Evidence of meeting #46 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was tribunal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Shall NDP-19 carry?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 37 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 38--Members of Tribunal)
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Amendment NDP-20 would amend clause 38. Is there anything on that?
Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The government, of course, still retains the power to assign the tribunal, but the chair, as we've seen through the bill so far, holds a very important place in terms of what's allowed in, what's allowed out, and what's considered appropriate. We've heard that from our witnesses.
There's a slight typo, Chair; it should read, “who shall elect from among themselves a person who shall act as the”.
Amendment NDP-20 is essentially saying that once the government assigns the tribunal, the judges, whether current judges or past judges, then select their chair. It makes it one step further removed. The government still gets to choose the people it wishes to have on the tribunal, but the tribunal members then put forward their chair. It allows those final decisions to be one step removed from the government.
The chair, from what I read on C-20, holds extraordinary powers. It's the critical position on the tribunal. This amendment simply allows the tribunal to pick its chair. The government picks the tribunal, of course.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
We will be opposing this amendment. I think the point of this clause is to give the Governor in Council the authority to appoint the chair to the tribunal and then the tribunal as well.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
As a last point, I will re-emphasize that the government retains the power to name that tribunal. All we're seeking is to allow the tribunal members, who have been chosen by the government, to select their chair. We deem this to be reasonable. It doesn't take any major powers away from the government, but it recognizes the authority of the tribunal members to choose their chair, who holds an absolutely critical role in this process.
I don't know, Chair, just how to....
Could I just amend it by simply pointing out the “select” versus the “elect”? Is that enough?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Does the committee agree to have Mr. Cullen change that term from “select” to “elect”? Is there agreement?
Go ahead, Madame Brunelle.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
We would have to see what that does to the French version. What would the French text look like if we said “elect” instead of “select”? It is not clear for me. The French text says, “cinq membres, nommés par le gouverneur en conseil, qui choisissent l'un d'entre eux pour agir à titre de président.” Is it five members that are elected by the governor in council? No, the five elect the chair. Is the problem more in the English wording, then?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I'm told it is consistent between the English and French translation.
Has the committee agreed to allow Mr. Cullen to change his amendment so that it says “elect” rather than “select”?
Is it agreed?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay, it's agreed.
Shall NDP-20 carry?
(Amendment negatived on division)
(Clause 38 agreed to on division)
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We go now to NDP-21, which is a new clause after clause 44. It would be a new clause 44.1.
Any discussion on that?
Mr. Cullen.
5 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'll explain this briefly, Chair.
Proposed clause 44.1 seeks to have more transparency coming from the tribunal when it seeks the private hearings we've heard about before.
There was some discussion from our witnesses talking about the need in some instances to protect some privacy concerns of an individual. This won't name the individual and it won't necessarily name the specifics of the case, but it has to cite something to the public as to the reason they're going in camera, the reason they're going into private consultation. This essentially says it's back to the testimony from witnesses that hearings should be open to the public, and in the case where the tribunal shall hold a hearing in private, it should disclose the reasons why the hearing cannot be held in public.
We've heard interpretation from the witnesses as to the reasons why. Proposed clause 44.1 just makes it absolutely crystal clear for the public as well as to why the tribunal is no longer meeting in public. That's essentially what it's saying. We want as much of this in public as possible. It's in all of our interest. This just asks the tribunal members to state the case.
5 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Chair, this is already covered in clause 52. It reads:
Panel hearings are to be held in public. However, a panel may hold all or part of a hearing in private if it is of the opinion that a person's privacy interest outweighs the principle that hearings be open to the public.
And I would assume that their reasons would be that the person's privacy interests are being protected.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I understand that it is already in the bill. The only difference is that the tribunal has to disclose to the public the reasons. It doesn't say this in clause 52. It just says the tribunal has the right to do that. All proposed clause 44.1 is saying is that when you do that, it allows the tribunal to do that. It just says state the reasons, whereas in the clause as it stands right now, those reasons aren't stated. The tribunal just makes the decision and they move into private. Proposed clause 44.1 just says you can still do that, but say it's because of concern around privacy violation, or it's concern around something specific, something untoward. We had some questions about moving into private discussions simply in the interest of a business, and that was something that we don't want to see happen for a number of different reasons.
That's all proposed clause 44.1 does. It fits in with the bill. It just says declare the reasons, that's all.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
I need clarification from Mr. Cullen. Basically, you want the tribunal to always hold public hearings, and if it does not, then it has to justify why. Are you not concerned that that would slow the process down a bit when compensation has to happen quickly or when the situation has to be settled quickly?
5 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Chair, if I can, this is simply an issue of a statement from the tribunal. It doesn't require any annexing. It doesn't require circulation in a newspaper. It's just that the tribunal makes a public statement, saying in this case or in the following cases we're going private, period. But it's made available to the public the same way the tribunal makes other things available to the public. It doesn't slow the process, it simply justifies that moment of going private, which I think is important because you want as much public as possible when the tribunal makes that choice. You want to make sure that they know they're going to have to tell the public. It's not even imagined in here how; it can simply be the statement the tribunal makes every day: “Tomorrow we're going in private for the following reason,” and then that's it. That's the only notification we're asking for. It's not meant to be cumbersome at all.