Evidence of meeting #60 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was board.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Again, it's around ministerial responsibilities and clarity of language.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Chair, we'll go to page 68.
I move that Bill C-47, in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 68 the following:
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) does not preclude the granting of a minor variance or a ministerial exemption in respect of a project.
This gives some clarification to the act. Once again, these amendments are all brought forward by northern groups that must deal with this act after it's passed.
I think of the Conservatives' northern policy, its northern strategy of governance, I look at this and say, here are reasonable, careful amendments that have been made by northerners on this particular bill that is going to be used only by northern people. This is a bill for northern people. It's something that has to be accomplished, and here we have the government one time after another refusing to listen to the voice of northerners, who are simply trying to make the bill work better through their perspective. I don't hear the government arguing that these amendments are somehow improper. They're simply refusing to talk about them. I find that to be most distressing.
The government's vaunted northern strategy of governance seems to be, “We will set the rules for governance, and you will follow them”. I find that to be irresponsible and not in the Canadian model. Speaking as a northerner, a person who's lived and worked in the north all my life, I find this attitude to be somewhat strange. I'll make that point now, and I will leave it at that.
Here we have another amendment that is brought forward by experienced northern participants in the environmental assessment land-use planning process, and the government refuses to give any answers as to why it shouldn't accept these amendments. It simply continues to stonewall on this bill.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In response, proposed section 134 concerns only terms and conditions that result from an impact assessment decision. It has no impact on implementing land-use plan requirements granting minor variances or ministerial exemptions. For this reason, in fact, the proposed wording is not required and could introduce uncertainty when linked to proposed section 134.
As a northerner myself—and if the member has a problem with that, obviously he should check the boundaries of my riding—I would say to him that this is going to be a piece of legislation that his own territorial government will be mirroring. He should be careful when he's making comments about “a government” when it turns out it is going to be governments doing this.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
NDP
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
I just want to indicate that the clarity piece is very important and it's something we did hear about from the members. The last board that was before us indicated the importance of making sure that things were made very clear. I'm just wondering if the department can advise whether it agrees or disagrees that when drafting legislation, where it's a piece of legislation that touches specific cultures, it's important to have language that reflects the will of those communities for clarity.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Ms. Hughes, those aren't the types of questions the department will be entertaining at this point. We're looking for technical responses or clarifications to the specific bill. If you have specific amendments that you would like considered or clarified, you can ask questions, but that really isn't a discussion about the broader scheme of building legislation for the north.
We'll move on to Mr. Bevington.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We'll hear from Mr. Bevington and then we'll go back to Ms. Hughes, if she has additional motions.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
In response to the parliamentary secretary, I think this point has to be well taken, that this bill would not be discussed in Parliament if it dealt with his part of the world. It would be discussed in Queen's Park. That's the point I was trying to deliver here.
As northerners, our laws are being made for us here in this arena. These laws should really be in the hands of northerners. By all Canadian standards, by all understanding of what Canadian citizenship and political rights are, there should be respect for the position of northerners on these laws. The northerners have agreed, the Nunavut people have agreed on moving forward with this legislation, but their point of view should be the predominant point of view that's used to make this legislation work, not the position of the government. That should be the guiding ideology. That is clearly stated in the Conservatives' northern strategy. They want to provide a changing nature of governance for the north, and here they're not doing it. They're not respecting it. I simply wanted to make that point very strongly right now. As a person who represents a territorial reach, one that doesn't have first-class political rights, I will continue to make that point. I continue to—
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
Are we debating the philosophical pillars of northern legislation in general, or are we doing clause-by-clause study now?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
It's not a point of order.
Mr. Bevington, you have the floor, but I think you got the point to the intervention.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I'm just making an intervention on trying to persuade the government to be less dictatorial in their approach to this legislation.
This legislation does not affect you and your communities across the country. It only affects people in Nunavut. The point is that the viewpoint of Nunavut people should be the predominant viewpoint when it comes to these matters of amendments that have been put forward in a decent fashion. If the parliamentary secretary wants to debate these motions, or explain his point of view for not supporting them, I would appreciate that as well. I'm glad that he did this on one out of the last 30 amendments. I appreciate that. I trust that he would continue to do that, to explain to the people of Nunavut why he's rejecting the work that they have put forward to this committee.
NDP
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
I will continue with my question from a while ago. As Mr. Bevington said, these were amendments that were actually put forward by the witnesses we heard. They're to ensure that the legislation is a document they will be able to work with and not have too many misinterpretations. They did ask for some clearer language. I think that is important when legislation is being drafted. I'm sure that the department is aware of that. It's important when legislation is being drafted that it be in clear language. That would lead to fewer difficulties. We've seen that with the treaties as well.
I just wanted to put that forward. We need to make sure that if there is language where some clarity is needed, those points are considered and duly passed.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I don't see any additional speakers to amendment NDP-33.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We have amendment NDP-34.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
This amendment again is around clarity of language and alignment with the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. In this particular one, it's the phrase, “without restricting the generality”, which is in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, section 12.9.2. The suggestion is it should be included in proposed subsections 69(1) and 137(1) of the bill: ...in order to make it clear that the regulatory authorities described in those sections also carry the general implementation duty referred to in subsection 68(1) and 136(1). Among other things, these words will notify any regulator that qualifies as a “department or agency” that it must not only craft terms and conditions so as to implement land use plans and project certificate, it must also exercise its powers to refuse authorizations where necessary in accordance with the same duties.
Again it's about consistency between the NLCA and this piece of legislation.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you.
We're voting on amendment NDP-34.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is amendment NDP-35.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
The bill currently reads, “of any significant modification”. Amendment NDP-35 proposes to leave out the word “significant”. This has to do with the commission being able to determine what is significant or not significant. The rationale for this is that it's the strength of the bill that sets out a process for adjusting to changes in project descriptions that happen during assessments in Nunavut where the typical project involves mining exploration or development. Project modifications during assessment are the rule rather than the exception. However, the process in the bill needs to be simplified, strengthened, and made systematic.
There's always a challenge with the word “significant”. Who gets to determine what is significant and what is not significant? By leaving out that word, the determination of whether a change is significant is properly left to the authority to decide.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We're voting on amendment NDP-35.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is amendment NDP-36.