Evidence of meeting #112 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agency.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
If it's called, we do a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Chair, this amendment specifically comes from the Grand Council of the Crees, who provided a brief and also appeared before us. They presented the opinion that, as with the Mackenzie basin agreement, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement should similarly be referenced.
Why do they argue that? Well, their agreement, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, is a modern treaty, and therefore it is binding and it takes precedence over any potentially incompatible legislation. I'm advised that, pursuant to that agreement, Canada is required to develop, in close co-operation with the Cree representatives, the required agreements and regulations contemplated under parts 1 and 2 of Bill C-69. They provide specific factors where federal impact assessment must be triggered for any project that is on, or partly on, their territory. That's in the treaty. Treaty members must be appointed to all federal and provincial assessment and review processes as per the treaty, and it must be led by the environmental and social impact review committee under the treaty. Any modifications to the provisions of the treaty must have the consent of the signatories.
I don't think I need to read it into the record, unless you'd like me to do so.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
The proposal has been circulated. Essentially, they are asking for a new section, proposed section 4.1:
The following physical activities carried out partly or completely on the territory of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement that have effects within federal jurisdiction are deemed to be designated projects:
Then they give details thereunder.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Do we have any legal expertise here at the table at all from our officials to be able to tell us whether the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement actually has the status of a treaty in Canada?
4:05 p.m.
Jean-Sébastien Rochon Counsel, Department of Justice
Yes. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is usually considered the very first modern treaty with indigenous groups in Canada.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Christine Loth-Bown Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
In the definition of “jurisdiction”, actually, land claims and modern treaties are incorporated into the bill. Clause 4, as interpreted in the legislation, does give the opportunity to exclude the legislation on areas where it's so chosen to be, by adding to the schedule.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
I'm suggesting that the creation of a schedule under clause 4 does allow for those modern treaty and land claims groups to identify the opportunity to have the legislation excluded from their territory should they choose to pursue that.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Could I ask for a further clarification? Then why is only one treaty excluded? Why is it only the Mackenzie basin agreement? Surely they would be covered by that as well. Why did the government decide to include only one modern treaty?
4:05 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
In terms of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, we've been having discussions with the Cree for some time in terms of situations on how to apply the impact assessment to their treaty area. I don't want to get into a long part of it, but there are different elements. Depending on the type of impact assessment and the location within their treaty area, sometimes it triggers the federal government, and sometimes it triggers the provincial government. It's a complex structure. We've been working through that with them on how to apply it, and have indicated to them that if they so choose, it can be excluded, and can be done under proposed section 4. We've had these conversations with the Inuvialuit as well, that proposed section 4, which refers to schedule 2, offers the opportunity to have it excluded should they so choose.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Are you speaking of substitution or are you speaking of a joint review? What are you really saying would happen?
4:05 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
No, I'm speaking of having the law of general application not apply within the treaty territory, should they choose to do impact assessment under their treaty legislation and not have the federal government present there. There's the opportunity to pursue that path through proposed section 4.
4:05 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
It's the “non-application” clause.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Let me just clarify. The intent of this particular amendment that is in front of us, from what I'm hearing said, is that there is already provision within the act to cover this amendment.
4:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Yes, there is provision within the act to have the act not apply within treaty areas by adding to schedule 2.