Environment Committee on May 22nd, 2018

[Christine Loth-Bown]

Sure. As a matter of practice, under the current system there are cases in which there are concerns about the release of particular knowledge. Examples of this, which were brought up by another member earlier, would be cases involving a traditional hunting and fishing area, and not wanting to disclose that type of information. The agency will enter into discussions with both the proponent and the keeper of that knowledge, allowing the proponent to understand the nature of the information but not the specifics of it. We actually enter into discussions to see if there's a way to broker the information sharing without divulging the information in a way that could then make it unprotected in terms of its traditional or indigenous use.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

How would the proponent of your project even know there is some information that the decision-maker has upon which they will make their decision without some base level of disclosure?

[Christine Loth-Bown]

The basic parameters of the information are made available. When it's an agency-led assessment, a proponent will know the inputs. It's the specific details or the site location or the sacredness of the information that's thereby protected. In panel situations, information comes before the panel and then we have those closed-door discussions.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Theoretically, if a project were rejected substantively because of traditional or indigenous knowledge, information that first nations have come forward with and want to protect, how would the proponent know that was the basis?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm going to butt in because I think she's answered that question.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

No, she hasn't answered that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

She did.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I thought—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

How would the proponent in those circumstances know that the decision has been based on traditional knowledge? Is there anything compelling the decision-maker to disclose it?

[Christine Loth-Bown]

Decisions are based on reports. A full report goes forward that's made publicly available, and all the information that was taken into the decision-making is disclosed in that public report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Just not the details.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You understand that this is extraordinary, even though it may be justified, provided the right safeguards are in place. I'm not sure those safeguards are in place.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

In proposed paragraph 119(2)(b), “for use in legal proceedings”, that's by whom? Does that mean the Government of Canada can violate the confidentiality because a first nation has taken them to court? I don't understand what proposed paragraph 119(2)(c) means. What are the “prescribed circumstances”? That's like a cannon hole through the whole thing.

[Christine Loth-Bown]

In proposed paragraph (a), obviously, it's that the information is publicly available. Proposed paragraph (b) is there because panel-type functions are allowed to call forward witnesses, just as courts are allowed to, so we need to make sure that, for procedural fairness, there is the ability to disclose the information so there are exceptions there. Finally, proposed paragraph (c) is if it's “authorized” in that particular “circumstance”, so...may enter into a discussion with the individual having the knowledge in order to be able to disclose it and authorize the disclosure of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I understand the concerns people have. I think we've had some reasonable answers to the questions. Now we need to call the vote.

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I've already indicated the rationale underpinning the series of changes that have been proposed to achieve protection of indigenous knowledge in the context of assessments. LIB-63 seeks to build on just that. For efficiency's sake, I wonder if it makes sense to consider LIB-61, LIB-63, LIB-64, and LIB-65 together.

There's also a new motion. We could go one by one, but because there are four, this would save us a lot of time.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I'm new here and I would be completely lost if we try to do this. I would like to handle them one at a time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Right. Let's just do them one at a time.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I would move to vote on LIB-61.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Just so that you know, LIB-61 will apply to LIB-64 because that's a consequential amendment. Just look at LIB-64 when you're voting on LIB-61 because they tie together.

We're on LIB-61. We're going to do that other one in a minute.

Shall the amendment carry?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I'd like a recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay. I'm going to want you to say that a little faster. I'm giving you the chance to get in your seat and get sorted.

We have a request for a recorded vote.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Amendment LIB-64 is written totally differently from LIB-61. LIB-61 says “a committee”, which is probably correct. LIB-64 says “the committee”. What's “the committee”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

That's a fair question.

Let's have the specialists, the experts, comment.

Go ahead.