There are two aspects to this piece.
We're suggesting that the language be changed to say “project involves a matter of significant national”, and so on.
I would note that in the French version, the word “importante” is used, and an English equivalent of that would be “significant”.
With regard to the rationale for changing it, again I'm going to refer to the NTI submission. There are some concerns that without the significant national interest or important national interest, it could impact on the criteria. They say:
Under the NLCA, the Minister may not send a project proposal to a federal panel rather than NIRB on the basis of Canada’s national interest unless the interest in question is “important”. This qualifier is missing from ss. 94(1)(a)(i). The omission creates confusion as to whether the Bill’s criterion for this decision could be looser than the NLCA criterion. In keeping with the expectation that Parliament intends the Bill to be transparently consistent with the Agreement, the Bill should confine the criterion expressly to matters of “important” national interest.
I've used the word “significant” rather than “important” because of the translation issues.
Again, it's a matter of ensuring that Bill C-47 is consistent with the language in the NLCA. That's why I am proposing this amendment.