I find myself agreeing with the Minister that there should be no reason to include this clause in this piece of legislation. The land claims legislation, the settlement legislation has these clauses in it, and it’s clear that that is the law and we know that it takes precedence over all other legislation. Unfortunately, although the Minister has suggested, I believe, that we put this in the Interpretation Act and therefore there would be even greater clarity if it was needed, the government has been totally inconsistent in applying this clause in their legislation. So we find it lacking and proposed to be lacking in this legislation at the same time that they’re bringing forward legislation before this House right now where the clause is included. This sort of inconsistency makes me realize that the greater certainty is not there, because they have not shown that it’s a certain thing by including it in some and others not in legislation before this House today.
I think a big part of it is Mr. Krutko’s point as sponsor of this motion, that people who are actually fulfilling this legislation will not be aware of this background legislation that does take precedence in every case, and that’s the certainty we’re looking for here. I think the government has had a
responsibility and has failed in bringing a broad understanding by both the bureaucracy and the public, and to some extent the Aboriginal governments. I make the same complaint in bringing the same degree of understanding to their constituents, their beneficiaries about this legislation.
Certainly the general public was never included in either the land claims negotiations or its implementation and they are finding out about this piecemeal. As a result, there’s a lot of unnecessary strife because they simply are not aware.
This, of course, highlights the need for courses both for the beneficiaries, obviously by Aboriginal governments, but certainly for the public and civil service by this government. There have been I know the odd ones here and there, but we need a comprehensive and consistent program there to ensure that our employees are aware of this legislation as they fulfill their duties.
I do agree with the Minister there should be no need for this clause. I think putting it into the Interpretation Act would be a good solution, once these concerns have been taken care of.
So given the inconsistency gaps and deficiencies I’ve noted, I support this motion while suggesting the government begin raising awareness of land claims law, followed by putting this clause into the Interpretation Act, as has been suggested, and removing it from its seemingly random use in legislation, again aiming for that consistency that is required. I will be supporting the motion.