Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 12th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is the 60th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Today we continue clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-47.

You'll see that we have folks from the department here again. We want to thank the officials for joining us. We appreciate their willingness to answer questions if some arise.

(On clause 2)

We are considering clause 2. Right now we'll go back to amendment NDP-23. If people are looking as to where.... We are falling into the itinerary. I don't know if there's somebody that might want to move that one.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I am moving it.

Mr. Chair, this is again about the scoping of projects. They're recommending that the unnecessary steps be removed from the scoping process. In particular, in providing for the NIRB and the panel to determine the scope of the project before it's assessed, the bill includes several steps that are unnecessary.

This is specifically dealing with some of those unnecessary steps, including unnecessary mandatory scoping prior to review, unnecessary commission reassessments, other than the determination of plan conformity after scoping prior to review, unnecessary NIRB re-screening of activities that have been added by NIRB or the panel as a result of a scoping determination.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I'm not seeing anybody looking to speak to that.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Perhaps I could ask the government witnesses, if you don't mind, if they could give us some indication of whether this would enhance cumulative impact assessments with this amendment, including further worker activity. Would that be something that would also be enhanced? That's what we're maybe getting at here as well.

[Janice Traynor, Environmental Policy Analyst, Environmental Policies and Studies, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

The board can include other activities in the current version of the bill as well. Yes, I think that cumulative impact assessments would be important.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Without this, would further worker activity be permitted in the act for assessment as part of the overall assessment?

[Janice Traynor]

Yes, it would.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you. Not seeing any additional speakers to that, we'll vote on amendment NDP-23.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next is amendment NDP-24.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Chair, this is about language consistency, particularly in paragraph (b), where it says:

(b) the project has been resubmitted to the responsible Minister, who has determined, in accordance with the applicable criteria provided in section 94, that the review should be conducted by the Board.

Again, it's about language consistency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Not seeing anybody looking to speak to it, we'll vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next is amendment NDP-25.

If somebody wants to introduce it, I have some comments with regard to it.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I'll introduce it, and I want to speak to it briefly.

This is with regard to a recommendation that business proprietary information be removed as an independent ground for closing an otherwise public hearing.

The rationale for this is that it's not appropriate to empower an environmental review body to close a public hearing in order to protect business proprietary information that is neither confidential, privileged in law, nor harmful to a witness. Those are the pieces that are important, which allows the board to make the determination whether it's confidential, privileged in law, or harmful to the witness.

The public interest outweighs considerations of competitive advantage in this type of proceeding where direct substantial harm to a witness would not be caused by disclosure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

If amendment NDP-25 is passed, then so will amendment NDP-30. If it's defeated, amendment NDP-30 would be defeated as well.

Not seeing any additional speakers to that, we'll vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next is amendment NDP-26.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

This is an important piece around community knowledge. This amendment is saying that the board must take into account any traditional knowledge or community knowledge provided to it and that it “must make reasonable efforts to take into account any such knowledge that is available to it in documented form”.

The rationale for this amendment is that the documentation of Nunavut, Inuit, traditional, and community knowledge is increasing due to the efforts of universities, government agencies, and Inuit organizations. It is reasonable for the act to require the board to try to inform itself of this knowledge and to take into account, where relevant, whether or not the knowledge is provided by a party on its own initiative. This can be done in a manner that respects the principle of procedural fairness.

Mr. Chair, the whole issue around traditional knowledge is becoming increasingly important when considering development both in the north and other places. There have been some court rulings around the consideration, for example, of oral traditions as being legitimate forms of how knowledge is provided in the development process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, if amendment NDP-26 is adopted, so will amendment NDP-31. If defeated, amendment NDP-31 will be defeated as well.

I'm not seeing anybody wanting to speak to this amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next is amendment NDP-28.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Amendment NDP-27 was already defeated, right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Amendment NDP-27 was defeated.

We're on amendment NDP-28.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I will move amendment NDP-28.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Oh, pardon me, Jean, amendment NDP-27 was not defeated, because it would only have been defeated if amendment NDP-19 had been adopted, and amendment NDP-19 was not adopted. I apologize.

Amendment NDP-27 can be put. You can move amendment NDP-27.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Okay.

With amendment NDP-27, again it's the difference between “opinion” and “determined”. Again it's around consistency in language with the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. I've presented the arguments on this previously.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Next is amendment NDP-28.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

On amendment NDP-28, this is to do with the scoping of the project and the steps that are included. I've already presented the arguments on the scoping, so they're the same arguments.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Next is amendment NDP-29.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Again it's around the scoping of the project, and I've already presented the arguments on that.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Next is amendment NDP-32.