AANR Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES, DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD ET DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 27, 2001

• 1154

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ray Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

The order of the day is Bill C-37, An Act to facilitate the implementation of those provisions of first nations' claim settlements in the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan that relate to the creation of reserves or the addition of land to existing reserves, and to make related amendments to the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act and the Saskatchewan Treaty Land Entitlement Act.

With us today from the Government of Alberta is Mr. Neil Reddekopp, executive director for aboriginal land claims. He is here for one hour, and we will undertake clause-by-clause consideration of the bill right after his presentation. If clause-by-clause is not completed by 2 p.m., I understand we will resume at 3:30 p.m., in room 209.

Mr. Reddekopp, go ahead with your presentation, please.

Mr. Neil Reddekopp (Executive Director, Aboriginal Land Claims, Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Government of Alberta): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would begin by thanking the committee for the invitation to appear today, and I would assure you that the main message that I wish to convey is one of support for Bill C-37.

• 1155

If you'll allow me a brief personal recollection, I would note that after I left private practice about thirteen years ago to become a civil servant, one of the first intergovernmental meetings I attended took place just across the river, at Indian Affairs headquarters. It was attended by headquarters and regional staff from Indian Affairs and from Justice Canada, and by emissaries from Alberta and Saskatchewan. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss jurisdictional difficulties in transferring the administration and control of crown land from the provinces to the federal government for the purpose of setting aside reserves to settle treaty land entitlement claims, particularly when that land was encumbered with third-party interests. Bill C-37 resolved some—I might even say most—although, as I will make reference to later, not all of the problems discussed at that meeting and encountered since.

As you all know, in paragraph 10 of the Alberta Natural Resource Transfer Agreement, and in the corresponding provisions of similar agreements between Saskatchewan and Manitoba and the federal government, the provinces agreed to transfer to Canada the administration and control of such unoccupied lands as was necessary to enable Canada to fulfill its treaty obligations. This specific provision was part of the overall intention of the Natural Resource Transfer Agreements and the 1930 amendments to the schedules of the Constitution to place Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba on the same legal footing as the original provinces by providing ownership of and jurisdiction over crown lands and resources to the provinces under section 109 of the British North America Act.

It could be argued that the Natural Resource Transfer Agreements imposed on provinces two obligations that could, to some extent, come into conflict. The first and overarching duty was to develop the resources of a province for the benefit of all of its citizens and to provide for its self-sufficiency. The second and more specific duty was to return to the federal government administration and control of such unoccupied lands as was necessary to allow the latter to satisfy its obligations under the reserve clauses of the various treaties.

The first obligation could only be achieved by the development of crown resources through the disposition of these lands and resources, either by sale or other disposition to third parties. Each disposition of crown lands and resources reduced the remaining pool of lands and resources available to meet the obligation to transfer lands for reserve purposes. This conflict became all the more acute with the passage of time, particularly due to the fact that very few requests were made of Alberta under paragraph 10 of the Alberta Natural Resource Transfer Agreement between 1930 and the mid-1980s, allowing for more than half a century of third-party dispositions.

The protection of the interests of prior third parties is consistent with the practice followed by the federal government in its administration of treaties and crown lands and resources between the signing of the numbered treaties and the Natural Resource Transfer Agreements. The discretion of the Crown to respect these interests encountered when considering lands requested as reserve lands was addressed in the negotiations that resulted in the signing of the treaties, the treaties themselves, the instructions provided to surveyors, and the practice of confirming surveyed lands by Privy Council Order.

The obligation to protect third-party interests is not only consistent with the constitutional obligation to provide unoccupied crown lands and resources and with past practice, it has practical legal consequences. The creation of third-party interests, be it by way of a lease of crown minerals or a surface disposition for everything from power lines or pipelines to seismic corridors or access roads, creates a contractual relationship between the Crown and another party. If the Crown were to negate or impair the rights of a third party, the result could be substantial legal liability.

• 1200

Notwithstanding the above, Alberta was prepared in the late 1980s to consider the transfer of crown lands encumbered with third-party interests for reserve purposes if two conditions were met: first, if it was possible to ensure that affected third parties would have the same legal protection under federal jurisdiction as they enjoyed under provincial law; and second, if the relevant third parties consented to that transfer.

Unfortunately, the implementation of this seemingly straightforward proposal was not as simple as would have been hoped. The suggestion that administration and control of lands could be made subject to existing interests ran afoul of the legal principle that lands could not pass through the constitutional screen between provincial and federal jurisdiction when encumbered by other interests.

A second option considered would have seen replacement dispositions under federal law—which would come into effect upon reserve creation—guaranteed to third parties prior to settlement. Unfortunately, this approach was rejected by Justice Canada in those cases in which a first nation surrender or designation is required under the Indian Act prior to the creation of a third-party interest. Applying the common-law principle that no one can give what he does not have, Justice Canada concluded that any purported surrender or designation of a first nation's interest in reserve land prior to reserve creation was a nullity. Thus, the proposal that the membership of a first nation agree to a surrender or designation for the creation of a third-party interest as one of the questions addressed when ratifying a proposed settlement agreement was impossible, both at common law and under the Indian Act.

There is little doubt that both of these legal objections are correct in law, but their result was a method of addressing the transfer of land subject to third-party interests that was cumbersome at best, and impossible at worst. A method of addressing those third party interests that could be created without a surrender or designation vote—those that could be created under section 28 under the Indian Act—was developed, and that involved a number of steps.

I'll apologize in advance. Even though I was one of the architects of this plan, even I get confused by it sometimes.

First, Canada, with the consent of a first nation, would negotiate with each relevant third party a replacement disposition to be issued by Indian Affairs, but this disposition would be held in trust and it would come into effect immediately after reserve creation.

Second, if the third party was interested or was satisfied with the form and content of the replacement disposition, they would execute a surrender of its provincial disposition and a release of the province. These documents would also be held in trust, and they would come into effect immediately before the effective date of the provincial Orders in Council transferring administration and control.

Third, after all of this was done, Alberta would begin the process of passing its Orders in Council transferring administration and control of the relevant crown lands and minerals to Canada. This Order in Council would also be held in abeyance, and would come into effect immediately before the passage of the federal Privy Council Order accepting administration and control and completing reserve creation.

Finally, Canada would pass a Privy Council Order accepting the transfer of administration and control of lands and minerals, setting the same aside as reserves, and this would be the trigger to bring all of the other documents into effect.

The effect of this rather cumbersome approach has been to cause substantial delays in both the finalization and implementation of settlements. We've had examples in which the time lag between agreement in principle on the main elements of a settlement was less than the time it took to get from agreement in principle to final text and execution of settlements. We've had other cases in which the amount of time it took to implement an agreement and the amount of time it took for a first nation to get the full benefit of lands and resources included in a settlement actually exceeded the amount of time it took to negotiate the settlement. The passage and application of the Federal Real Property Act has ameliorated some of these delays, but it has not been a complete answer.

• 1205

Further, as noted above, this approach is not possible when a first nation surrender or designation is required under the Indian Act, and this situation has not been addressed through the application of the Federal Real Property Act. Attempts to deal with this problem have resulted in proposals that make the four step process I outlined to you earlier seem simple and straightforward by comparison. In one case, they have resulted in still unsettled litigation in which the relevant first nation is, among other things, seeking rescission of the settlement agreement that took years to negotiate.

All of this explains why clauses 5, 6, and 7—which the material prepared by your staff indicates as the pivotal portions of the bill—are welcome legislative changes that will simplify and streamline both the negotiation and implementation of treaty land entitlement settlements.

But—and there's always a “but”—the backgrounder circulated as part of the package explaining the proposed legislation makes reference to two recent Alberta treaty land entitlement settlements—Alexander and Loon River Cree—in which Canada committed to the enactment of legislation similar to that proposed in Bill C-37. In fact, a third recent Alberta treaty land entitlement settlement executed in March 2000 with the Smith's Landing First Nation contains a similar provision.

The most extensive discussion of the proposed legislation is in the Alexander settlement, which was executed in 1998. A review of this settlement illustrates that however much Indian Affairs is to be commended for the drafting of Bill C-37—and they should be commended for that—the proposed legislation does not satisfy all the obligations undertaken by the federal government in the Alexander settlement, nor does it mitigate the entire risk assumed by Canada under this agreement.

Part of the Alexander settlement provided the first nation with a purchase fund to be used to acquire fee simple land for eventual reserve creation. This was to be acquired within a defined area—identified as the purchase area—adjacent to the existing Alexander reserve. Even if the first nation is successful in acquiring additional reserve lands, the first nation's ability to purchase the mineral interests in and under these lands is doubtful. Thus, the result may well be a surface-only reserve, and the question of surface access for holders of mineral dispositions underlying these lands became a crucial issue in the negotiation and implementation of the Alexander settlement.

In article 10.5 of its settlement agreement, Alexander agreed to a delay of five years—in other words, until late 2003—before Canada would be required to set aside as reserves any lands purchased by the first nation under the settlement agreement. The purpose of this delay was to allow the federal government to put in place a mechanism, legislative or otherwise, “to provide access over the surface of the future Reserve to the owner or lessee of the subsurface mines and minerals.”

Possible models for access, which were outlined in article 10.9 of the settlement agreement, included the provision in legislation for, first, the incorporation of Alberta legislation relating to surface rights and access, including the grant of the right to the Alberta Surface Rights Board for the authority to issue on-reserve orders for right of entry for wellsites, pipelines, power lines, and roadways; or, second, the authorization for the Minister of Indian Affairs to issue dispositions to implement the right-of-way orders issued by the Alberta Surface Rights Board. The proposed legislation was described in greater depth in schedule P to the settlement agreement, and I have provided the clerk of the committee with a copy of this document.

• 1210

In article 10.5 of the settlement agreement, the federal government agreed that after the passage of the five-year period following settlement, the failure to implement a mechanism to deal with surface rights would not further delay reserve creation for those lands purchased by the Alexander First Nation in the interim. Finally, in section 21 of the Alberta Act agreement between Canada and Alberta that formed part of the settlement agreement, Canada agreed to assume sole responsibility for ensuring third-party access to mines and minerals in or under lands set aside as reserve lands, whether or not the anticipated legislation has been enacted.

Given the ubiquitous presence of petroleum and natural gas interests throughout much of the portion of Alberta subject to treaty land entitlement claims, the absence of a surface rights regime leaves a gaping hole in any plan to facilitate reserve creation and settlement implementation. However, we recognize that the current legislation is probably not the best vehicle for addressing this problem in any event. This legislation is intended to facilitate the negotiation and implementation of settlement agreements. In effect, it ceases to apply once reserves are created. The issue of surface rights is an ongoing problem that actually begins once reserves are created. Other vehicles, including either amendments to the Indian Oil and Gas Act or stand-alone legislation, could probably better address this issue.

I'm certainly not recommending a delay in the passage of Bill C-37. I would advise that we have already begun discussions with officials at Indian Affairs regarding a method for dealing with surface rights in subsequent legislation. I would ask the committee and Parliament to bear in mind the need for this future legislative or regulatory action both to satisfy the obligations and to reduce the risks assumed by Canada in recent settlements.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll do five-minute rounds, beginning with Mr. Elley. Those five-minute rounds are to include both the question and answer.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We do want to welcome Mr. Reddekopp to our committee today.

Thank you very much for coming all the way from Alberta. I'll be a little bit partisan and say congratulations to Alberta for bringing home the Grey Cup once again. As a Calgary fan, that was much appreciated. Keep up the good work.

As we look at Bill C-37, I think all of us recognize the need for this legislation. In the long run, it will hopefully facilitate the settlement of land claims and the need to enlarge reserves in a more timely fashion. Of course, one of the concerns that comes out of this whole process—and we're really dealing with this in British Columbia, where I now live—is the problem that sometimes occurs when land that is private land becomes part of the negotiations. Indeed, if they're in an urban area, great consternation and misunderstanding can occur when the principle of willing seller and willing buyer enters into the negotiations.

I know this bill doesn't deal in specifics with that kind of situation. However, knowing it is one of the real thorny issues coming out of treaty negotiations and land claim settlements right now, do you see this legislation helping to facilitate that process in any way, so that there is a better understanding between the native and non-native communities when this is introduced into the negotiations?

Mr. Neil Reddekopp: I should start by saying that when I talk about a third-party interest being created in land, I'm not talking about a third-party owner. In our treaty land entitlement settlements, we are dealing with crown land. That crown land may be encumbered, but it is still crown land rather than private land.

• 1215

We are experiencing some similar instances, but not so much in treaty land entitlement settlements. Alexander is a bit of an anomaly; it is unique among the settlements we've had. In the implementation of specific claim settlements other than treaty land entitlement settlements, there have been provisions under which first nations have been provided with purchase funds to acquire private land, with the understanding that if that land is acquired and the fee simple interest is transferred to the federal Crown, the lands will be set aside as reserve lands.

I can see that the proposed legislation would assist in that. If third-party interests were involved, other than the owner, then those parties could be protected through the use of this legislation. I don't see that necessarily facilitating the purchase of a full fee simple title owned by a third party. I think that's a totally separate issue, and one that we are interested in as well. The issue of reserve creation outside of the constitutional obligation to do the same is a major concern for Alberta as well, and I'm not sure that's fully addressed by this.

One thing in this legislation that does very clearly assist in some way, though—both from our reading of the legislation and from my discussions with Indian Affairs—is the fact that although it provides a mechanism for first nations to consent to the protection of third parties, the third parties are under no compulsion to accept that. The concept of voluntary entry into discussions by third parties is still retained in this legislation, as would be the concept of willing buyer and willing seller.

Mr. Reed Elley: Do you see this as any problem when it comes down to municipalities, for instance, having to somehow be involved in the negotiating process in terms of lost tax revenues or the delivery of services if, say, the reserve land is going to abut upon municipal land? How is Alberta handling that? Can we hope for better settlements of this in the future?

Mr. Neil Reddekopp: Over the last year, we have certainly proposed a mechanism for reconciling some of these issues. Those issues that you raise are the ones we see as well, including delivery of services, municipal tax loss, and application of municipal bylaws. Our cabinet has directed us to propose a bilateral arrangement with the federal government, to set out the guidelines and a process under which provincial consent or assistance in facilitating these types of settlements could be gained. As a condition of that, the issues you raised—and I repeat it—would have to be addressed. We're working towards that, but we still have a way to go. However, we do believe this is the way to go. We don't want to reinvent the wheel every time a purchase option comes up. We would certainly be very happy and would prefer to see a type of protocol that would provide for addressing these issues.

The Chair: Do you have other questions, Mr. Elley? You may continue if you wish.

Mr. Reed Elley: We're the only ones asking questions, are we?

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Reed Elley: Oh my goodness.

The Chair: We could go to that side now—

Mr. Reed Elley: We're quite willing to have our Liberal colleagues ask questions.

The Chair: —but I just offered and nobody raised their hand, so we're now in the second round.

Mr. Vellacott.

• 1220

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): I come from Saskatchewan, and in that province—and maybe also in the Province of Manitoba—we have the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management. In Alberta, you haven't proceeded in that manner. I gather you tend to approach it on a more case-by-case basis. What is the rationale for that in your province, instead of a more broadly-based framework approach? Do you feel it has an advantage over the framework approach?

Mr. Neil Reddekopp: Our approach has both advantages and disadvantages. Our approach has been based on a belief in the uniqueness of claims and the difficulty of coming up with a template for the settlement of claims.

We are faced with wide discrepancies in land values throughout the province, primarily because of subsurface values that make it very difficult to come up with a method that would assign a land value. I do know, for example, that a certain land value is attached in Saskatchewan, and that's used in the calculation to determine the entitlement of a first nation to a settlement. Ours tend to reflect the circumstances of the first nation.

We also realize that first nations have different priorities. We settled claims in the early 1990s. In 1991, we settled two claims on the same day. One had a very large land component and a smaller cash compensation component, and the other had a much smaller land base and a larger cash compensation component. Those settlements reflected the wishes of those first nations, and reflected their particular circumstances. That's our advantage.

Our disadvantage, in all candour, is that every time we settle a claim, we establish a new floor for the settlement of the next claim. It's very difficult to say the individual circumstances are not the same as those in the last settlement, and that we therefore can't use that as the floor for negotiations. Maybe the claim isn't as large and doesn't require as large a settlement, but it's a very difficult thing to do because it brings in a ratcheting-up effect.

To go back to the advantages, by doing claims vertically from start to finish rather than horizontally trying to deal with all claims together, we try to build the negotiation, settlement, and implementation right into a complete process, so that we don't end up with a situation in which...I know Saskatchewan is making progress, but of the claims that were settled, so to speak, as part of the framework agreement in 1992, the implementation of these claims has been a relatively slow process.

In our view, too much of a framework approach leaves things to implementation when the parties aren't at the table negotiating. The concept of creating purchase funds and letting people purchase land all over the province just deals with, at a later stage, matters that could have been addressed at the negotiating table.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: From your comments, Mr. Reddekopp, I gather—I don't imagine you'd be here to make an announcement on behalf of the premier anyhow—that you're going to stay with the case-by-case approach. Is that going to prevail in future days?

Mr. Neil Reddekopp: You're right, I'm not here to make an announcement on behalf of the premier—or my minister, for that matter. However, I certainly have not received any instructions or directions to change our approach.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You can't be totally prophetic on this thing, but would you anticipate that all or most of the affected first nations in Alberta will opt into Bill C-37? Would it be to their advantage? Do you have any sense of that?

• 1225

Mr. Neil Reddekopp: I certainly have not had any great deal of consultation with them on it. Those claims that we're negotiating now are in the very early stages, and this issue hasn't arisen. I don't see any downside that would prevent them from opting into it. Certainly, my understanding is that those first nations near settlement on bilateral arrangements simply between them and the federal Crown under specific claims settlements, are choosing to opt in to the legislation.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is time running out on my five minutes?

The Chair: Yes, but I'll let you go ahead.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do you have any comments on the Bill C-37 mechanism whereby a band resolution is sufficient to bring agreements under the bill, instead of maybe a flat-out referendum or that type of thing? Have you heard any rumblings from ordinary band members that they do not approve of that?

Mr. Neil Reddekopp: No, I haven't, although I suspect that one way to deal with it—and in my conversations with departmental officials, I think this may be the case, but I'm not sure—is to say that if the opt-in provision becomes a term of the agreement, then it actually will have to be voted on by all of the members of a first nation, because it will be part of the up or down vote on ratification of the settlement agreement. It will be one of the terms in the agreement. At least, that's the way I think it's going to work, but I can't say that for sure.

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Reddekopp, my question goes from the general to the specific. I'm intrigued by the fact that you actually have this particular department, of which you are a representative.

My first question is one of basic ignorance. Do other provinces have departments equivalent to your provincial department?

Mr. Neil Reddekopp: Certainly, the other three western provinces have aboriginal affairs departments. We're probably somewhat unique in that we probably have more responsibility in the negotiation, and in some cases litigation, of aboriginal land claims issues. In other provinces, those may be more within the jurisdiction of justice departments, but I do know the other three western provinces do have aboriginal affairs departments.

Mr. John Godfrey: In terms of this particular agreement, the fact that you exist and have a fairly.... I've just been looking over what I understand to be the whole departmental mandate. When it comes to implementing practical deals, if I can put it that way, am I to assume you don't have to pass through...? When you're dealing with the federal government, can you deal directly with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or do you have to pass through Intergovernmental Affairs or through Justice? I'm hoping the answer is going to be that, because you exist with this mandate, it might actually be easier to fulfill the agreement because you can get all three folks at the table at the same time. And I realize that's a leading question.

Mr. Neil Reddekopp: We normally have a tripartite relationship in negotiations, involving the first nation, the federal government, and representatives of my department. Usually, an outside contract negotiator is hired for that purpose. We're the tip of the iceberg, though. We have relations with a wide range of departments within our government. They're responsible for public lands, minerals, municipal affairs, transportation, and intergovernmental affairs, but we are the parties at the table.

Mr. John Godfrey: You're the lead department on the file.

Mr. Neil Reddekopp: Yes, we are usually the only department at the table in these discussions, and we are responsible for consultations within our government and for development of an Alberta position.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you.

• 1230

Each time we settle land claims across the country, the word “certainty” comes up all the time, meaning certainty for all parties involved. In my part of the country, in Nunavut, when we talk about certainty, we also talk about certainty for economic development investments and for industry. The more you settle claims in Alberta, what do you think will happen as far as industry is concerned? That must be a concern for your government, given all the energy you have in your province. You talked a bit about the mineral rights and all those things. These claims must have some impact on future industry for the province.

Mr. Neil Reddekopp: Certainly, one of the main initiatives that our government has passed within the last several years has been the Aboriginal Policy Initiative and aboriginal policy framework. One of the goals of the framework is an increase in the participation of first nations and other aboriginal Albertans in the Alberta economy. We are attempting to address that through a number of means, one of which is the settlement of claims.

The second is an attempt to break down the jurisdictional barriers that exist between the federal and provincial governments over the administration of resources on the one hand, and reserves on the other. We're involved in a number of important and innovative discussions involving the federal government, our government, first nation governments, and third parties, that are aimed at finding ways to proceed with large-scale economic developments—electrical generating plants and the like—on reserve, and at finding ways in which the provincial regulatory regime and the federal jurisdiction over reserves can be reconciled to allow this development to proceed. We're hopeful that it will. It's one way to promote our goal under our aboriginal policy framework and the federal minister's economic development initiative.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Do you see this bill as part of that progress? What impact will this bill have in that particular area? I imagine that, as you said in your statement, you do want to see this go ahead.

Mr. Neil Reddekopp: The biggest advantage this bill will have is that it will speed things up, first of all. We assume that the reason why first nations select the lands and the resources that they choose in negotiations is that they have a plan to either use the existing resources or to develop others for their own benefit. The bill will speed up the delay in these benefits starting to flow.

It may also open up more lands and more areas for inclusion in reserve lands, because the jurisdictional problems have been resolved. For example, just to use one specific example, a rental fee is paid on an annual basis when pipelines cross land, and that fee can be fairly substantial, depending upon the size of the pipeline. Unfortunately, under the Indian Act, only a surrender or designation can be effective to allow this kind of interest to be created. This is where the predesignation comes into place.

If it's possible for a predesignation to allow a power line to cross a reserve, the first nation would get the benefits of the rents and the revenues. In the current situation, though, we're forced to survey the pipeline right-of-way and keep it within provincial jurisdiction. This in turn gives rise to all sorts of other impediments to economic development on the other lands that are being transferred under the settlement, because of a need to get an easement or a right of access every time someone wants to build a road across the pipeline or across the corridor. The predesignation removes the impediments in terms of time, and it removes the impediments in terms of the types of lands that can be included in settlements. I think both of those factors are helpful.

• 1235

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Can you give us a quick rundown of the deal in terms of the involvement of the Alberta government in the consultation process leading up to and just prior to Bill C-37?

Mr. Neil Reddekopp: Certainly.

We met with Indian Affairs officials who were involved in the drafting of the bill in order to discuss the concept of the bill, I believe it was in January 2000. I had extensive discussions with the drafter of the bill. In the spring of this year, when it was thought the bill might be introduced in the spring session, it was circulated for comment amongst my colleagues in other government departments, and then I collected their comments and fed them back. Both Michel Youssef—from Indian Affairs—and I have very thick files of the e-mails we sent back and forth discussing specific provisions of the bill, particularly those in the definitions clause. So I want to be very complimentary about the level to which we were consulted with regard to this.

I would also point out that we have been pushing for this for a number of years. In many ways, our consultation on the resolution of these issues goes back to that 1989 meeting I talked about before.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Youssef is here, and he wants you to be honest, as do I.

Were your government's concerns taken into account in the drafting of Bill C-37?

Mr. Neil Reddekopp: Oh, very much so. At a very early stage, we raised the concern about surface rights, but we very quickly came to the consensus between ourselves that, while this issue had to be addressed, it was best not to try to do it in this vehicle. I'm in no way critical of the absence of those provisions from this bill.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: To your knowledge, were third-party stakeholders consulted in some way about the bill in Alberta, under your context there?

Mr. Neil Reddekopp: I'm unsure of that. I do know that when I was contacted by the Alberta region, I did provide them with a couple of suggestions. My understanding is that there may have been some lobbying, but nothing has been routed through us, anyway.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. I suppose it would have been hitting the fan somewhere if they hadn't been aware. They should have been aware in some way. Should we assume they would have routed their concerns to you first, and then gone on from there?

Mr. Neil Reddekopp: I don't know that they would have. My understanding is that the major third-party representative groups were contacted, including the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, I believe. My understanding is also that fairly extensive consultations with Alberta first nations took place. Once again, I get this second-hand from talking to departmental officials, but I don't believe the response to invitations to consult was overwhelming.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: In general, then, you're approving the consultation process. It seemed to be adequate in Alberta directly, and in the Alberta government directly. Have you had any major flak from other groups that have expressed or raised other major concerns?

Mr. Neil Reddekopp: We're happy, and nobody has contacted me to complain.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

That completes this part of the meeting. We want to thank the representative of the Government of Alberta, Mr. Neil Reddekopp, executive director for aboriginal land claims.

Thank you very much for your presentation and your well-informed contributing answers, Mr. Reddekopp. They were very good.

I'll now invite the departmental representatives to approach the table.

• 1240

Colleagues, pursuant to the order of reference for Monday, October 22, 2001, Bill C-37, An Act to facilitate...shall I dispense?

Mr. John Finlay: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We will now go directly to clause-by-clause consideration.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed.

Do you wish to do the others in bulk, in one shot, or do you wish to do them one at a time?

Mr. Reed Elley: We can do them in bulk. There are no amendments, are there, Mr. Chair?

An hon. member: No.

The Chair: I have not been made aware of any amendments or intended amendments. Is that contrary to the wishes of the members? Are any amendments forthcoming? No? Then we'll proceed.

(Clauses 2 to 14 inclusive agreed to)

(Schedule agreed to)

The Chair: Shall clause 1, the title, carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill, without amendments, to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: That pretty much completes our meeting for today.

Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Chair, we do have a motion about televising tomorrow's meeting.

The Chair: Okay, we will take five minutes, and then we will go in camera to deal with that and with a request made by some people from the Yukon.

[Proceedings continue in camera]