Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 7th, 2013

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Yes, I believe so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I don't see any additional speakers to that.

(Amendment negatived)

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I have a point of order. In the case of there being a spelling error in a document, do they automatically spell-check when it's finally reprinted? I don't know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

That is a question I can't answer.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Can the department respond to that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I will seek clarification if there's somebody who might know.

[Janice Traynor]

I don't know what happens in that case.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We're on amendment NDP-18.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Amendment NDP-18 was the same thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Pardon me.

We're on amendment NDP-19.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My amendment NDP-19 is that Bill C-47, in clause 2, be amended by (a) by replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 39 with the following:

(b) a review is not required if the Board determines that

(b) by replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 55 with the following:

has issued if the responsible Minister determines that any of paragraphs (1)(a) to (c)

(c) by replacing lines 37 and 38 on page 79 with the following:

(b) the Board determines that the activities may proceed without such a review.

These aren't spelling issues. These amendments replace the vague word “opinion” with “determines”. The legal definition of “determines” means to come to a determination, which is defined as:

After consideration of the facts, a determination is generally set forth by a court of justice or other type of formal decision maker, such as the head of an Administrative Agency. Determination has been used synonymously with adjudication, award, decree, and judgment. A ruling is a judicial determination concerning matters, such as the admissibility of evidence or a judicial or an administrative interpretation of a statute or regulation.

This amendment was requested by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.

What we have here is a situation whereby once again we're improving the language so the board has the responsibility not simply to outline its opinion, but to come to a judgment on these issues. That's a significant difference.

Having sat on these boards, I know an opinion could mean that around the table we said to forget about something.There's an opinion. It may not be adequate. Certainly in many cases it will not be adequate. What we have here is an opportunity to set the legislation forward in a good fashion that provides the right language for the type of decisions that are being made on this matter. Not to approve an amendment such as this simply.... I would ask the government witnesses why “opinion” was chosen rather than “determination”.

[Tom Isaac]

In the relevant portions of the land claim agreement that your motion is addressing, I think the concept in the language was where the board determines “in its judgment” and so the legislative drafters understood that to be more of an expression of an opinion. It's a judgment by the board. It's not a judgment.

When they looked at similar types of decisions of other boards in the statute book, the language that was used more consistently was “opinion”. Those were the reasons behind the choice of the words “in its opinion” as opposed to in either its “judgment” or a “determination”.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

You don't see a difference between “determination” and “judgment” and “opinion”. Are you familiar with the definitions of those?

[Tom Isaac]

I am familiar with the one that you read out.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

What we have here is a very respected Inuit organization that says they want to have the proper language attached to the bill that is the bill that'll govern the land they have a say over. Why would we not want to give...?

Did Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated bring this forward at your consultation sessions?

[Tom Isaac]

Yes, they did.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Why would the government not acquiesce then to a demand for language that was more specific?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Is this a question to an individual?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

To Mr. Isaac, of course. He's been answering all the questions here and he's doing a great job.

[Tom Isaac]

Thank you.

NTI did bring forward this particular language at the working group table.

At the time the rationale we gave in response was the same one that I just provided. When we looked at the language in the land claim agreement dealing with “determines in its judgment”, we thought that was more analogous to the word “opinion” than “determination” or “judgment”. When the legislative drafters looked at the language of “judgment”, “determination”, or “opinion”, they found that in other circumstances of a similar type of decision by a board, the statute book typically used the word “opinion”. That was the rationale behind the choice.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

At the very smallest level in these consultations you took forward with it, I would like to know where you actually made any concessions to the people who are actually going to have to deal with this legislation every day on an ongoing basis.

I'll leave that as a rhetorical question because I know, Mr. Chairman, the other side is starting to rustle with anxiety over my questioning. I'm sorry that these are all....

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Bevington, it's not the types of questions in terms of the more abstract in terms of the negotiations. We're talking about technical aspects of the bill now, so I think it's important that you restrain yourself to questions with regard to the technical aspects.

Not seeing any other speakers with regard to this amendment, I should just indicate that if amendment NDP-19 is successful, it will therefore impact amendment NDP-27. Amendment NDP-27 won't be able to be put.

We're voting on amendment NDP-19.

(Amendment negatived)

We're on amendment NDP-20.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

There are two aspects to this piece.

We're suggesting that the language be changed to say “project involves a matter of significant national”, and so on.

I would note that in the French version, the word “importante” is used, and an English equivalent of that would be “significant”.

With regard to the rationale for changing it, again I'm going to refer to the NTI submission. There are some concerns that without the significant national interest or important national interest, it could impact on the criteria. They say:

Under the NLCA, the Minister may not send a project proposal to a federal panel rather than NIRB on the basis of Canada’s national interest unless the interest in question is “important”. This qualifier is missing from ss. 94(1)(a)(i). The omission creates confusion as to whether the Bill’s criterion for this decision could be looser than the NLCA criterion. In keeping with the expectation that Parliament intends the Bill to be transparently consistent with the Agreement, the Bill should confine the criterion expressly to matters of “important” national interest.

I've used the word “significant” rather than “important” because of the translation issues.

Again, it's a matter of ensuring that Bill C-47 is consistent with the language in the NLCA. That's why I am proposing this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Not seeing any additional speakers to amendment NDP-20, we'll vote on it.

(Amendment negatived)

We have amendment NDP-21.