Evidence of meeting #21 for Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes. Let's talk about G-1. That seems to be the place where we're having most of the conversation.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'll withdraw my amendment, if that's where we're headed.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I see. In that case, if we're proceeding on G-1, we will withdraw L-19.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Thank you. That's very helpful. L-19 is withdrawn as well.
Mr. Jean, are you prepared to move your amendment?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Yes, I am, Mr. Chair.
Starting with proposed subsection 53.1(1), and I will read it in its entirety, and this would be inserted:
The Minister may, after consulting with affected provinces, territories, and first nations, designate a region as a significant area, if in the opinion of the Minister
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
It would add “after consulting with affected provinces, territories, and first nations”.
It could be finessed somewhat, Mr. Chair, but certainly the input is necessary in a consulting—If I can say this, the Constitution requires consultation with first nations nevertheless, but I think it should be put in there.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
If I could check with Mr. Moffet and company, does this inadvertently create any other problems for us, or is that language—? Is it dealt with somewhere else in the act, or does this language cause me problems, the proposed addition?
9:25 a.m.
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
I don't think there are interpretation problems with the language. It's a bureaucratic and political hurdle that the minister has to cross before designating the area. Again, I would remind members that what we're getting at here is not massive new power; all we're getting at is the ability to do research and gather information. With respect, I think you're establishing a fairly high threshold to do fairly mundane activities.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chairman, on the point of consultation with first nations, it would be news to a lot of the first nations I represent that they were meant to be consulted on a lot of the government's actions, because they don't get consulted on most things.
I understand the intention of Mr. Jean's amendment, and the original G-1 is actually better without it. As Mr. Moffet said, we're not talking about some sort of sweeping industrial changes that are going to be imparted. We're only talking about the ability of the government to say there's something significant going on here and we should do a bunch of research into it and provide the communities and the government with more tools to be able to address it.
I guarantee you, to go through a consultation process over something like this is really a recipe for delay. One thing we don't have the luxury of is delay when we're talking about areas that are increasingly affected by climate change. It's to say we know there's a problem going on in the far north, but before we understand it better and apply more funding to it, we're going to consult with the territory, the first nations, and make sure that everybody's on side with the type of research we want to do. That happens across the bureaucratic lines already. The scientists between the federal and the provincial and territorial levels talk about what kinds of projects they most need to do.
I very much appreciate the intention of Mr. Jean's amendment, but I would strongly encourage committee members not to put things into this bill that cause further delay on an issue that we've had far too many years delaying on already. It's just calling for urgency, to say there's a problem in a particular area. Most of those areas have already been identified. It allows the minister to say we're going to put some more research and funding into that, and that will be a benefit to the first nations and to the province and territories as well. Let's not build something in that will cause us to slow this process down.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
All the points are taken. I don't know if Mr. Jean has rethought that at all.
The amendment as amended is currently before the committee. A way to deal with that is to propose a potential subamendment that would change or remove the wording.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'd like to hear from the Liberal member, Mr. McGuinty.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
At first blush I understand Mr. Jean's concern, but I also share the concern of Mr. Moffet and Mr. Cullen, which is that this might inadvertently slow down the designation of a significant area if it requires too onerous a consultation. I don't know what that would mean, Mr. Moffet, particularly if there are cases that are trying to be caught here, in this wording, when the minister may have to designate a region as significant on an urgent basis—if there's a spill; if there's a particular collapse, in fisheries, for example.
I'm trying to weigh this need to consult with the speed with which the minister may have to do something. On the balance of it, I think it might be better not to insert these words because I think it might slow it down, Mr. Chair.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
The options are to vote on the amendment or to propose a subamendment that removes the wording.
Mr. Jean.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Notwithstanding what I've heard here today, I do have some concerns, but the Constitution makes it clear that first nations have to be consulted before anything is done with their land. That's written in law, and I don't think there's any question there.
I would move that my friendly amendment be withdrawn. I'm withdrawing it, so if you want to make the same one, feel free.