EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, December 10, 1997
• 1542
[Translation]
The Chairman (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.)): Thank you very much for being here. Before we start, I wish to welcome Ms. Girard-Bujold. I am happy to see you today.
Our Order of Reference deals with Bill C-6, An Act to provide for an integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain boards for that purpose and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
Today, we resume clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. We have witnesses from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Haley, Mr. Denault, Ms. Grenier et Ms. Gray.
Everything went fine yesterday. No amendment is proposed to clauses 43 to 76 inclusively. So, if you agree, we could adopt all these clauses together and then, we could proceed with the consideration of all clauses to which amendments have been proposed. Some committees do it that way.
Mr. Konrad.
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): You were speaking rather quickly for me to catch it all, but basically we're going to adopt everything that has no amendment proposed. It sounds good to me.
The Chairman: Okay.
[Translation]
You agree.
Mr. Bryden, the floor is yours.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): If I may suggest it, Mr. Chairman, I think we could probably expedite it even faster if we were to seek consent on the other side. If there's no objection to the government motions, which the other members have had ample opportunity to examine, perhaps we could actually go even faster than you suggest and consider the opposition amendments first and after that move everything all at once, government motions and amendments all the way.
• 1545
Is there a problem over here? We had full discussions
on just about everything. If there is, then of course
we'll have to go with your method.
The Chairman: Mr. Patry.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I would prefer to deal with the articles where there are no amendments first. It's going to take 30 seconds, a minute at the most. It's just going to name them and we'll come back afterward. This way I think it will be much faster, if we all agree on this.
Mr. John Bryden: Okay.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Okay, let's start.
(Clauses 43 to 76 carried)
(Clauses 79 to 111 carried)
(Clauses 113 and 114 carried)
(Clauses 116 to 124 carried)
The Chairman: I don't have any amendment to clause 126.
Mr. Bernard Patry: No, no amendment to clause 126 has been proposed. However, the Reform Party proposes two amendments to clause 125.
(Clause 126 carried)
(Clauses 128 to 133 carried)
(Clauses 135 to 146 carried)
(Clauses 148 to 150 carried)
(Clauses 153 and 154 carried)
(Clause 156 carried)
(Clause 158 carried)
(Clauses 160 to 168 carried)
(Clause 42—Public Notice)
The Chairman: Just for clarification. There is a typing error in the English of the amendment to clause 42. The amendment says:
[English]
that Bill C-6, in clause 42, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 20. It's not 20, it's 14.
[Translation]
It's on page 18.1 of your document in English.
[English]
Mr. Bernard Patry: It was in the last bundle they gave you this morning.
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Does this replace this?
The Chairman: I don't know.
• 1550
[Translation]
Mr. Keddy is proposing an amendment to clause 42.
Mr. Keddy.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Chairman, to move things along here, this was a replacement for the amendment I put in yesterday. So I'll withdraw yesterday's amendment—we had not voted on it—and I will go with this amendment. I think to speed things up we can vote on both these amendments at once, because they both say exactly the same thing.
During the discussion yesterday it was felt that if we had to advertise in every settlement area in the NWT it might be too cumbersome or burdensome. This way we're only saying in adjoining settlement areas. That's the immediate geographical adjoining settlement area. So there is a responsibility upon the government to advertise in other areas, but they don't have to advertise in every single settlement area.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Any other comments?
Mr. Patry.
[English]
Mr. Bernard Patry: If I understand well, Mr. Keddy, you mentioned that this is a new form we've just received, and if I read it properly it says:
That's what you're proposing.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, right now, for both.
Mr. Bernard Patry: What do you mean for both? It's just for clause 42.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's for clause 42 on line 19 and then it's clause 42 on line 25 as well.
Mr. John Bryden: They were parallel references.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Could I just speak, Mr. Chair?
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Bellemare.
[English]
Mr. Charles Bellemare (Legislative Clerk): Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I understood. Is Mr. Keddy suggesting that the change “in adjoining settlement areas in the Mackenzie Valley” also be made to PC-2 when we come to it? He was saying that the change would do for both amendments.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: They're both in that clause, in clause 42. There are two changes to clause 42.
Mr. Charles Bellemare: Yes, sir. So, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Keddy saying that
[Translation]
when we get to amendment PC-2, he is going to propose that this be amended to read:
[English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Read line 25 and line 19.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Bellemare.
[English]
Mr. Charles Bellemare: Mr. Chair, if I understand this thing correctly, Mr. Keddy—
Mr. Bernard Patry: There will be two amendments, one for 42(1) and one for 42(2). We're going to address it as 42(1) to start with and then we'll go to 42(2). In this way there'll be no problems.
In 42(1), at line 19, after “settlement area”, you need to have:
We're going to deal with this one now and when this one is dealt with we'll go with 42(2).
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay, that's fine.
Mr. Bernard Patry: That's fine.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Is everybody in agreement?
[English]
Mr. Bernard Patry: I noticed the position of the government is like this.
[Translation]
Yesterday, the position of the government was like this. The three Mackenzie Valley newspapers, the Inuvik Drum, the Yellowknifer and the News of the North, are distributed throughout the valley, but since these are newspapers and it doesn't really go against the objective of the government, we are going to agree to the amendment proposed by the Conservative Party.
The Chairman: Mr. Fournier.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Am I right to think that yesterday, regarding the same clause, the phrase "other organizations" was mentioned? Now it's changed. Yesterday, "organizations", plural, was a must and now Mr. Keddy is changing his amendment.
• 1555
Mr. Bernard Patry: We are talking about the new amendment he tabled this afternoon.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: It says "and in adjoining settlement areas in the Mackenzie Valley". Does this mean that in an adjoining settlement area, there might be people of the same nation who would be interested by the board's business, the board, for instance? Is this what we are talking about?
Mr. Bernard Patry: If the Deh Cho want to say something, since the newspapers are distributed all over the five areas of the Mackenzie Valley, they are going to get the public notices. However, Mr. Keddy is saying that these are newspapers and that a newspaper can close down.
So, as we are dealing here with environmental problems, we have to ensure that people in adjoining areas have a say in the matter, because the Mackenzie River, the longest river in Canada, flows from south to north. So there might be an impact in adjoining areas and Mr. Keddy, with this amendment, wants to ensure that everyone in the Mackenzie Valley gets the public notices. This is the objective of the amendment proposed by Mr. Keddy.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry. Were you finished, Mr. Fournier?
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I don't quite understand what is meant by "notice inviting interested persons". Who gives this notice?
Mr. Bernard Patry: The boards issue the notices which are published in the newspapers. However, Mr. Keddy wants to make absolutely sure that these notices are published not only in one of the area's newspapers, but through the Mackenzie Valley.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Will it be a requirement?
Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Okay, fine.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fournier. Mr. Bryden.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden: I just wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think this amendment is an excellent consequence of our discussions yesterday in which Mr. Keddy pointed out a small but delicate problem. I think this solves it and I move that it be adopted.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Everyone concerned did a very good job on this issue. Ms. Grenier.
Ms. Suzanne Grenier (Legal Council, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): I would like the French version to be considered. Is the committee going to vote on the English version only or on both?
The Chairman: On both at the same time.
Ms. Suzanne Grenier: On both. I would like to know whether we could amend the French version...
The Chairman: Go ahead.
Ms. Suzanne Grenier: ...so that it better reflects the English one. I would like the phrase "dans les régions désignées" replaced by "toute région désignée avoisinante de la vallée du Mackenzie".
The Chairman: Okay. Do you agree?
Some hon. members: Yes.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden: My motion could encompass both the English and French versions.
[Translation]
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chairman: Thank you. Yesterday, we did not want to vote in the absence of Mr. Fournier.
Ms. Grenier, you are going to tell us how you want this clause to read.
Ms. Suzanne Grenier: Right now or later?
The Chairman: Later.
Ms. Suzanne Grenier: Yes.
The Chairman: Don't forget.
Ms. Suzanne Grenier: No.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
[English]
Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chair, just before we move the next one, could I ask Madame Grenier to perhaps explain something to me? My copies of this have, for the French, at one point, dans les régions désignées avoisinantes de la vallée du Mackenzie, and in the other it has, dans d'autres collectivités de la vallée du Mackenzie. There's been a change, and I presume we're passing the correct version.
Mr. Bernard Patry: It's because you're taking this from the paper they gave you today, but Mr. Keddy brought us some new copies, and you have the new copies there. That's what we're looking at. It's from the new copies.
Mr. John Finlay: It's in the other one, too.
The Chairman: You're right.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry: You don't miss a thing.
The Chairman: On subsection 42(2).
• 1600
Mr. Keddy is proposing that Bill C-6, in Clause 42, be amended
by replacing line 25 on page 14 with the following:
[English]
In English, it's line 25.
[Translation]
Debate, please.
Ms. Girard-Bujold, did you want to say something?
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): No, that's fine. Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Patry.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chairman, again, I perfectly agree with the amendment proposed by my colleague, Mr. Keddy. With your permission, we are going to use the same phrase as in the first subsection of this clause. In French, it will read:
In English, it will read:
[English]
—if it's agreed to by Mr. Keddy.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Ms. Grenier.
Ms. Suzanne Grenier: Mr. Chairman, it will be the same phrase because it's the same clause. We need to use the same phrase in both subsection (1) and (2).
The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, that's okay.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Question.
(Amendment carried)
The Chairman: Mr. Fournier, yesterday's was a good session. I like discussions like these.
(Clause 42, as amended, carried)
(Clause 77—Conditions for issuing licence)
The Chairman: On to clause 77, on page 20 of your document.
It is proposed that Bill C-6, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 25 with the following:
Mr. Patry.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
In the English version we're just adding one word to line 6: “substantial”. Instead of “any alteration”, it's “any substantial alteration”. In the French version,
[Translation]
it reads "résultant de toute altération importante". Two words are added, "toute" before the word "altération" and "importante" after the same word. The objective of this amendment is to strengthen this provision. The same amendment was suggested by Mr. Keddy of the Progressive Conservative Party who proposed that the English version read
[English]
“substantial alteration to the quality”. We both had the same amendment.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry. Mr. Fournier, go ahead.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I have a question about clause 77. It reads:
By whom is the compensation set and paid?
The Chairman: Mr. Patry.
• 1605
Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Fournier, I understand that it is an agreement between a first nation and a company. According to such an agreement, compensation will be paid to the first nation by the company wishing to undertake a project.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Keddy, followed by Mr. Konrad.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: The reason I thought we should put “substantial” in there...and we should be very clear that “substantial” will be defined in the definitions. I think we want to end up here with an act that's workable, and “any alteration to a watercourse” would open you up every time you put a culvert in, every time you change the direction of water.
Mr. John Bryden: Yes, that's exactly right.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: We're not trying to belittle it at all.
Mr. Bernard Patry: I agree.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Dunlop.
[English]
Mr. Will Dunlop (Director, Resource Policy Directorate, Northern Affairs Program, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): This is just to assist the members.
We had inadvertently left this word out. This word appears three times in the Gwich'in and Sahtu land claims, in their water rights chapter. It's unfortunate we did not have the word “substantial”. This change was also sought by industry. They asked that we pay closer attention to the wording of the actual land claim agreement.
Mr. John Bryden: I will move a motion to accept this, because I don't think we need to discuss it any further. We know where we are on this.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Ms. Girard-Bujold.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I would like to ask a question. In the French version, why do you introduce the word "importante"? What does it do? Why did you add the word "importante"? As far as I am concerned, "importante" means something. Why must we use it here?
The Chairman: Ms. Grenier.
Ms. Suzanne Grenier: We added the word "importante" to parallel the word "substantial" which was added to the English version. This is the word used in federal Acts to translate the English word "substantial".
The Chairman: Mr. Fournier.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Patry gave a very good answer to the first part of my question. As for the other, who is going to set the compensation to be paid? I have faced this problem, and I still do, in my riding where a company wants to operate a mine.
[English]
Ms. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
[Translation]
The Chairman: A point of order, Ms. Longfield.
[English]
Ms. Judi Longfield: I think what—
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I waited until everybody was finished.
[English]
Ms. Judi Longfield: But it's a point of order.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We'll come back to you, Mr. Fournier.
[English]
Ms. Judi Longfield: I think what Mr. Fournier is discussing is the whole clause. What is on the table now is the amendment. I think we should vote on the amendment. Then we can go back and vote on the main clause. We're talking about the clause, not the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Personally, I don't have any problem if you want to vote on the amendment before debating the clause. Since we are now considering this clause, I'd like to discuss it, because there are words in this section which concern me.
I was saying that in my riding, we are facing a problem because a company wants to develop an iron deposit in Natashquan. In Pointe-Parent, we have an aboriginal community which is very much respected. These people have evaluated the compensation they should get, and the company does not agree. So nothing moves. Workers are waiting. There is a confrontation between aboriginal and white people who are very much upset because they can't work. There is a lot of unemployment and no arbitration in sight.
I did mention the problem and asked that the Department of Indian Affairs do something and, at least, appoint a conciliator, a mediator to resolve this conflict. The way clause 77 is written, it could happen again. People could ask for a lot of money. It could be exaggerated. It could also be reasonable. Who is going to draw the line so that investors don't go away and development can proceed?
• 1610
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fournier. Mr. Dunlop.
[English]
Mr. Will Dunlop: It's two clauses later in the bill. If the applicant and the first nation cannot agree on compensation, clause 79 tells you, the land and water board arrives at the compensation figure.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dunlop. Mr. Patry.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Just to add to what Mr. Dunlop just said, the answer to Mr. Fournier's question is in clause 79, two clauses later in the bill. Lines 4 to 9 read:
So, if there is no agreement between the two parties, if the first nation says no to the other party's offer, there is no agreement and the board can determine the compensation so that the matter is not brought before the courts, for instance.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry. Any other comments? Question.
(Amendment carried on division)
The Chairman: On to amendment PC-3, proposed by Mr. Keddy.
[English]
Mr. Bernard Patry: It's the same as mine.
[Translation]
The Chairman: It's the same. Sorry.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Did we adopt clause 77 as amended?
The Chairman: No, we didn't. You are right, Mr. Patry. You don't miss a thing either today.
(Clause 77, as amended, carried on division)
(Clause 78—Application to other water authority)
The Chairman: Mr. Patry would like to propose an amendment, amendment G-8. Mr. Patry.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chairman, this amendment concerns only the French version, because the wording was different. So it does not concern the English version.
On line 17, the original wording was: "vraisemblablement pour effet d'altérer" and we should add "de façon importante".
It parallels the previous amendment. It's only to bring the two versions into line. I don't think there is any objection.
The Chairman: No debate.
(Amendment carried on division)
(Clause 78, as amended, carried on division)
(Clause 112—Review Board established)
The Chairman: On clause 112, on page 24 of your document. Amendment G-9 reads: It is proposed that Bill C-6, in Clause 112, be amended by replacing line 41 on page 39 with the following:
Mr. Patry, followed by Ms. Longfield.
Mr. Bernard Patry: The bill we are asked to consider stipulates that the Environmental Impact Review Board would consist of not more than 11 members, including a chairperson. There were many representations by first nations established in these areas and, after discussing the matter with them, it was decided that instead of an eleven-member maximum, we would set a minimum of seven members. There will be no less than seven members on the board. So instead of setting a maximum, it's a minimum which is mentioned in the bill. This is the objective of this amendment.
• 1615
[English]
Mrs. Judi Longfield: I certainly want to support this. One of the things we heard was that the ceiling of 11 was restrictive, particularly in areas that hadn't quite settled. This gives the board the flexibility it needs.
We've listened to what our delegations have told us, and I think this reflects their very great desire to see this board have the flexibility. I would be pleased to move this amendment.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Longfield.
Mr. Konrad.
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad: This is a replacement simply limiting the minimum size, but are we not going to consider a maximum size? Is it just open-ended?
Mrs. Judi Longfield: The board should be open-ended.
Mr. Bernard Patry: The board can do that. That's what we want to do.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Ms. Bujold.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Then why do you say that the board will set a maximum? You are saying that the minimum is seven, but you don't set any maximum. Up to what number could we go, given that there are so many interested people?
Mr. Bernard Patry: We didn't for the following reason. In that region, there are five major first nations. Among them, there are people like the Deh Cho, who belong to Treaty 8 and others who are covered by Treaty 11, and we'd like them to be involved eventually, later on.
Maybe they feel that, if they can agree among themselves, we should have an additional seat on the board for another group. There are Deh Cho in Yellowknife. They don't participate in their nation's negotiations. It's very difficult, but they asked for it themselves.
With a set maximum, we might have ended up with people from one nation representing another covered by a different treaty. In that case, the latter's interests could not be represented fully, because even if they belong to the same nation, they live in different areas.
This is the objective of the amendment.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Dunlop.
[English]
Mr. Will Dunlop: The committee heard a number of presentations, most notably the presentation from the Dogrib Tribal Council and the South Slave Métis, who are at the negotiating table but who are not representative of all the first nation groups in their region. They are concerned that if they were named to the board, somehow they would be asked to represent another group who was at another table. They feel very uncomfortable about that notion.
So we thought the easiest way to accommodate that, and to make some type of gesture that we're not trying to limit their chance of getting to this table, was to legislate the floor rather than the ceiling.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dunlop.
Mr. Fournier.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: As I was going through Bill C-6, I noticed that the quorum was five members, although, I think, you could have a quorum with four.
The way I see it, when you deal with the future, particularly when it is as important as the future of our natural resources, a future which depends on their development and the use of lands and waters, unless you convince me of the contrary, it is not wise to have four people make the decision. There are several nations involved, and we could have representative participation of the various constituencies concerned.
If you tell me today that four people are enough to say that there was consultation, that four people can decide of such important things for the future, well, I must have it all wrong! If Northerners want to decide their own future, more people should be involved.
There are small municipalities everywhere else, even in Quebec. As you know, the minimum is seven. And the larger the town, the bigger the quorum required: 12, 15, 20 and 30. On such an important matter, their future development, I feel it is not wise to let four people decide. I believe this will not ensure the necessary involvement and consultation of the constituencies concerned.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fournier. This is a good start for an interesting discussion.
Mr. Konrad.
• 1620
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad: I just have a bit of a problem. We politicize things like the Environmental Impact Review Board, but these things should not be political. Whether you are a member of this, that, or the next group, we're talking about the environment here; we're not talking about defending your interest in a political arena. We're talking about what the Environmental Impact Review Board is doing.
There should be fairly objective criteria governing this board, so whether you're a member of whatever group.... I don't see why everybody under the sun needs to be a member of this thing. You have main groups that have had land claims either in process or settled. Why don't we just restrain it to that?
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad.
Mr. Patry.
Mr. Bernard Patry: In the same clause, in subsection (4), a quorum of five is mentioned. Right now, no amendment is proposed concerning the quorum. So it would be five members out of seven, minimum. It's even stronger than what we had before. Initially, there were eleven members, and a quorum of five was required. Now, we are talking a minimum of seven members with a quorum of five required. It would be five members out of seven instead of five out of eleven. The quorum would therefore be better, more representative of the whole area.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Patry, do you think that, for such an important board, five members is enough? Do you think that we can reasonably say that this way, the constituencies concerned are properly consulted and properly involved?
Mr. Bernard Patry: I would say yes, because on such matters, you cannot ask for a unanimous vote by all members. You cannot require that each member be present, because occasionally, the day of the meeting, some of them might be sick, and so on. I believe that a quorum of five members out of seven is quite enough.
The Chairman: Mr. Dunlop.
[English]
Mr. Will Dunlop: When we were discussing this part of the bill with the Gwich'in tribal council and the representatives of the Sahtu, we came to the conclusion that we never wanted to have fewer than two regions at any given time make up the quorum. The mathematics became two nominees from first nations and two nominees from government, with the chair making five. That's the minimum quorum we could support during the development of the quorum, so that's how we came up with the magic number five.
[Translation]
The Chairman: That's a good explanation.
Mr. Wilfert.
[English]
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, given the discussions we've had in the last few weeks and the fact that we're strengthening it with five as a minimum—and I would agree with Mr. Konrad's statement—I'd call the question.
Mr. John Finlay: I'll move.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Question.
[Translation]
(Amendment carried on division)
(Clause 112, as amended, carried on division)
(Clause 115—Guiding principles)
The Chairman: On clause 115. The NDP has proposed an amendment. We have not discussed the NDP's amendment to clause 2, at the beginning of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Ms. Hardy is not here, and several amendments have been proposed by the NDP.
[English]
Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment from Ms. Hardy arose partly from the maximum of 11 that we had on the board.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): I have a point of order.
May I respectfully suggest that if the member is not here to discuss and debate her amendment, for whatever reason, someone should call the question to the floor and have a vote on it? Then we can move along to those members who are here who want to address particularly some fine points of the legislation.
Mrs. Judi Longfield: I agree exactly.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Patry.
[English]
Mr. Bernard Patry: I fully agree. Yesterday, because the member from the Yukon was not here, we agreed, hoping she would come in the afternoon. We want to grant her all possible chances, but if the member is not here to represent her party, we cannot discuss their amendment right now. I fully agree.
• 1625
Now let's deal with clause 115, as moved.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Fournier.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: It doesn't matter whether the member is here or not. If we think that the amendment makes sense, we should vote on it accordingly. I believe we should consider her amendment, because there are many reasons justifying a member's absence. I am convinced that Ms. Hardy has a very good reason for not being here today. She should not be penalized. She had good reasons to propose an amendment, and we have to consider it. The question is, does her amendment make sense or not? If it does, we agree to it. She doesn't necessarily have to be here. The amendment just has to be moved, and we, as a committee, will have to consider it. Then, we decide.
If you want to wait for her to be here and if you have time to do so, fine. But if you don't have time, we should decide. It's not because Ms. Hardy is not here that we cannot decide whether her amendment makes sense or not. If it does, we agree to it; if it doesn't, we reject it.
The Chairman: There is something else we should take into account. Ms. Hardy might want to talk about her amendments at report stage in the House.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: That's true.
The Chairman: It might also be that Ms. Hardy wants to withdraw her two amendments.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Chairman, we are all colleagues and I think we should show some respect for Ms. Hardy. Who am I to judge whether she has a good reason not to be here. I am sure she has a good reason. We all have good reasons. We are very busy. We should not set aside a good amendment because she is not here. She thought about these amendments.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fournier. That's a good argument. Mr. Patry.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chairman, a committee member has asked that we vote on this. I agree 90%. However, Mr. Fournier, if we take your party as an example, Mr. Bachand is not here today, but he sent someone to replace him. When the Reform Party representative is not available, when the other parties' representatives are not either, they send someone to replace them. There are more NDP members than there are Progressive Conservative members. If the member could not be here, she should have asked someone to replace her. I'm sorry, but it is not up to the other committee members to discuss amendments proposed by a certain political party. We did everything we could yesterday to give her a chance. We delayed consideration of some amendments so that she could be accommodated, but we can't do that indefinitely. I think we should make a decision.
Mr. Chairman, the question has been put on this clause.
The Chairman: I am going to hear two more members on this issue. Maybe she'll do it at report stage in the House. Mr. Keddy.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: In debating the motion, I agree with Mr. Patry. We waited yesterday. I have just one more comment I want to make. If you look at the motion, it relates to the motion we've already changed. So it's not—
Mr. David Iftody: Mr. Chairman, I believe under the rules we can't move a motion put forward by a member unless that member is present in the committee as a whole or this standing committee. Based on that, I think we should just move along. In fact, we can't deal with the amendment. I think we should just move along.
[Translation]
(Clause 113 carried)
(Clause 115 carried)
(Clause 125—Outside local government territory)
The Chairman: On clause 125. We have two amendments, one from Mr. Konrad which reads: That Bill C-6, in Clause 125, be amended by replacing line 33, on page 44, with the following:
Mr. Konrad.
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad: I think this falls in the same general pattern as the last one, when we talked about whether it's a significant change to something. Public concern can be fairly minor or it can be major. I just think it would strengthen the bill to put in there that we're looking not for people who are always opposed to everything but.... When it's a significant public concern, I think it should be addressed.
It's not a major amendment. I think it's fairly easy to support.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Dunlop.
• 1630
[English]
Mr. Will Dunlop: I suspect it actually may do something inadvertent in that it's a three-tier environmental assessment process, the screening stage being the very first of that level of evaluation. At that level you're just looking for public concern. If you were to look a little bit farther in the bill, in clause 128, at the environmental assessment stage, that's the first time you try to gauge significant public concern. Further, at clause 132, at the third and last tier of environmental assessment, you're again gauging significant public concern.
So the first tier, here in clause 125, is the lesser concern. It's your judgment on whether there's concern at all.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Patry.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposed by Mr. Konrad weakens the impact of the bill. We are therefore going to vote against it.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I want to make a quick comment on the fact that “significant” is used in that sentence earlier, but it's about an entirely different thing. They're talking about environmental impact instead of public concern.
Public concern is a very difficult thing to gauge. So if a public has a concern, it's difficult for us to say whether it's significant or not. We can put “substantial” in for a physical description of something, we can put “significant” in for a physical description of something, but “significant public concern” is something I have a bit of trouble gauging.
Do you understand, Mr. Konrad?
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Well, I do. I agree with what you're saying about “significant adverse impact”. That hasn't been determined in this early screening stage either. So I don't see where your concern arises. In terms of whether we're looking for “significant” in one place and not in another, either take both of them out or leave both of them in.
Mr. Will Dunlop: The first tier of assessment, the first tier of environmental evaluation, is a sorting exercise. So at that first level of screening—significant, insignificant—we have known ways of dealing with this and you sort into piles. So that first judgment you're making is public concern or not?
The Chairman: Question.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived)
The Chairman: On the second amendment, R-5. It reads: That Bill C-6, in Clause 125, be amended by replacing line 45 on page 44 with the following:
Mr. Patry.
[English]
Mr. Bernard Patry: For us it's about the same thing we were discussing in the previous amendment proposed by Reform, and for that reason we're going to vote against.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Konrad.
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad: What's the use?
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 125 carried)
(Clause 127—Application of EARP Order and CEAA)
The Chairman: An amendment to clause 127 has been proposed. It reads: That Bill C-6, in Clause 127, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 12 on page 46 with the following:
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Patry.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Ms. Girard-Bujold, the amendment concerns only the English version because there were some inconsistencies in the English versus the French wording. The French version was the good one. So only the English version is changed.
• 1635
[English]
If you're looking at an English version, it is:
Instead of that it will be “shall take into account” any report. We're just changing three words. We're deleting two words and changing “have regard to” to “take into account”.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Konrad.
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad: I think “have regard to” is a legal kind of term and the other one is plain English, so I can support that.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Fournier.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Legally speaking, does one version have precedence? Mr. Patry is referring to the English version, other people to the French version. Does one have precedence? Is it the French or the English one or do both have the same status?
The Chairman: Both have the same status.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Is there an inconsistency in terms of language or phraseology?
Mr. Bernard Patry: In that case, an amendment is required. When such a problem arises, the wording has to be modified.
The Chairman: Thank you.
(Amendment carried)
(Clause 127, as amended, carried)
(Clause 134—Components of review)
Mr. Bernard Patry: The NDP had an amendment, but since the party is not represented here, we are going to adopt...
The Chairman: Okay.
(Clause 134 carried on division)
The Chairman: No problem, Madam. I am sorry. It goes a little fast.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: You were told the angel was going to be here. You'd better take care of it.
The Chairman: You are good. Everything is fine.
(Clause 147—Consultation with first nations)
The Chairman: The government's side has proposed an amendment.
[English]
Madam Longfield.
Mrs. Judi Longfield: This one is just more housekeeping after we adopted an earlier amendment that talked about calling them “first nations” rather than the individual ones—grouping them all together.
Mr. Patry, is that—
Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes, that's right.
Mrs. Judi Longfield: We debated that at length when we adopted the first amendment.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Let me read it to you: That Bill C-6, in Clause 147, be amended:
(a) by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 58 with the following:
(b) by replacing, in the French version, line 38 on page 58 with the following:
Mr. Patry.
[English]
Mr. Bernard Patry: There are two sections. You have section A, which is replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 58. It was written as “in section 146 in consultation with the Gwich'in and Sahtu First Nations”. It's set up that way. We're just going to put “with the First Nations”, and that's it. That means everyone, including the Gwich'in and Sahtu. If we want to, we'll go with this one, and we'll go for the next one, as we did with clause 42.
[Translation]
In subsection 147(2),
[English]
it's by replacing...only in the French version, but if you're looking at....
[Translation]
In clause 147, line 38, in the French version, it says: "à toute personne ou organisme, les premières nations participent", while in the English version, it says "the Gwich'in and Sahtu". Therefore, we are going to add, after the words "les premières nations", the words "des Gwich'in et du Sahtu", to be consistent with the English version.
• 1640
(Amendment carried)
(Clause 147, as amended, carried)
(Clause 151—Existing permits continued)
The Chairman: On clause 151. The amendment reads: That Bill C- 6, in Clause 151, be amended by:
(a) adding after line 22 on page 60 the following:
Mr. Patry.
[English]
Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chairman, in the English version we want to delete—
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Patry, I have to read it out.
[English]
Mr. Bernard Patry: We met with all our witnesses during the bill and this is what was requested by the people who came before the committee here.
On clause 151, the first one is on line 22. In English it's line 22, in French it's line 24. In English we're just adding “or under any territorial law”. That means, if you're looking at line 21:
[Translation]
In French, it reads:
We had representations by people who wanted it to be a bit stronger, a bit more explicit, so we added those few words
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Does "or under any territorial law" mean that there are laws specific to each territory?
Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes, they really wanted this to be clarified.
[English]
That's for (a). For (b)—
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Patry, Mr. Dunlop would like to add something.
[English]
Mr. Will Dunlop: I didn't want to interrupt Mr. Patry.
Mr. Bernard Patry: It's all right. I'll have a drink.
Mr. Will Dunlop: By our adding these phrases to the English, the permit holders will be afforded the same protection on commissioner's land as they will on federal land. It will be even.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Patry.
[English]
Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you. We're looking at lines 27 and 28, still on page 60,
[Translation]
at line 29, page 60.
[English]
We're replacing lines 27 and 28 with:
[Translation]
The Chairman: Yes, Ms. Grenier.
Ms. Suzanne Grenier: In subsection 151(1), in English, on line 27, we are going to remove the phrase
[English]
[Translation]
In French, we added the words "ainsi que" so that the grammatical structure is correct. The people in charge of drafting the legislation have asked that this change be made. In the English version, we remove words which are not necessary, which did not correspond to anything in the French version. The words
[English]
[Translation]
are not necessary.
• 1645
The Chairman: Than you, Ms. Grenier.
Ms. Girard-Bujold, you are going to come often to the committee's meetings. I am starting to like it.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: It's because I like legal discussions.
The Chairman: I realize that you are good.
Mr. Patry.
Mr. Bernard Patry: In paragraph c) in your text, it's a question of being consistent.
[English]
In English it says:
It replaces line 33 on page 60 in English and page 39 in French.
Next, we're replacing line 3 on page 61 with:
—and this is what we're adding—
[Translation]
In French, at the end of the text, it says "au sens de ceux-ci", and we add:
These are amendments proposed by our side to make the text more consistent and clearer.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry.
(Amendment carried)
(Clause 151, as amended, carried)
(Clause 152—Nonconforming land uses)
The Chairman: An amendment to clause 152 is proposed. This is how it reads: That Bill C-6, in Clause 152, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 31 on page 61 with the following:
Mr. Patry.
Mr. Bernard Patry: In the bill, on page 61, subsections (1) and (2) under clause 152 are removed and replaced by what is tabled today. This is a follow-up to discussions we had with officials.
Mr. Bachand and I met with them to clarify these amendments to clause 152 and to clause 159 which are going to come up later and to get the full picture. I don't want to speak on behalf of the Bloc québécois, but at that time, they understood the purpose of these amendments.
As you heard, when it was read by the Chairman, this amendment is about rights to the use of lands. Following discussions with the people of the area, we realized that this provision was not acceptable to them.
The Chairman: Ms. Girard-Bujold.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I take you word for it, Mr. Patry, if you say that Mr. Bachand agreed with you.
Mr. Bernard Patry: I didn't say that he agreed. I told you what happened at that time.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Okay, the meetings.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes, the meetings.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Fine.
The Chairman: Any questions?
(Amendment carried)
(Clause 152, as amended, carried)
(Clause 155—Pending applications for licenses)
The Chairman: On clause 155 and the amendment proposed by Mr. Konrad.
• 1650
The amendment reads: That Bill C-6, in Clause 155, be amended
by replacing lines 17 to 20 on page 62 with the following:
In the French version of the amendment, «zie» does not stand for Suzie, but for Mackenzie.
Mr. Konrad.
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad: This simply disposes of the part where the notice was published prior to the coming into force of the act. If someone has made an application in good faith and had time to get an application out, they shouldn't be held up on notice of hearing.
The Chairman: Monsieur Patry.
Mr. Bernard Patry: I think this modification, as requested by the Reform Party, is redundant. We have tabled an amendment to subclause 159(2), which allows the existing Northwest Territories Water Board to continue an environmental screening through to a decision.
Mr. Derrek Konrad: In that case, it seems like clause 159 would be almost....
Mr. Bernard Patry: We're going to modify clause 159 later.
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Yes, but will there not be a contradiction then between the two?
Mr. Bernard Patry: No.
The Chairman: Monsieur Dunlop.
Mr. Will Dunlop: In drafting the transition measures we had to be sure we had some definite point at which today's existing Northwest Territories Water Board knew exactly when it was to receive applications or turn them over to the new land and water board. In consultations with that group, this was the easiest point and the cheapest for it. It had not yet paid to publish its notices or rent halls to have its hearings, so it asked that we do it at this point.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived)
The Chairman: On amendment R-7, proposed by Mr. Konrad. It reads: That Bill C-6, in Clause 155, be amended by deleting lines 26 to 32 on page 62.
I don't have anything else.
[English]
Mr. Bernard Patry: It's the same thing.
[Translation]
It's the same thing on the government's side. We object for the same reasons.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chairman: On amendment R-8. It reads: That Bill C-6, in Clause 155, be amended by deleting lines 33 to 40 on page 62.
Mr. Patry.
[English]
Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chair, subclause 155(4) refers to the requirement for the Northwest Territories Water Board to hand over its records to the new boards established by part 3 and part 4 where an application is being passed to the new regime.
This issue is being addressed in a proposed amendment to subclause 159(1) where it says:
It will not be possible to conduct a review without access to the existing records. This is the reason why we're opposed to it. By deleting lines 33 to 40 in English,
[Translation]
and lines 35 to 42 in French, we would weaken the scope of the bill.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I agree with Mr. Patry.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 155 carried)
The Chairman: We have a new section 157.1. The amendment reads: That Bill C-6 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 63 the following:
Mr. Charles Bellemare: First, we have to adopt clause 157.
• 1655
The Chairman: I am really sorry. As Mr. Bellemare so rightly says, we have to adopt clause 157 before considering 157.1.
Mr. Bernard Patry: But there won't be any clause 157.1.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Well no!
Mr. Charles Bellemare: It's in the bill.
The Chairman: A new section is added.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Okay.
Mr. Bellemare, please. We want to remove subsection 157(1) from the bill while you want us to carry subsection 157(2).
Mr. Charles Bellemare: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that amendment G-13.5 proposes to add a new section which is going to follow section 157. We haven't yet carried section 157. So the committee has to consider this clause.
The Chairman: Ms. Grenier.
Ms. Suzanne Grenier: Was clause 157 carried?
The Chairman: No.
Ms. Suzanne Grenier: So it's a section that is being added.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Fine.
The Chairman: Fine.
Ms. Suzanne Grenier: We can adopt clause 157 and then, discuss 157.1, which is a new section.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Grenier.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Okay, that's fine.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bellemare.
(Clause 157 carried)
(Clause 157.1—Application of part 5)
The Chairman: On the new section 157.1.
Mr. Bernard Patry: I am going to read clause 157.1:
Let me explain what it means. Some large companies have been operating mines for a good number of years, for more than 20 or 30 years. If they had wanted to make a small change to their undertaking, they would have had to go through the whole environmental review process, which is unreasonable.
In the case of significant alterations, of opening a new mine, the review process will apply. But if it's only a question of adding an extension to an existing building, there will not be a need for a complete evaluation.
This addition was recommended by a number of our witnesses and we agreed to it.
The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have a question for Mr. Patry.
You're saying part 5 does not apply. What...description of part 5?
Mr. Bernard Patry: We didn't say part 5 doesn't apply. It's more technical than that.
I would ask Mr. Dunlop to answer this, please.
Mr. Will Dunlop: In terms of the existing rights of the projects that exist today, as long as there's no application to make a major amendment, such as a decommissioning of a mine or an abandonment, part 5 does not apply. They don't go through another environmental assessment.
This is one of the few topics that had broad debate. The committee heard from three different groups on the same subject. The Government of the Northwest Territories, the Chamber of Mines, and the Environmental Impact Review Board itself asked for, and thought they should have, a section that clearly tells them how far back they can go.
The June 22, 1984, date—
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, that was my next question.
Mr. Will Dunlop: —is the date that the Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order was adopted into law. So we took the matching words out of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, subsection 74(4), and wrote it into this. It now matches and is consistent with CEAA, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think that partially explains “except a licence, permit or other authorization for an abandonment”.
Now, I want to make clear how that clause reads. It says, “except a licence, permit or other authorization”. Are you putting “other authorization” as a separate clause that means something different? Because if the company has been in existence before June 22, 1984, and suddenly they are changing their business—they found a new lead in their mine, or they're going to find a different material, or smelting practices change, or something else changes—I want to know how that reads in legalese.
• 1700
Mr. Will Dunlop: In two parts, “licence, permit or other authorization” is the phrase we use throughout the bill. If a mine or a large project files for abandonment or it's decommissioning, it is subject to part 5.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay, and that also applies if it changes its base of operations.
Mr. Will Dunlop: Yes, but significant alterations, not just one extra shaft.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, which should be included in the bill as it's already read. It's there.
Mr. Will Dunlop: Yes.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I asked several questions during the hearings. I think it's been answered many times that grandfathering, or the ability for licences that were previously held to continue to be held, is already in there. I'm wondering why we're putting in 157.1 if it's already there.
Mr. Will Dunlop: It's to make it clear that if they have to file for a licence or a permit to decommission or abandon the mine, that operation is subject to environmental assessment.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Fine. Thank you.
[Translation]
(New clause 157.1 carried on division)
(Clause 159—Application of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act)
Mr. Bernard Patry: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, this clause is similar to clause 152. It's an all new section. It follows discussions we had with representatives of the mining industry, before this bill was referred to the committee. The purpose of this clause is to ensure that, whenever there is an environmental assessment under way, it stays under the previous act, so that nothing falls in a regulatory vacuum. Officials have met concerned parties to explain how it will work.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry.
Mr. Keddy, go ahead.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Could you read the amendment, please? My copy's very blurred.
Mr. Bernard Patry: I will read it if you like.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Patry.
[English]
Mr. Bernard Patry: In English, the amendment reads:
Mr. Gerald Keddy: So what we're saying is simply that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is the act they will go by until the environmental assessment has been done by the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes, exactly.
Mr. Will Dunlop: You almost had it right, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I was close.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.
Go ahead, Mr. Dunlop.
Mr. Will Dunlop: The environmental assessment under way when this act is passed stays under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act until it's completed, and then it goes to the board. It's to make sure there's no sloppy handoff in between. It stays in the process it's in until—
• 1705
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Until we drop the ball.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
(Amendment carried on division)
(Clause 159, as amended, carried on division)
The Chairman: Let's not forget section 2. We did not agree to it yesterday because we were waiting for Ms. Hardy.
(Clause 2 carried on division)
The Chairman: Before going to the preamble, we have to adopt the schedule.
Mr. Keddy.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Which one are we on? Which page, Mr. Chairman, are we on?
The Chairman: Page 69.
[Translation]
Mr. Fournier.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Chairman, you are saying that we should adopt the schedule, page 69. I would like to know what is covered under sections 111 and 144. If we fast-track this without knowing what it means...
The Chairman: Sections 111 and 144 which were...
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: They were carried, but I would like to refresh my memory. We voted on many things, sometimes quite quickly.
The Chairman: It went well, Mr. Fournier. I believe you are quite right to ask questions. It's on page 38.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: It must be section 111.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: The National Energy Board. You replace "board" by "National Energy Board". What does this mean?
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: What is the National Energy Board?
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Why is the name of this organization mentioned here?
Mr. Bernard Patry: The bill mentions the agency named in the schedule, that is the National Energy Board. The agency referred to in sections 111 and 144 is named in the schedule. This is the National Energy Board. It's only for clarification. The schedule is part of the bill. Alright?
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I understand.
(Schedule carried)
(Clause 1 carried)
(Preamble)
[English]
Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chair, in the preamble, we have a modification. It's that Bill C-6 in the preamble be amended by deleting lines 24 to 29 on page 1.
• 1710
[Translation]
In French, we propose that lines 26 to 32, page 1, be removed from the preamble.
The preamble is on page 1 of the bill you have in front of you. We propose this amendment simply because we took that part of the preamble and put it under subsection 8(2), when we did the clause-by-clause yesterday. So it's part of subsection 8(2) and this is why we want to remove it from the preamble.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: You are removing all these lines?
Mr. Bernard Patry: Only the paragraph which says, in English:
[English]
The Chairman: Questions.
[Translation]
(Amendment carried)
The Chairman: Shall the preamble, as amended, carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: As Bill C-6 was amended, shall I order a reprint for use at report stage?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House tomorrow?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Before we adjourn, I'd like to say two things. First, happy birthday, Nancy.
[English]
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Ms. Girard-Bujold.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, what were you going to say? You are going to report the bill to the House tomorrow? Then, will there be a debate and so on? It won't be tomorrow, rather in February.
Mr. Bernard Patry: The debate will take place in February.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you.
The Chairman: I want to congratulate you all and to thank the Reform Party, the Bloc québécois, the Progressive Conservative Party, the NDP and the Liberal Party. I also want to thank officials from the Department of Indian Affairs for their help. To our researchers, our interpreters, to the translators, to the technicians and to all the support staff, to Mr. Bellemare and most of all, to our clerk, thank you very much. Let's have a round of applause for Christine who did a wonderful job. I also want to thank the political advisors who work for the members. We all thank you for your help. Thanks very much and have a wonderful Christmas and a happy New Year.
The meeting is adjourned.