Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 6th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Amendment NDP-10.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Okay.

Section 111.1 of Bill C-15 gives the federal minister the power to make decisions that would normally be made by another minister; for example, the anticipated federal minister would be the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, who would, under this section, be able to authorize actions that would normally be authorized by, say, the Minister of Fisheries.

The danger here is that the minister's department would not have the experience or competence to adequately determine whether the action should be authorized. This amendment would require that before the federal minister make this decision, he or she would have to consult with the minister—meaning the department—who would have the competence to determine whether the action should be authorized.

In other words, it's simply recognizing that the power to make these decisions still resides in the federal government, but has been consolidated under one minister though in many instances that may not be appropriate for decision-making. That's why this amendment is in front of you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Not seeing additional speakers, we'll go to a vote on amendment NDP-9. Again, I'll reference that this will apply to NDP-10 as well.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 199 agreed to)

(Clause 200 agreed to)

The Liberals have proposed new clause 200.1.

Ms. Jones, do you want to introduce it? I do have a ruling with regard to this.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm very pleased to introduce this amendment to Bill C-15.

We're suggesting that it be amended by adding after line 7 on page 175 the following new clause:

200.1 (1) Paragraph 114(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) to ensure that, before actions are taken in connection with proposed developments, their impacts on the environment are carefully considered, taking into account the nature, duration and intensity of those impacts;

(2) Section 114 of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (c):

(d) to enable responsible economic development of the natural resources of the Mackenzie Valley for the benefit of its residents and that of other Canadians.

This was a direct recommendation that came to us through our committee hearings in the Northwest Territories and it was proposed by the chamber of mines in their presentations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Ms. Jones.

The amendment seeks to amend section 114 of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 766 and 767, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill”.

Since section 114 of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is not being amended by Bill C-15, it is the opinion of this chair that this amendment is inadmissible.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

That's unfortunate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We will move to the consideration of clauses 201 to 205. There are no proposed amendments.

(Clauses 201 to 205 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 206)

On clause 206, we have four separate amendments, two of which are identical to two others. PV-7, PV-7a, PV-8 and PV-8a have been moved. I do have a ruling.

Clause 206 of Bill C-15 provides for the completion of the environmental assessment by the review board. It also provides that in some instances the federal minister or the Governor in Council may extend the limit to complete the assessment. The amendment proposes to provide the review board with the discretionary power to also extend that limit.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and the principle of the bill.”

It is my opinion that such is the case, so we will see PV-7 and PV-7a as inadmissible. It is the same case with PV-8 and PV-8a. We will move to a vote on clause 206 unamended.

(Clause 206 agreed to)

(Clauses 207 to 223 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 224)

On clause 224, we have proposed amendment NDP-11.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I move that Bill C-15 in clause 224 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 203 the following:

(4) The policy directions given under this section shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Northwest Territories, as well as on the Review Board’s website.

Basically, proposed section 142.2 of Bill C-15 allows for the minister to issue written policy directions that are binding on the review board with respect to the exercise of any of its functions.

Once again, this amendment would simply require that these directions be made public, in terms of public government and in terms of respect for those that fall under this act and who don't have the opportunity to vote, as in a province, where you have the opportunity when a minister is putting policy directions that you don't agree with to vote them out of office at the next election. It's a Canadian tradition to actually hold ministers responsible. Here, we are simply asking that the minister let the public know what his policy directions are that are binding on these boards.

It's a simple matter. It's a democratic principle that public governments provide information to the public. This means that will be followed through on and that the review board's policy directions will be well understood by the public that has to live with the consequences of their decisions. I think it's useful. It's not threatening in any way. It doesn't change the direction of this bill. It may provide for some better understanding of the workings of this board.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mrs. Hughes is next, and then we will go to Mr. Genest-Jourdain.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Again, I think I spoke to it on a similar motion earlier. In looking at transparency, I think this is a correct inclusion that should be in the bill. It provides an opportunity for others to effectively know what the policy is and ensure that the functioning of the committee is doing what it should be doing.

For anybody else who might be interested in getting involved at a later date, at least they'll have a clear understanding of the policies themselves.

I think that it's imperative.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Mr. Genest-Jourdain.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

The policy directions set by the minister are highly binding in nature. So, to prevent the possible use of arbitrary power and to address any argument around that aspect, it would be beneficial, if not essential, to inform the Canadians affected by these measures. And that is why it would also be necessary to make all of that information available to Canadians on the Internet.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We will move to a vote on NDP-11.

(Amendment negatived)

Moving to a vote on clause 224 unamended, all those in favour?

(Clause 224 agreed to)

(Clauses 225 to 252 inclusive agreed to)

I believe the Liberals have a proposed amendment for clause 253, Liberal-4.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're proposing an amendment to clause 253, that it be amended by replacing line 44 on page 228 with the following:

subsection 213(1) come into force on a day, not earlier than one year after the day on which this Act receives royal assent, to

Mr. Chairman, I proposed that particular amendment because we feel that the delay in implementing the changes, in particular to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, by one year would allow the additional time that the government will need to sort out many of the concerns that have been raised by various stakeholders and hopefully would help strengthen the bill and make it more effective as a whole for all those who are impacted.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Ms. Jones.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I think in the testimony that was received on Tuesday from the government officials, they indicated that they were now engaged in a process of determining how they could best provide some other answers for those regional boards that are being taken away. They indicated that they're looking for ways to put resources into the regional structures.

They have concerns about it. Quite obviously, the plans of this government for an immediate change to the regional board seems to be inappropriate with the kind of information that's been given to this committee.

Why would this amendment not be accepted? It's reasonable. It's rational. It follows the evidence that we've received. If the Conservatives wish to ram it through, then I guess that's what they're going to do.

Mr. Chair, I appeal to the members of this committee to remember what they've actually heard from the witnesses, including their own government witnesses, when they deal with this particular amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mrs. Hughes.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I just want to know the technical aspect from the department on this particular piece, as to whether or not it would hinder the bill in any way or whether it would be an enhancement to the bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Was there a specific question? Maybe you could ask the officials a specific question.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

The question is whether the change would actually hinder the bill in any way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I think you're seeking an opinion in that question. If you could ask for a specific technical...if there is something specific you'd like to ask, they'd be happy to answer it.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

The question is this. Would the change hinder the functioning of the bill?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I don't know if there's any....

[Alison Lobsinger]

The amendment that you are proposing ties into clauses that relate to devolution and the move of the waters act into the MVRMA, not restructuring. This amendment as written would affect devolution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We'll vote on amendment LIB-4.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 253 agreed to)

That brings us to the short title.

Shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

Shall the title carry?