Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 6th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We will go, then, to the question on the NDP amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 47 agreed to)

(On clause 48--Report on the activities of the Tribunal)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

This is reference 3176957, and speaking to this particular amendment, it simply makes it mandatory for the tribunal to report to the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

From the officials, are there any comments on that?

[Brenda MacKenzie]

The purpose of the words “at the request of the Minister” are to require the tribunal to submit a report at any point that the minister considers it necessary. For example, if the minister is concerned about emerging information about the size or the quantum of the damages that are coming forward, the minister can then require the tribunal to provide this information to the House. So it is ensuring that information from the tribunal is presented to the House when the minister thinks it appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'd just like to make the point that I think this is an important provision to be left as it is. It actually limits.... It puts the tribunal under the minister's authority, so that, as Ms. MacKenzie has pointed out, when the minister requests information, the tribunal is required to provide it. If we make the change, the tribunal can provide its report at its leisure, and the minister does not have any say over that.

I think it's important that we leave clause 48 as it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

We'll go to the vote on the NDP amendment to clause 48.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 48 to 51 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 52--Public hearings)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

On clause 52, go ahead, Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Chair, we have another amendment, 3176874. This speaks to ensuring that the public well understands the operations of the tribunal, including its ability to go into sessions that are private.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there any response from the officials on that?

Go ahead, Ms. MacKenzie.

[Brenda MacKenzie]

May I simply explain the purpose behind clause 52? For example, in the case of a medical claim it is quite likely that sensitive medical information could be divulged, and that would most likely be the situation in which a tribunal would not want that person's identity or the nature of their personal troubles to be disclosed in public.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. St. Amand, do you have a comment?

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think the proposed amendment from Mr. Bevington would render the clause so ambiguous that it would make no sense. I think the amendment should be defeated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Let's go to a vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 52 to 55 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 56--Appeal)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Go ahead on clause 56, Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd refer to 3176703.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We don't seem to have that in the package. If you could provide it, we will read it in both official languages--or Mr. Bevington, could you read it both official languages?

Either one would do. If you could bring it up here, we would do that.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

In English, it would replace lines 30 and 31 with, following “parties”:

“The panel hearing the appeal may, if in its opinion it is”

In French, it's “elle peut toutefois recevoir des nouveaux éléments”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That doesn't seem to fit. Could we have that up here so we can have a look at it?

Thank you.

We're going to read this amendment in both official languages. The amendment is to clause 56.

[Joann Garbig]

The purpose of the amendment is to delete the words “in exceptional circumstances”.

It takes out the words “in exceptional circumstances”.

That's at lines 32 and 33 of the French version.

I'm going to read the text. Que le projet de loi C-5, à l'article 56, soit modifié par substitution, aux lignes 32 et 33, page 15, de ce qui suit:

« elle peut toutefois recevoir de nouveaux éléments»

That Bill C-5 in clause 56 be amended by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 15 with the following:

parties. The panel hearing the appeal may, if in its opinion it is

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Could you read subclause 56(3) with the amendment as it would read now?

[Joann Garbig]

(3) The appeal is to be heard on the basis of the record of the panel whose decision is appealed, and on the submissions of interested parties. The panel hearing the appeal may, if in its opinion it is essential in the interests of justice to do so, admit additional evidence or testimony.

In French, it reads as follows:

(3) La formation entend l’appel en se fondant sur le dossier de la formation initialement saisie et sur les observations des parties intéressées; elle peut toutefois recevoir de nouveaux éléments de preuve ou entendre des témoignages si, à son avis, cela est indispensable à la bonne administration de la justice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You have heard the amendment. Is there any comment or discussion on the amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clauses 56 to 61 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 62--Limit of payments)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Go ahead, Mr. Bevington.