Environment Committee on April 24th, 2018

[The Chair (Mrs. Deborah Schulte (King—Vaughan, Lib.)), Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Welcome everyone.

I want to start the session, because we have two panels and we want to make sure we give as much time as we can for questioning, because I know there are lots of interesting questions that people want to delve into.

I'd like to introduce our three panel groups. We have, from the Nunatsiavut Government, Andrea Hoyt, Environmental Assessment Manager with the Department of Lands and Natural Resources. From Makivik Corporation, we have Mark O'Connor, Resource Management Coordinator, Resource Development Department. We have two witnesses on teleconference for the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, speaking from Inuvik, Northwest Territories. We have Kate Darling, General Counsel, and we have Jennifer Lam, Resource Management Coordinator, Inuvialuit Game Council.

It's always a challenge for us to remember that there are those on the telephone. We tried to do it by video link and the quality wasn't good enough to be able to have a decent picture, so rather than having the disruption of that cutting in and out, we decided we would just go with a teleconference. Why don't we start off with the teleconference, if that's okay? We always worry about technology failing us and we want to make sure we get their testimony in.

Who would like to start? Can you please introduce yourselves when you're talking on the phone, so we know who's talking? We'll get used to who's talking once we recognize your voices, but if you could introduce yourselves before you speak, that would be great.

Thank you. The floor is yours.

[Kate Darling, General Counsel, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning—I think it's still morning there—to the members of the committee and our fellow organizations who are there with you today.

My name is Kate Darling and, as you mentioned, I am General Counsel for the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. I'm joined by my colleague Jen Lam from the Inuvialuit Game Council.

IRC and IGC represent the rights of the Inuvialuit under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. We are here speaking today in representation of those rights.

We do apologize for joining you only by phone this morning. We recognize that it's very difficult to communicate complex ideas over the telephone. We did work with your logistics team to try for a video conference, but our upload speed is too slow here in Inuvik still. As you probably have heard from other participants in the past in your committee work, connectivity is a constant frustration for us here in the north.

Our disembodied voices are but one demonstration of how many of our Arctic communities are both geographically and technologically a fair way from the capital. Nevertheless, thank you for giving us the opportunity to present the perspectives of IRC and the game council on Bill C-69 today.

I'd like to start by providing a brief bit of context for our comments. We'll then lead you through the key issues that the Inuvialuit want to see addressed through this legislation. Then you'll hear from me briefly again at the end.

I should say that we both feel that this bill is an opportunity and that the review process was a thorough one, which brought together many ideas that we hope will see the light of day in the legislation that is ultimately passed. For context, the Inuvialuit settlement region is located in the western Arctic segment of Inuit Nunangat or the Inuit homeland, which includes the land, ice, and waters of the Mackenzie Delta, the Beaufort Sea, and the Arctic Ocean.

The Inuvialuit initiated land claim negotiations with the Government of Canada in the early 1970s. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement was given effect on June 25, 1984. It is a modern land claim agreement within the meaning of subsection 35(3) of the Constitution Act 1982.

The massive effort of connecting remote communities and settling the land claim came in response to increasing and relatively unfettered development activity in the Inuvialuit settlement region and the permissive federal policies that supported this kind of activity in frontier land, at the time. The agreement that resulted, as IRC chair and CEO Duane Ningaqsiq Smith regularly reminds us, belongs not just to Inuvialuit, but also to Canada. Each party carries a—

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Hold on a moment, please.

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Chair, since the interpreter is having trouble understanding the witness, he has not been able to interpret her testimony into French.

I don't know how we could improve the communication. No doubt the interpreters are doing their best, but there is a communication problem. This violates my rights as a parliamentarian.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I understand. Maybe we can slow down a bit. It means the testimony will go a little bit longer, but I think we can accommodate this problem. I'm hoping that slowing it down a bit will give the interpreters a chance.

Can we just give it a try at a slower pace to see whether that might work better?

You can let us know very quickly whether it's helping or not.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

For my own part I don't have a problem, but I invite you to ask the translator what the solution is, for the best translation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I can't communicate with them. I'll suspend and see what we can do with the translation.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

No, it's okay. Try for the best.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Going forward, let's slow it down and see whether our translators can keep up.

We will resume.

[Kate Darling]

In a nutshell, what I'd like to convey with the context is that the Inuvialuit Final Agreement was negotiated in response to the very thing that part 1 of Bill C-69 seeks to address. While it was negotiated some 34 years ago, it remains relevant to the same forces at work today.

The IFA or Inuvialuit Final Agreement is structured on principles of sustainability. The stated objectives of the IFA are to preserve Inuvialuit cultural identity and values in a changing northern society, to enable Inuvialuit to be equal and meaningful participants in a northern and national economy and society, and to protect and preserve the Arctic wildlife, environment, and biological productivity. In other words, the very purposes outlined in proposed paragraphs 6(1)(a) and (b) in part 1 of Bill C-69 are those that were incorporated in the final agreement in 1984.

To achieve these goals, and recognizing the development to which Inuvialuit needed to respond at the time, the IFA established, in section 11, an impact assessment system that is triggered at a low threshold. As Jen will explain now, it has worked.

[Jennifer Lam, Resource Management Coordinator, Inuvialuit Game Council, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to present. Thank you to the committee members.

My name is Jen Lam, as Kate mentioned, and I will be making remarks on behalf of the Inuvialuit Game Council.

As Kate mentioned, the IFA sets out a robust and inclusive impact assessment process, which has proven to be effective since it was enacted in 1984. The IFA's environmental impact screening committee and environmental impact review board processes support the purposes and objectives outlined in the proposed act.

Canada's interests have been and will continue to be fully represented through membership and appointment of chairs at these boards, as well as through the authority of the relevant government body to approve or reject a proposal. The Inuvialuit Game Council feels that the existing IFA processes have established a comprehensive and robust environmental impact assessment framework that represents both Canada's and Inuvialuit's interests. The IFA processes also have the confidence of the Inuvialuit that they will appropriately consider and incorporate their views into the assessment.

Under CEAA 2012, unnecessary complication and duplication of processes were put into place. Inuvialuit Game Council on a number of occasions voiced their concerns to the government at the time. The council hopes this review will address the issues of duplication and provide clarity and recognize the processes established under the IFA as the appropriate processes for assessing effects of proposed development in the Inuvialuit settlement region.

I'll turn it back to Kate.

[Kate Darling]

Thank you, Jen.

What we're trying to convey here today is that parallel impact assessment systems, both of which involve federal representatives, are a recipe for confusion, delay, and expense. They violate the “one project, one review” principle that has been accepted by Canada.

More fundamentally, though, the imposition of a second system inevitably undermines the screening and review process that Canada and Inuvialuit promised to uphold at the beginning. This is because when you have duplicate systems and they are working their way through the process, there is a potential for differing outcomes, differing recommendations, or differing timelines. If a recommendation is coming from a process based on land claims, and alternatively from an agency-based process, then the ultimate decision-maker has to decide which one to accept, if both systems are undertaken.

Likewise, our feeling is that a proposed substitution option, under proposed section 31 of the proposed bill, which leaves substitution to the discretion of the minister on a case-by-case basis, introduces uncertainty and likely delays for the proponent, for the stakeholders, and for the regulators, as the substituted process may take time to commence.

Looking at the issue holistically, having competing processes is not conducive to effective review or responsible development. However, we see that proposed section 4 of the proposed bill may offer a solution for us, and I will allow, of course, my fellow Inuit organization colleague to speak to their views and their specific situation with respect to the provisions of the bill. But for Inuvialuit, proposed section 4 may hold a clue. However, in its current form, this clause, for the ease of the group, refers to the non-application of the act, which is something that both IRC and the game council have been advocating for some time.

Currently the provision states, “This Act does not apply in respect of physical activities to be carried out wholly within lands described in Schedule 2.”

What we would recommend is some additional text that specifically identifies the non-application of the act to jurisdictions as defined in the proposed bill, where a designated project is subject to a process established by a land claims agreement for assessing impacts of that project.

In a nutshell, that's what Inuvialuit have been advocating for. It's relatively simple.

We will leave it there and open it up for questions now or at the end.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

What we're going to do is hear from all the witnesses, and then we'll open it up to questions.

For those who are in the room, I have some helpful tools. When you have about a minute left, I'll put up the yellow card. It just gives you a sense of where you're at. When I put up the red card, it means you are out of time, so just wrap up your thoughts as quickly as you can, please.

Thank you.

Who would like to go next?

Ms. Hoyt, the floor is yours.

[Andrea Hoyt, Environmental Assessment Manager, Department of Lands and Natural Resources, Nunatsiavut Government]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for inviting us here today to discuss Bill C-69.

I would like to start by recognizing that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Haudenosaunee and Anishinabek peoples.

My name is Andrea Hoyt. I'm the environmental assessment manager with the Nunatsiavut government, and I work out of our Makkovik office.

The Nunatsiavut Government is the regional Inuit government established through the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. The Nunatsiavut Government is currently in the midst of a general election. That is why our minister cannot appear before you today and has sent me in his place. The Nunatsiavut Government has jurisdiction in relation to the environmental assessment of projects on Inuit-owned lands in northern Labrador and a role to play in environmental assessment of projects in the Labrador Inuit settlement area, outside Labrador Inuit lands, as well as projects that occur outside our settlement area that have impacts on our rights and territory.

We have participated in the processes and procedures leading up to the introduction of Bill C-69, including providing comments on the Government of Canada's discussion paper in response to the final report of the expert panel on the review of environmental assessment processes.

The Nunatsiavut Government's understanding of Bill C-69 leads us to believe that we have not been heard or that the Government of Canada has not accommodated our concerns. I am here today because the Inuit of Nunatsiavut believe that you will hear them and amend this bill in order to do what is right.

Our greatest concerns, and those on which we focused our written submission, include the necessity to provide for free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for projects that affect them; mechanisms for harmonization to achieve the goal of one project, one assessment; sustainability and how that ties to the public interest; and the way that the legislated planning phase is articulated or not in the act.

The Nunatsiavut Government wants to be clear about the importance of indigenous consent at critical decision points in the impact assessment process under the bill. Perhaps the best way to explain the importance of consent is with the following statement.

It is an offence, under proposed section 144, to contravene proposed section 7 of the impact assessment act, which prohibits a proponent from doing anything that might impact the physical or cultural heritage of the indigenous peoples of Canada or cause a change to the health, social, or economic conditions of the indigenous peoples of Canada. Under proposed subsection 7(3), the proponent can do things that impact the physical or cultural heritage of the indigenous peoples of Canada or cause change to the health, social, or economic conditions of the indigenous peoples of Canada, under authorization of the agency, under proposed section 16(1) or a ministerial statement under proposed section 65. As the indigenous peoples do not participate in a decision referred to in proposed section 16(1) or leading to a ministerial statement, a proponent can impact their physical or cultural heritage or their health, social, or economic conditions without their consent and without committing an offence.

It is difficult to understand how the federal government finds this acceptable. To be blunt about it, this bill continues the practice of using the power of laws to license the slow and steady genocide of Canada's indigenous peoples in the name of the public interest. We are asking you to stop that, here and now, in this bill.

The provisions in the bill to harmonize impact assessment processes are deficient. There are limited options in the tool box and co-operation appears to be limited to reacting to proposed projects rather than taking a proactive approach. The principle of one project, one assessment should be clearly articulated as a guiding principle for intergovernmental co-operation and must be addressed at two general levels.

The first is the establishment, through intergovernmental agreements, of co-operative frameworks that harmonize assessment, independent of any project, with a view to minimizing, if not avoiding, process overlaps, duplication, and multiple assessments.

The second requires, in a project-specific context, interjurisdictional arrangements to co-operate in a project assessment, usually currently framed as an intergovernmental agreement establishing a joint review panel.

The impact assessment act does not address the first level and that is a fundamental failure. The second is inadequately addressed, largely through the offers to co-operate with other jurisdictions, which are made by the agency during the planning phase. A “tick in the box” offer can effectively download the responsibility to others.

Substitution appears to be considered the apex of co-operation in the act, but the impact assessment act does not provide a coherent and transparent process for its accomplishment, nor are there provisions for securing indigenous consent on the substitution of an impact assessment process affecting indigenous rights.

Canada has repeatedly stated its commitment to sustainability, including in the preamble to the proposed impact assessment act. The Nunatsiavut Government agrees that sustainability has to be a core principle of good impact assessment decisions, but of equal importance, indigenous peoples have to be recognized as integral to sustainability.

Parliament has an obligation to ensure that indigenous peoples and indigenous communities are sustainable. Our rights and cultures are not to be sacrificed to sustain others. The sustainability question must require that decision-makers identify how a project will promote the environmental, health, social, cultural, and economic sustainability of affected indigenous peoples. The definition of sustainability in Bill C-69 is insufficient, and we have proposed other language in our written submission.

The decision at the end of an impact assessment process must truly acknowledge trade-offs and justify decisions. The concept of sustainability includes indigenous peoples, and decision-makers must account explicitly for the substantive effect of authorizations on indigenous peoples, their rights, and their future generations.

Decision-makers must be required to justify any trade-offs between factors deemed to be in the public interest and impacts on indigenous peoples or their rights. Recent experience, particularly with respect to the Muskrat Falls project, is that political decision-making occurs in a black box, and the result is decisions that sacrifice our rights and interests, accompanied by a bare assurance that indigenous rights and interests were considered.

Assurances are unacceptable. Decisions under the act should explain how the minister accounted for all the proposed section 63 factors, including explicitly for any substantive effects the determination may have in relation to an affected indigenous group. The minister must be required to explain any trade-offs between impacts that the designated project may have on an indigenous group or their rights. The minister must also be required to specify which monitoring measures and aspects of follow-up programs must be designed so as to prevent or mitigate impacts that the designated project may have on an indigenous group or on indigenous rights.

In regard to the planning phase, the expert panel's report, “Building Common Ground”, had a well-articulated planning phase, which was designed to build consensus on how the impact assessment would be undertaken, including consent of indigenous peoples. This planning phase was to bring people together early in project planning to share knowledge and agree on what does and does not require future detailed assessment in the impact study.

The planning phase was seen as providing an opportunity for indigenous groups and other governments with impact assessment responsibilities to agree on a specific process adapted to the particular project with its potential impacts, while also accounting for the various assessment regimes that would apply.

The planning phase in Bill C-69 in the impact assessment act proposed sections 10 to 15, falls far short of this vision. There are no details on the process, products, or parties. There's no requirement to develop an impact assessment plan, a conduct of assessment agreement, a public participation plan, or tailored impact assessment guidelines. In fact, there are no clear deliverables from this process, and there is no requirement to seek agreement of affected indigenous peoples.

Nunatsiavut Government has been involved in the legislative and regulatory reviews for Canada's environmental legislation over almost two years. Our messages have been very consistent. This is not a time to tweak legislation that doesn't work, but an opportunity to create something that truly works toward reconciliation, while helping Canada move toward an economy that meets the needs of the current generation without compromising future generations' ability to meet their own needs.

The legislation must integrate free, prior, and informed consent in order to work toward reconciliation with Canada's indigenous peoples. The legislation must allow treaties and land claim agreements to be respected and fully implemented.

Indigenous peoples have a tradition of sustainable, respectful development and use of the land and resources in their traditional territories. For the federal government to fully partner with indigenous peoples, there must be a shift from mitigating the worst negative impacts toward using impact assessment as a planning tool for true sustainability.

We have made several specific recommendations in our written submission, proposing amendments we think will strengthen the act and improve impact assessment in Canada.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have, either about what I have just said today or about what we put in our written submission.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much for that.

We will hear from Mr. O'Connor, and then we will go to questions.

[Mark O'Connor, Resource Management Coordinator, Resource Development Department, Makivik Corporation]

Madam Chair, honourable members, I thank you for the opportunity to be here today and hope that my input will be useful in your deliberations.

I'm here representing the Makivik Corporation with regard to BillC-69, and particularly with regard to the impact assessment act included therein.

Makivik Corporation is the birthright organization established in 1975 to represent Nunavik Inuit ethnic rights, pursuant to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It was the first modern land claim agreement in Canada. Makivik, in Inuktitut, means “To Rise Up”, which was a very fitting name for the organization mandated to protect Nunavik Inuit rights, interests, and financial compensation that were provided by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

Most recently, Makivik also signed the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement, which has been in effect since 2008. Through this agreement, Makivik, on behalf of the Nunavummiut, the residents of Nunavik, own 80% of all of the islands, including both the surface and subsurface rights in the Nunavik Marine Region, the region defined under the land claims agreement.

Because of habit I will clarify now that the JBNQA is the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and NILCA is the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement, and I usually use the acronyms so there's a chance they'll slip out.

I am a resource management coordinator for Makivik in the resource development department. I've been entrusted by the Inuit of Nunavik to speak here on their behalf and when it comes to environmental issues and their potential impacts on Inuit rights. I am not here today to provide an in-depth review of the proposed legislation or its potential impacts on Nunavik Inuit, but instead will speak to you about the core concepts about which our understanding of the impact assessment process are based.

Nunavik Inuit are not opposed to development. They recognize that large-scale development projects can represent significant economic potential for our regions and our communities. However, we also recognize that even the smallest projects can have significant impacts on the environment and on the Inuit way of life. This is especially true when we consider the fact that Nunavik is one of the most pristine areas in Canada, and that wildlife harvesting is still a major component of food security.

Because of this there is an expectation within our communities that development projects will not be allowed to proceed unless every precaution has been taken to ensure that they are compatible with our understanding and respect for the environment, and that they uphold the maintenance of Inuit livelihoods, traditional practices, and the cultural identity.

As you know, I represent a region where governments have historically taken a top-down, colonialist approach to determining what is in the public interest. Of course, I am referring to events such as the High Arctic relocation, residential schools, and the dog slaughter, all of which were seen by governments at the time as being a benefit to Inuit. It's safe to say that Nunavik Inuit do not generally trust southerners and governments to determine what is in their best interest. The assurance that impact assessments will be conducted by people who are familiar with the region, the people, their culture, and their day-to-day reality is therefore critical.

For this reason the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the NILCA have laid a framework for environmental, social, and impact assessments to be conducted by bodies whose members give Inuit a direct role in the assessments. These bodies are essentially tasked with applying federal laws of general application in a manner that is consistent with the particularities of our region, and in a culturally appropriate way. It's critical that the provisions and spirits of these agreements be upheld by any federal legislation that's put in place by the government, including Bill C-68 and BillC-69.

Last week you heard a similar message from Mr. Bill Namagoose, who was here representing the Crees of Eeyou Istchee. He provided you with a relatively detailed overview of the federal social environmental assessment regime that was included in section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Mr. Namagoose correctly explained that under this regime the COFEX should be the sole body responsible for federal assessments on the Cree territory of the JBNQA.

I assume that you're already familiar with the JBNQA, but I will nonetheless take the opportunity to remind you that section 23 of the agreement is actually essentially a carbon copy of the regime that Mr. Namagoose presented to you, the main difference being that the body responsible for assessments is called the COFEX-North and applies to the Inuit territory.

The COFEX-North's membership is composed of representatives who are appointed by the Inuit and by the federal government.

Similarly, under the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement, the Nunavik Marine Region Planning Commission and the Nunavik Marine Region Impact Review Board were created to oversee the impact assessment process in the offshore region. For each of these bodies, half of the members are appointed based on nominations put forward by Nunavik Inuit through Makivik Corporation, and the other half are appointed by governments.

In either case, the impact assessment regimes that are included within our land claims agreements are the outcome of extensive and careful negotiations. They are sensitive to the particular circumstances of the region and have been constructed with the rights of Nunavik Inuit in mind. Perhaps more importantly, they are relevant to and trusted by Nunavik Inuit. There is no need to add another layer of federal assessment to them.

The written submission we have provided to you outlines a number of inconsistencies between the text of Bill C-69 and the provisions of our land claims agreement. These relate to matters such as the project screening phase, the impact assessment agency's role in impact assessment, legislated timelines, and so on.

A relatively straightforward example of that is the fact that, under the JBNQA, a project screening committee was established to determine whether or not to assess projects that are not automatically subject to or excluded from review. Within the proposed act, this would fall upon the agency to do. There are some inconsistencies, and you'll understand that we can't support the creation of federal law and legislation that conflicts with the provisions of our constitutionally protected rights and processes.

Although we acknowledge that the proposed impact assessment act includes provisions that allow for substitution or harmonization, we are concerned that they won't be implemented to their full potential, leaving us with an extra layer of federal impact assessment.

Mr. Namagoose proposed last week that the new legislation allow for a carve-out of the JBNQA's section 22 process as it applies to the Cree territory. I will repeat his request today and ask that the process for federal environmental and social impact assessments that was described in section 23 of the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement and the process defined in sections 6 and 7 of the NILCA be recognized explicitly in the act. Failing that, it is critical that negotiations to establish the appropriate regulations or agreements be initiated such that the direct participation of Nunavik Inuit in all impact assessment decisions is retained.

I won't venture too far into the debate about consent at this stage. I recognize it's an issue that was debated at length here, in other forums, and in our written submission to this committee. However, I will note that we are troubled by the fact that the proposed legislation does not require the minister—or the agency, as the case may be—to obtain the consent of indigenous groups before authorizing works to proceed.

We certainly agree that the proposed early engagement phase will be beneficial towards obtaining the consent, but as Andrea outlined, we are worried that the act will allow for unilateral decisions by the minister that can affect the constitutionally protected rights of indigenous peoples without needing to obtain their consent.

Finally, I wish to draw your attention to another organization that was born out of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement—the Kativik Environmental Advisory Committee. The committee is composed of equal representation from the Inuit, the Quebec government, and the Government of Canada. Within the act, the advisory committee is defined as a consultative body to responsible governments and is the preferential and official forum for responsible governments concerning their involvement in the formulation of laws and regulations related to the environmental and social protection regime. It is mandated to oversee the administration and management of the regime through the free exchange of respective views, concerns, and information.

While Makivik Corporation has been actively engaged in this file for some time now, it appears that the Kativik Environmental Advisory Committee has been greatly underutilized by the Government of Canada throughout this process. I must therefore stress the importance that you take the necessary steps to engage with them before the new legislation is adopted. They have been involved in the implementation of the JBNQA impact assessment regime for over 40 years and have tremendous insights to offer.

More importantly though, their participation is required through the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Chair, before we proceed to questions, I'm concerned that we don't have the briefs yet for any of these witnesses. I imagine they're going through translation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Yes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It's going to be very difficult for us to submit any necessary amendments based on what they're asking for if we can't have those well in advance, because then we have to go through the drafters, and then it has to be translated, and then submitted. I'm wondering if we could have some kind of idea of when we're going to have these briefs and if it's not by tomorrow, I think we need to extend the deadline to submit amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I know that they are working diligently to get them to us as fast as possible, and you are seeing them coming through. My understanding is that it's their expectation that they should be to us before the end of the week, or by the end of the week.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

By the end of the week is not adequate, so I am asking that the deadline for submission of the amendments be extended because I want to give due consideration to the recommendations, and I don't feel that I can until I actually see what's proposed in their briefs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We are having quite a few witnesses in front of us, so obviously we're getting it first-hand to be able to hear and speak with them directly, and the briefs will be following up. I'm asking for a bit of an update here on when we can get them, and I'll work on that with the clerk.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That's not the answer to my question. I'm asking that the deadline for the submission of amendments be extended to a later date.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We have agreed on a process on dates and how we're going to be.... The most important part is obviously hearing from everybody, getting those briefs. My understanding is that you will get those briefs before the deadline, and we'll have the weekend. Monday until four o'clock I think is when we have to get them in, so there will be some time.

Let me continue to discuss this with the clerk and get the dates so that I can inform the committee better about when we'll have all the briefs in front of us. Then we can talk about that.

Our first questioner is Mr. Fisher.