Evidence of meeting #62 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clauses.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
It's up to you. If you want to ask them a question in discussion over your amendment, that's fine.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Sort of my general questions, and then go to the amendments, if that's okay, because it's hard to do this without talking about the larger picture.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Could I then please say welcome to the officials who are here?
I have a few specific questions, mostly for clarification, that will take us to this amendment, if you'll indulge me. The first is about the definition of the word “Arctic”, which appears on page 316 in the interpretation section 2. It talks about “north of sixty”, which of course makes sense. Then it talks about “south of sixty degrees north latitude but north of the southern limit of the discontinuous permafrost zone”. Is there a concern you might have that the definition is going to change because of the global temperatures and the fact of greenhouse gases and climate change in the north? Is that definition dead on arrival, as it were?
November 26th, 2014 / 5:05 p.m.
Stephen Van Dine Director General, Northern Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Thank you for the question. It's a pleasure to be here to respond.
That definition is currently a part of the Canadian Polar Commission Act in terms of a definition for the Arctic. That definition has been carried through for quite some time. It's an acknowledgement, or it tries to be an acknowledgement, that the north has many different geographical differentiation characteristics. The tree line is a well recognized component in terms of that. Your comments with respect to the changing nature of that are legitimate. As a result we were trying to carry forward with the original definitions as best we could through the CPC legislation and recognizing that in terms of the scope and mandate of this particular institution.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you very much.
Does the polar continental shelf get factored into this? Is it part of the Arctic?
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Northern Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
You're referring to the polar continental shelf program.
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Northern Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
That is a partner organization and we use that entity for our logistic support. We've been using them as early as this past summer for our first field season. They are not scoped into this legislation but are a significant partner.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Northern Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
The impact, from my standpoint, is an operational relationship between ourselves and the polar continental shelf program. We have a very strong working relationship with the polar continental shelf program and they'll continue to be a service provider to this institution.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Is there a link to National Defence in this project, or is it just scientists and civilians who will be part of CHARS?
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Northern Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
There's a range of scientific research components across the federal government that will have the opportunity to work and partner with CHARS on its science and technology agenda. There is no explicit reference to DND, but we hope there will be opportunities for those things that are consistent with the priorities—
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
You mean things that are scientific in nature rather than military in nature, essentially?
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Northern Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I mean scientific in nature. That's correct.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I have two more questions, if I may.
What accountability mechanisms are in this package? I've read the sections of course, but what about accountability to Parliament? Is there an ability here to assess the activities of CHARS? Is there a requirement for CHARS to report to Parliament? I'm not following where that would be, if anywhere.
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Northern Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Thank you.
That question has come up in previous discussions, and I'm happy to respond. I believe some of the proposed amendments speak to that as well.
One of the distinctions between the Canadian Polar Commission's references to reports to Parliament and this particular legislated proposal is that the CPC's references to accountability and reports to Parliament date back to 1991 when that legislation was passed. In this legislation, we are proposing to use modern drafting to be a bit more reference-light, if you will. But that doesn't take away from the substantive nature of reports to Parliament.
Therefore, this institution will have the same requirements to report to Parliament vis-à-vis the report on plans and priorities and the related reporting documents that Parliament will have a chance to look at.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I think that's all.
I will now turn to my amendment, given that context, if I may, Mr. Chair.
Amendment NDP-2 is designed to add additional purpose clauses to the CHARS bill to address certain things that appear to have been left out when the merger of the Canadian Polar Commission happened in this bill. All of the suggested amendments are in that direction. I think they're consistent with what was there before for the polar commission.
In the interest of time, there are two pages of such amendments and I'm not sure it helps anyone to read them. That's the spirit of the amendments, to add what would perhaps inadvertently be taken away upon the merger of these two agencies under this legislation.
That's the method, if you will, in amendment NDP-2.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you very much, Mr. Rankin.
Is there further discussion on this?
Mr. Saxton, go ahead, please.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
In amendment NDP-2, the proposed purpose is in fact narrower and more restrictive than the purpose in the CHARS act. The purpose of CHARS is in fact broader. The powers and functions clause goes into more detail about how CHARS would go about its work. So in fact adopting the amendment, while it looks nice, would actually be detrimental and a step backwards.
For example, proposed paragraphs 6(1)(a) to 6(1)(c) provide that we actually do research and not just disseminate and gather. That is the key difference between what is in the amendment and what the stated purpose of CHARS is.
Perhaps the officials could elaborate on that as well.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Northern Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Thank you.
The member is correct, and I would again describe it as a drafting technique. The proposed reference returns the leading aspect of the purpose section to being the dissemination of knowledge, which is exactly what the Canadian Polar Commission was all about. Bringing it into that frame and then listing the elements below it actually locks in the original mandate of the Canadian Polar Commission and does not extend it to the undertaking of research.
We have drafted it in such a way as to provide the four elements of the purpose in the way it is laid out. It then works with proposed section 6 to give more teeth, if you will, to the research and knowledge-development component. That was the drafting intent behind this particular approach. That's the way it's represented.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you for the explanation. Of course, if that is accurate, then we would support this and withdraw the amendment. But our belief is that there are certain things—I'm just speaking for example to (f), (g), and (h)—that appear to be lacking, strengthening Canada's leadership on Arctic issues, the all-important ability to provide information to Canadians about polar regions and Canadian institutions and associations. At dissemination we've had this in other contexts where government agencies have been deprived. We'll talk about that in a moment with respect to the Canadian public health sections, if you will, the public health officer, where there is no mandate as there used to be, or people thought there was, to do that. This is a similar desire to get that into the jurisdiction of CHARS, enhancing our international profile as a circumpolar nation by fostering international cooperation.
I understand the statutory interpretation point that you put large things out there, these broad categories if you will, but these specific mandate provisions are in our judgement lacking in the current legislation and they are there in a sense to make sure that it's not, as Mr. Saxton said, narrowed but rather broadened.