Evidence of meeting #17 for Natural Resources in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was industry.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
I take objection with that, Mr. Chair. Everybody had free reign on everything. I'm talking about a regulatory process here, and I'm talking about the impact assessment.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I will give you all the time back, Mr. Lefebvre, and I apologize. I just want to make sure we know we're voting on the supplementary estimates (C) here at the end of the meeting, before it's over.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
And the main estimates....
Let's allow Mr. Lefebvre to finish his questioning, and then we will carry on.
Jeff Labonté Assistant Deputy Minister, Lands and Minerals Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Thank you.
Maybe there are two parts to this. I will do it in as efficient a way as possible.
The first part was that the courts have been regularly telling the regulatory agencies, the government and decision-makers that meaningful two-way engagement is necessary for indigenous issues to be adequately and sufficiently covered under section 35 of the Constitution.
In the TMX project, that was the redo in which the government put forward the plan and, through the course of well over nine and a half months, worked through meaningful engagement of the 128 indigenous groups potentially impacted by the Trans Mountain expansion project.
In the CEAA 2012 context, the government brought in, a number of years ago, the Impact Assessment Act. In the Impact Assessment Act, the beginning of the process has for early planning. That early planning involves significant engagement with indigenous communities up front and through the process, as the proponent is adequately developing the regulatory filings.
The government engages with indigenous communities to provide the capacity. The indigenous communities are involved with the proponents, working closely at understanding the projects and the potential impacts, so that by the time the project moves its way into the assessment phase, the level of understanding and awareness of the issues and the engagement is well advanced.
In the regulatory example, the Canada Energy Regulator, in this case, has already developed a relationship. It is already aware of the issues and has the information base in front of it, and the indigenous communities have been part of the process well before the detailed examination of the project's regulatory proposals is in place.
That continues through the regulatory process, so that indigenous communities are part of the regulatory process and are able to be heard. The Crown side of the equation begins its consultations and further advances the meaningful two-way dialogue so that any issues that come up can be accommodated, or they can be developed in a mitigative fashion through the particular recommendations that might be made by that regulator.
It's a much more comprehensive approach to how indigenous engagement occurs, which is what industry seeks in terms of trying to identify the certainty and to know that through the process...that the conclusion of the process will provide as much clarity and certainty as they have with respect to the project they've submitted.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Lefebvre.
That concludes the time we have allocated today for questioning witnesses. I would like to thank all the departmental officials for taking the time out of their day to attend.
Your patience, as always...particularly those who sat idly by and were not put on the spot. We're grateful to you. We know you were ready, willing and able. We appreciate it, as we always do on every occasion.
Mr. Zimmer has a point of order.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Mr. Chair, just to be clear, I don't believe we voted on combining the supplementaries and the mains together. Shouldn't they be done separately? That's what the normal process is. The fact that they are combined is news to this side of the committee, in opposition, so I'm not sure where that came from.
Can you clarify?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Yes, I can clarify. We discussed it at the last meeting. It was outlined very clearly on the agenda, so it's not something that should come as a surprise to you.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
It wasn't voted on, though, Chair. Something like that would need to be a decision that the committee votes on. I'm not sure who made that decision, because I don't believe it was made in committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
The minister was invited to speak to both the main estimates and the supplementary estimates (C). We discussed that at the last meeting. We don't need to vote on it.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I'm reading from the committee Hansard back on February 26. We had a vote on my motion, which I had tabled to this committee, and we unanimously voted to have the minister come for the supplementary estimates. We voted unanimously for that—not the main estimates, but the supplementary estimates.
That's why we put this motion forward today, so we could have him come back and comment on the main estimates, because we agreed unanimously as a committee that he come for the supplementary estimates before the end of March. Now we have until the end of May for him to come for the main estimates. We need to deal with these at two separate times, because that's the will of the committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Patzer and Mr. Zimmer.
Nobody is disputing the fact that the motion referred to was dealt with and voted on, and that the minister was coming to speak to the supplementary estimates (C) as a result of that motion. Subsequent to that, with the passage of time, the main estimates became available and he was invited to speak to those today as well.
This is not a surprise to anybody. We knew this in advance of the meeting today and we knew it during the course of the meeting today. It was outlined in the agenda, so I'm a bit puzzled. In any event—
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I've been the chair of a committee in the past, and the chair is to follow the direction of the committee. In this case, we clearly have not voted to have those two combined and for the minister to speak to the supplementaries and the main estimates. It's been very clear. Mr. Patzer just outlined it in reference to the committee evidence. Very clearly, the minister was here to speak to the supplementaries.
It's imperative, Mr. Chair, that you do what the committee wants you to do, and to have the minister appear on the main estimates is what we're asking for. It's clear that you can't make that decision on your own. That should be the decision of the committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
It's very clear to me what's being asked. What I'm going to do at this point is thank our witnesses again and let them go. I'm going to suspend, and we'll go in camera to address the issues we are required to deal with.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we'd like this addressed in public. Please address the point of order that's on the table right now.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I have. I've responded to your point of order several times, Mr. Zimmer.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Chair, we need a decision on whether you had the consent of this committee to combine the two hearings on the estimates—the supplementaries and the mains. The committee did not give you that consent.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
We talked about this in committee business at the last meeting, 10 days ago. It was very clear to everybody on this committee at that time that we were going to be addressing the supplementary estimates (C) and the main estimates. There was no objection made to it at the time, and we agreed to proceed on that basis. That's what we did today, and that's what the agenda reflected.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Mr. Chair, it's very clear, according to the committee evidence, that it was for the supplementaries. Mr. Patzer has already talked about it and referred to the committee Hansard. It was not for the mains.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
What you're saying is inaccurate, Mr. Chair.