Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston:

Honourable senators, I will speak briefly on this bill that was reviewed by our Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples for the last two weeks.

Although the bill was approved by the committee without amendment, we heard strong presentations on why changes should be made. Bill C-5, as the honourable senator stated, is the result of ten years of extensive consultation and a negotiation process between the government and the Indian Resource Council. The IRC represents approximately 130 First Nations that have oil and gas production or potential on their lands.

In the end, the IRC agreed that Bill C-5, although it did not address all the concerns, was good enough. Part of this agreement included a "letter of comfort" from the minister that the IRC would be fully involved in drafting regulations and that there would be a process of continuous change to lead to further amendments to the act in the future.

I note that the other place amended this bill to require the minister to report back to Parliament on these processes within two years. This amendment reflects perhaps a healthy scepticism about Canada's dealing with Aboriginal people.

However, not every First Nation was happy with the result. We heard from the Stoney Nakoda nation, who belong to IRC and were involved in the consultation, on changes they felt were needed to clarify and strengthen the bill. They were supported in writing by a number of other First Nations.

These First Nations are among the largest producers of oil and gas and they are the most experienced in dealing with this industry. They also recently had a case before the Supreme Court of Canada. This group of people are familiar with the law and the legalities, and are most experienced in the oil and gas business. These people made representations before us to make further amendments to the bill.

We were told by the government that any changes to this bill would require reopening consultations and a delay of the bill. The IRC said they were concerned that extensive changes would cause the government not to move forward with this bill. Note the subtle difference.

We have a situation where the federal minister, when he appeared, told us not to amend anything; do not do anything lest it will unravel the whole bill. Then, the IRC said that they are afraid that if the Senate provides an opening or makes amendments that they were concerned that hey may have to deal with all the other issues. Because it was negotiated, the situation is difficult.

I raised the point about making the amendments and looking at these amendments as gifts that the Senate could provide to the First Nations. I proposed amendments, but unfortunately they were not supported by my colleagues.

However, I will talk briefly about what some of these changes would have been. It is important to understand two things about the amendments that were proposed, and which I moved in committee. First, all proposed amendments related to outstanding matters that the Indian Resource Council itself had identified and proposed, but which government officials had rejected. These changes would be, in effect, a gift to the IRC. It is doubtful they would refuse to accept them by demanding further consultation. Second, these amendments would not have transformed the bill radically.

The first amendment would assure First Nations that the minister would carry out the minister's fiduciary responsibility whenever the minister delegated authority to provincial governments. Part of the process is that the provinces would adopt or harmonize provincial oil and gas regulations; a process wherein First Nations activity would be regulated by the provinces.

The clause that I wanted to advance began by saying, "for greater certainty." A clause like this one would provide comfort to First Nations to assure them that although they would be under a provincial regime, the federal government still has fiduciary responsibility.

I felt that little amendments such as those examples could have been passed and could have been part of the bill. They would have given more comfort to First Nations.

Two amendments would have given First Nations shared power with the minister to take actions against businesses that had breached their contracts or failed to pay royalties. The fourth amendment would have permitted First Nations to develop their own oil and gas resources for their own purposes.

All these changes would have increased First Nations ability to take control of their lands and resources and improve their economies, not radically but in an incremental way.

These amendments are consistent with recommendations the Senate has made time after time in the last few years. I hope that eventually these and other amendments will come before us as a result of the continuous change process described in our committee.

The Senate has a well-earned reputation for carefully taking into account the concerns of Aboriginal and other people, especially where their rights are concerned, or the duty of the government is to uphold their rights.

I think this is a case where we could have enhanced that reputation and I am sorry we did not. Obviously, if the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples could not support amendments, I felt there was no point in me advancing them here.

We have a negotiated bill, in a sense, that was suitable and satisfactory to the IRC, the main body of First Nations that represents all of the oil and gas producing First Nations. While the bill is good, we had the chance to make it even better. Unfortunately, we will not have done that if we support the bill as it is, without amendments.

I am sorry about the situation, but I hope that in the future we can have the courage and determination to go that one step further to improve the situation for First Nations.


Please click here to read the full text of this debate

Recent Statements from Liberal Senators