay royalties owing is another reason we want the ability to cancel a lease that is in default.
You might, therefore, ask the minister why there have been no new regulations since 1995 and what, exactly, in the present Indian Oil and Gas Act prevents the government from just updating the regulations under the existing act.
However, we are certainly not here today just to complain about new legislation concerning our oil and gas resources; we are here to improve that legislation. We also readily acknowledge the extent of consultation by department officials in regard to Bill C-5. Stoney Nakoda representatives were very much involved in those consultations, and we appreciate the effort and expense that the government has carried out in this regard.
However, we reject the notion that simply because department officials did not agree with our input during the consultation process, we are somehow precluded from raising these same issues before Parliament. I cannot overemphasize that everything that we are saying to you today and that we put before the House of Commons committee has been previously put to department officials during the consultation process over the past months and years.
Nothing we are saying is new; all of our points have been raised not only by ourselves but also by the Indian Resource Council. The department has never provided good reasons to either us, the Indian Resource Council or to Parliament as to why our points have not been incorporated into Bill C-5.
Mr. Chair, any questions directed to me will be answered by my technician, John Snow, or by my legal counsel.
My fellow chief, Chief Poucette, has further comments about this consultation process.
Clifford Poucette, Chief, Wesley Band, Stoney Nakoda First Nations: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Chief Labelle and senators.
The minister and his parliamentary secretary have argued that to open the bill to amendments at this stage would require the consultation process with First Nations to be restarted. However, the amendments proposed by the Stoney Nakoda Nations have, in fact, already been put forward by the Indian Resource Council as part of the consultation process.
Our proposed amendments, proposed section 4.2(8), concerning the minister's ongoing fiduciary obligations; the right to cancel a lease in default contained in proposed subsection 4(2); and our proposed amendments to the limitation of actions set out in proposed section 5.1 were included in the recommendations made by the Indian Resource Council many months ago. We are simply reiterating the position of the Indian Resource Council.
You can see that our amendments should be the concluding part of the consultation process, not the beginning of a new one. I am sure the representatives of the Indian Resource Council, as well as First Nations in general, would agree that no new consultation is required for any of the amendments we have put forward.
As was correctly pointed out at this committee's hearing last week, the House of Commons has already made amendments to Bill C-5 that do not require another round of consultations with First Nations. The parliamentary secretary told this committee that there is no need for further consultation when ``the obligation is on us as opposed to the First Nations.'' None of our proposed amendments create obligations on the First Nations. According to the parliamentary secretary's own criteria, then, there is no need to consult on the amendments that the Stoney Nakoda Nations are proposing.
I would now like to say a few words about Canada's fiduciary obligations to us in regard to our oil and gas resources.
The minister has said that there is no need to expressly reiterate his fiduciary obligations in Bill C-5 because it is already obvious that these obligations will continue. Unfortunately, when the minister's lawyers get to court they often argue that the minister has no fiduciary obligations whatsoever.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in its February 13 Ermineskin decision had this to say:
I believe that the Crown's fiduciary obligations to the bands with respect to the granting of rights to others to exploit the mineral resources of the bands and the way in which the royalties received were handled take hold by reason of the Surrenders in 1946.
The Stoney Nakoda First Nations have surrendered our mineral rights to the Crown in the same way as the Ermineskin Nation and Samson Nation surrendered theirs; we too are entitled to expect that the Crown's legislations continue to reflect those fiduciary obligations.
Unfortunately for us, the Supreme Court of Canada also ruled that these fiduciary obligations arising from the mineral surrender are not protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act. Therefore, when the minister spoke last week about his constitutional obligations and the existing non-derogation clause in the Indian Oil and Gas Act, there is certainly some doubt and uncertainty as to the extent that these protections exist in light of the recent ruling of the Supreme Court.
During the debate on Bill C-5, it has been suggested that, if we do not like Bill C-5, there are other options available to us. Chief Bearspaw would like to speak to exactly what other oil and gas management options are available to us.
David Bearspaw, Chief, Bearspaw Band, Stoney Nakoda First Nations:
[Mr. Bearspaw spoke in his native language.]
Thank you, Mr. Chair, senators, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to make a few comments. First of all, it is an honour to be here today, speaking before you.
Contrary to what the bill's explanatory notes suggest, Bill C-5 does not provide for increased participation by First Nations in the exploitation of our own oil and gas resources. In fact, proposed section 16 prevents us from exploiting our own oil and gas resources, and proposed section 4.3 provides that Bill C-5 regulations override our own Stoney Nakoda bylaws.
I challenge the minister to show me where the bill allows us to have more of a say in how our oil and gas is produced. We do not see much of a ``hand up'' in the present wording of Bill C-5.
Given this absence of participation, some of you have asked why the Stoney Nakoda does not opt into the oil and gas management portions of the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act, commonly known as FNOGMMA. FNOGMMA is an optional piece of legislation that was passed in 2005 and was designed to allow First Nations to have greater control over their oil and gas resources.
The short answer is that I and my fellow chiefs are, in fact, investigating this option. We would like to take greater control of our oil and gas assets and our royalty monies. Unfortunately, our analysis of FNOGMMA has unveiled a couple of major stumbling blocks to our assuming management of our oil and gas resources.
There are two fundamental problems with FNOGMMA: First, FNOGMMA does not transfer actual legal ownership of our oil and gas to us. Section 3 of the act clearly states that the title on-reserve oil and gas stays with Her Majesty. If Bill C-5 were accompanied by amendments to FNOGMMA that permitted real ownership of our oil and gas, this option to Canada's existing control of our resources under the Indian Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act would be much more attractive to us.
The second major problem with FNOGMMA is that it allows Canada the right to tax and even expropriate our oil and gas resources. Nothing in FNOGMMA prevents this. Why would we sacrifice the current protection of our Aboriginal rights as enshrined in section 87 of the Indian Act and expose our resources to taxation by opting into FNOGMMA? The membership vote that is required under FNOGMMA will have little chance of passing unless our membership is assured that our resource royalties will not be taxed by Canada or the provinces.
Therefore, FNOGMMA would be a real option to us if that act were amended to transfer legal title to First Nations and if Canada removed from that statute the ability to tax our oil and gas resources.
You will note that a number of our Alberta First Nations are in support of our position. It is no coincidence that the major oil- and gas-producing First Nations are supporting the Stoney Nakoda position in regard to Bill C-5. Bill C-5 may provide benefits to those First Nations that have yet to see revenues from oil and gas production. However, for those of us with existing oil and gas royalty income, Bill C-5, like FNOGMMA, opens the door for Canada to tax our resources, something that is presently not possible under the Indian Act or under the present Indian Oil and Gas Regulations.
On behalf of my fellow chiefs, I would like to reiterate our appreciation for inviting us here today. We have provided each of you with our four amendments to Bill C-5 that we would ask you to consider. Should you wish, our legal counsel, Mr. Rae, can elaborate on these amendments for you.
Further to that, I would like to add a few other comments. It is very important for this committee to understand where we are coming from as First Nations. As chiefs of the Stoney Nakoda Nations, we have always had challenges placed before us, not just in the present but in the past as well. Former chiefs, our grandfathers, our forefathers, have always fought for their rights as Aboriginal peoples across this country. I am proud to say that I am here to continue that challenge and to fight for our member nations back home to have a better future for our children to prosper, for our communities to be sustainable, to have economic opportunities for us to provide those options and create a better future for our communities.
The Chair: Mr. Seymour, do you have a short presentation? We are restricted for time because of the availability of the room, but I want to be fair.
Eugene Seymour, Coordinator, Independent Lobby for Amendment to the Indian Oil and Gas Act - 1974: It is on honour to be here. First, I would like to provide you with a series of clarifications on our issues because we have terminology that we presented to everyone in the House of Commons and the Senate dealing with ``vertical integration.'' I submitted a glossary of terminology through the clerk.
What we mean by that is connecting the business and employment opportunities between downstream operations in the oil industry to upstream operations, and vice versa. ``Downstream'' means retail gas stations and bulk fuel-source facilities. ``Upstream'' references oil and gas exploration, and production wells and refineries. That seemed to be a concern last time around, and I hope that clarifies the issue.
To clarify where we originated from, and who we are, I must point out that, through the consultation process with the Indian Resource Council when they reached out to the downstream operations from the upstream oil-producing tribes of those 130, they approached a group at Akwesasne and asked them what they thought would be beneficial to them in amendments to the Indian Oil and Gas Act. We promptly replied: vertical integration, a financial program set up to provide for vertical integration; and they said that value-added activities would also be appropriate.
At that point, we launched this independent lobby to instill in the legislation an item to provide for vertical integration and value-added activities. We went to the appropriate bodies in a collaborative effort; we are a collaboration of the Indian Resource Council, the Akwesasne Petroleum Co-op, the Ontario fuel handlers association and independent wholesale dealers and retail stations.
At the annual general assembly of the Indian Resource Council, our issue was put on the table, discussed, voted on, and we got a resolution of approval — also from the Akwesasne Petroleum Co-op. With the approval and founding initiation, we launched a lobby. We approached the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in 2002, with the clerk, Elizabeth Kingston, who asked us who we were to be proposing legislation to change the law for the betterment of the Indian people. She informed us that they, by their terms of reference, can only deal with government bills that have been referred to them upon second reading.
We learned, in the process, that this is how the parliamentary procedure works. Therefore, we went back to the government, and in a summit meeting with representatives from Indian Resource Council — Errnol Gray, myself, Julia Back-Skidders from the Akwesasne Petroleum Co-op and others — we met with representatives from INAC.
At that point, they said that to amend the legislation to provide for economic development is not within our mandate. It belongs within the mandate of economic development within the department. That was back in 2002.
Since that time, in 2008, the department has been reorganized. Now Indian oil and gas and Indian lands and trusts are all part of economic development because someone in their wisdom realized that economic development for First Nations people requires land tenure and security.
Let me now clarify the misunderstanding we have with the minister. It is partly our fault because in the last year, we have had some extraordinary events in the Canadian parliamentary system: We had a cabinet shuffle early in the year; then a historical event on July 11, where there was the public apology for the residential schools systems.
At that point, we were about to make our submission to the minister; but within a week, we were amazed by how progressively he started to move. Within a week, he tabled amendments to the Indian Oil and Gas Act, under Bill C-63. Then the election and a new cabinet posting happened followed by the organization of a serious political coup, followed by the prorogation of Parliament.
We could not wait any longer. In January, we submitted our letter explaining who we are and what we are proposing. After the Throne Speech, the minister reintroduced the amendments to the Indian Oil and Gas Act under Bill C-5, and it was verbatim. I suspect procedure dictates that it must be verbatim once it is reintroduced. He submitted to us the letter of February 25, 2009, which has been circulated to everyone, and he has invited us to participate in this process.
We have not had time to sit down and discuss with him what we are actually proposing because the matter has left his desk, and it is within the parliamentary legislative procedure. We look forward to doing that because we realize we are in a continuing, progressive process here.
I would like to clarify the point of coming into force. From last week's questioning by Senator Lang to the minister, we discovered that the minister on this legislation — and this is key to this discussion today — does not plan to bring it into force until a least a year or a year and a half from now, sometime in 2010. In the meantime, he will go back and consult again with all First Nations on the development of enabling legislation as per what he is asking for now in Parliament.
Since last week, we checked with legal counsel and that is a significant aspect of this piece of the legislation — the coming-into-force clause. It is not stated in any of the written documentation, but from his evidence, the minister said that he is will take at least the year. You heard others testify today that they are looking at as much as 18 months to bring this into force. In essence, what you have before you today in this legislation is simply an umbrella authorization given to the government to enter into discussions to develop regulations accordingly.
We are proposing a funding program designed by First Nations people themselves. As I said in the House of Commons proceedings, we do not want the government to just throw money at the problem. We want to design it in a manner that is effective and will produce results.
In our submission to the other house, which has been circulated to you, we incorporated three concepts. The first was the eligibility of the applicant. Under the eligibility of the applicant, we were very careful to broaden its scope so that it is not just the band councils of those 130 bands directly affected by oil and gas on their lands. We want to broaden it to all First Nations people. We do not want to restrict it just to band councils, but have it for Indian business and individuals as well.
We were careful not to stipulate on- or off-reserve. As Senator Brazeau pointed out, how will this legislation improve the lives of First Nations people? We believe the answer is by broadening the business and employment opportunities associated with oil and gas production from Indian land, which is what we are asking for.
In the financial structure we are proposing, we want a complete range of loans, loan guarantees and grants. The minister says that the industry wants certainty. Legislation that can secure funding for a project for multiple years in the future gives certainty and will attract investment.
Finally, in the final clause of the proposal, we suggested that the grant funding be in the form of an annual amount, to eliminate any sunset clause, and we put a financial cap on it. With that, I welcome your questions.
Senator Sibbeston: I understand that your delegation here is part of the Indian Resource Council. We have been told that the Indian Resource Council has been in consultation with the federal government, so this legislation before us is the result of many years of consultation and some compromises made. Despite that, you are here before us suggesting that we make more amendments.
I am aware that litigation has taken place and that the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada recently went in favour of the federal government. Are you here because you are a little more familiar with the legalities of Indian oil and gas issues, or are you here in part because you have an axe to grind against the federal government?
Mr. Poucette: I would delegate that question to my legal representative, Mr. Rae.
Douglas Rae, Legal Counsel, Stoney Nakoda First Nations: If I may, senator, you are quite correct in suggesting that the Stoney Nakoda First Nations have more at stake than perhaps a number of other First Nations. The Stoneys are the largest natural gas producer among the First Nations in Canada. They are sophisticated in terms of their operations in that regard. I would suggest to you that the chiefs are here today based on their knowledge of the issues and what is being proposed in Bill C-5, not because they have any axe to grind with the Government of Canada.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I am not surprised by INAC's stalling tactics. Do any of these regulations protect the environment?
Mr. Rae: Yes, Bill C-5 does have provisions for the promulgation of regulations that protect the environment.
Senator Lang: My understanding is that you have been involved in the process all the way along in the drafting of the bill and the consultations with INAC and the Indian Resource Council for the past 10 years. Is that correct?
Mr. Poucette: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Lang: It is also my understanding — and maybe you could clarify for the record — that a number of issues were brought forward by your area of the country, because various parts of the country differ, and some of those amendments are incorporated in the bill we have before us.
Mr. Poucette: There might be one or two in the amendments. I believe we put out 23 amendments out of the 30, from Stoney Nakoda Nation.
Senator Lang: With respect to the ongoing joint committees, where many of the changes will be discussed further and maybe put into regulations. Your organization is part of those committees and part of those ongoing discussions, as we speak; is that correct?
Mr. Poucette: Yes, it is.
Senator Brazeau: Mr. Seymour, we heard earlier from the Indian Resource Council for whom they advocate, namely, 133 First Nations communities across the country. The same question applies to you. How many First Nations communities do you represent, and what is the membership base of those on whose behalf you lobby?
Mr. Seymour: We are a collaboration of that group, the Akwesasne Petroleum Co-op and the Ontario fuel handlers association. The actual number would be that group as well as, I believe, another 60 or 70 groups. However, we are not representing them. We are representing their issue of receiving funding, and we see that this is an ongoing process. We were at the other house, when they asked us why we did not go to the federal stimulus program if it is just funding; they are giving out funding. However, they are also giving out funding with a sunset clause over two years, and government officials are right now throwing money at the problem.
We want funding in this area enshrined in legislation because we know from history — 1946 when they started production in Alberta — that billions of dollars have been taken from Indian lands, and billions of dollars of business and job opportunities have been missed. The life within many communities is of have-not people, economically depressed, and we know all the social ills that come from that. We could have been much more advanced and economically independent now had the government acted in our best interests in the fiduciary trust regime.
Senator Brazeau: You do not represent any First Nations communities per se?
Mr. Seymour: No, I am just a collaboration of those groups.
Senator Campbell: I have to admit I am confused. The issue that I wanted to hear about and wanted to listen to was the fiduciary responsibility and that amendment. I have no idea, Mr. Seymour, where your issue comes into this.
Mr. Seymour: We made an agreement right at the onset. We will just focus on economic development and getting funding.
Senator Campbell: That is not what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with an amendment that is requested by your group to add to the act fiduciary responsibility as it stands in other acts and is a given in most other acts. I heard nothing about funding until you spoke and I got your presentation. In fact, we do not deal with money here. We cannot deal with money here, so I am confused about that.
If 130 First Nations are involved and have agreed on the bill, understanding that some 30 other issues have been put to the side and will be addressed at another point in time, is there not a democratic process within this group that says, ``The majority want this, we will do that and we will go forward and work on this''? I do not understand how we would go against 130 First Nations versus 8 or 9.
Mr. Seymour: Are you asking me a question?
Senator Campbell: I am asking, generally, how, from a democratic point of view, does this work?
The Chair: I would say that chiefs Poucette or Labelle or Bearspaw would be more suited to answer that question.
Mr. Bearspaw: Before I make a comment about that, I appreciated the previous comment by the senator. It goes back to what my fellow chiefs mentioned. We are not here to stall or anything; we are here to consider an amendment to the existing proposal. You are right.
As I said earlier, with respect to the First Nations community, in particular, Stoney Nakoda First Nations, there are challenges; and I appreciate your comment about INAC's stalling tactics. That is what I was trying to refer to.
Returning to your comment, Senator Campbell, I would like to refer that to our technician, Mr. John Snow, Jr.
John Snow, Director of Oil and Gas, Stoney Nakoda First Nations: I am John Snow from Stoney Tribe. I represent the Chiniki Bearspaw and Wesley First Nations in oil and gas.
I want to have a point of clarification or point of order. We have two different groups up here. That is one part of the confusion. These two groups are not related. The clerk of the committee needs to be aware that these are two separate groups. They are totally different.
The Chair: We were aware of that.
Senator Campbell: I did not quite comprehend the huge difference. Thank you very much for that clarification.
Mr. Snow: To answer your question about the 130 First Nations, of the 130, a handful of reserves in this country control the bulk of the resources and the revenues that are coming through. Therefore, of that 130, they may vary from a barrel a day to whatever, but the bulk of the production comes from just a very few First Nation producers.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for making your presentation. We thank you for answering the questions that were posed by the senators.
Honourable senators, I would like to carry on the business of the committee at this stage if you are so inclined. We will ask the witnesses to leave the table so that we can continue to conduct our business; if you would be so kind, gentlemen.
Is it agreed, senators, to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-5, an Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Sibbeston: Could I make some general comments about amendments? I will make the amendments as have been proposed by the Stoney Nakoda First Nations, but I wanted to say something about that that applies generally.
Our role as senators is to, wherever possible, respect and advance the rights of Aboriginal people and regions and so forth. This is a case where we have an agreement. This act is a result of an agreement between First Nations and the federal government, and they are content with what we have before us. The First Nations that are the most involved and that have the most to lose, who are probably the most knowledgeable about oil and gas, are suggesting four amendments, which I think we should seriously consider.
I know the argument is made that it will be disruptive and that it will result in consultation, but in all cases these amendments will clarify and strengthen First Nations. Therefore, I will be making the amendments as proposed by the Stoney Nakoda First Nations as we reach the various clauses, and I hope senators will be open to supporting them.
Never mind the federal government; never mind the fact that it will cause a bit of a delay and will have to go back to the House of Commons. We do not care about that. We worry about the rights of people. In this instance, they are rights that have been advanced by the Indian Resource Council but that could not be obtained from the federal government. However, we are not subject to that. We are independent, and we are concerned about the rights of First Nations and Aboriginal peoples.
It is on that basis that I am making these amendments, and I hope that senators will be willing to support them.
The Chair: Briefly, Senator Campbell?
Senator Campbell: I will wait until he makes the amendment, and then I will oppose it.
The Chair: Honourable senators, as the old adage goes, one should not allow perfection to become the enemy of the good. However, I am merely chairing this process, and I have been given the authority by the committee to go to clause by clause.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
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.
Senator Sibbeston: I have two amendments to propose. I believe members have been given copies of the proposed amendments suggested by Stoney Nakoda First Nations.
Proposed new section 4(3) would read:
Upon the failure to pay the full amount of royalties owing, the Minister may, or the council of the first nation for whose benefit the royalties are to be paid may by written resolution direct the Minister to, issue a notice of cancellation of a contract and, in the event the full amount of royalties owing are not paid within 60 days, the contract shall be deemed cancelled and all rights of the contract holder thereunder forfeited. Notwithstanding the foregoing, such cancellation does not relieve the contract holder from any liabilities arising under the contract, including any liability for abandonment and reclamation costs.
That is one of the amendments.
The other amendment is proposed new section 4.2(8):
For greater certainty, in respect of an act or omission occurring in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty by a provincial official or body under laws of a province that are incorporated by the regulations, the applicable trust or fiduciary obligations of the Minister to first nations will continue as though the Minister has exercised a like power or performed a like duty.
The Chair: I should have a mover. Are there two amendments that you are moving, senator?
Senator Sibbeston: Yes.
The Chair: Is there a seconder? If there is no seconder, the clause shall carry. Is it agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Clause 4 is carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the Senate at the earliest convenience?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The bill is passed by this committee, and I will report it back to the full Senate.
Are there any other questions or comments? If none, we are adjourned until tomorrow evening.
(The committee adjourned.)