On February 26th, 2013, the committee heard testimony from Ted McDormand, an international law professor from the University of Victoria about his expertise on international law of the sea. The committee also heard evidence from representatives the Governments of Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Yukon.  The delegates from the territories discussed the importance to northerners of Canada becoming chairperson of the Arctic Council in May 2013 as well as the impact of development on Arctic Canada.  The impact of climate change, increasing shipping traffic and the overall development of infrastructure and resource development were issues discussed by all representatives from the territories.

On February 28th, 2013, the committee heard testimony from witnesses from the Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on icebreaking, search and rescue capabilities environmental disaster response capabilities and climate change adaptability of the Coast Guard and in the North.  A witness from Prolog Canada Inc. provided testimony on transportation in the north and demonstrated to the committee that while there is development in the north, a lack of infrastructure and transportation is hindering development.

The post Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development (FAAE) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

This week the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development met to discuss Bill C-47, and Supplementary Estimates (B) 2012-2013.  Bill C-47 is an act to enhance the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act, and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.  The Committee met late on Monday due to a vote in the house, and unfortunately the meeting was cut short and some of the witnesses could not be questioned due to the vote. The Committee did hear from the Minister, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.  There was a focus on the exact breakdowns of the new supplementary estimates, and exactly where the money would be going.  An emphasis was also placed on improving access to clean water on reserves, and the improvement of waste water systems. The witnesses from the Department of Justice and from the Department of Indian Affairs only gave an opening statement; the members were not able to question them due to time constraints.

The minutes from the meeting can be found here.

Wednesday December 5^th, 2012

The Committee met this Wednesday December 5^th, to discuss Bill C-47 in further detail. The meeting started an hour late due to another vote in the house. The meeting was only an hour rather than the regular two. The Minister was not able to make it to the meeting, however two representatives from the Nunavut government appeared to give opening statements concerning Bill C-47 (available here.)

The representatives from the Nunavut government emphasized the importance of Bill C-47 to the people of Nunavut, and emphasized the length of time it has taken to get this Bill completed and the need to have this piece of legislation passed.  During the meeting there was a distinct effort by the committee members to note that consultation with the community was extensive during this process of creating this legislation. The Nunavut Land Claims Act was mentioned multiple times during the meetings, information concerning this act can be found here.

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. was also mentioned multiple times, and it was mentioned that they may provide some information at some point, information concerning this organization can be found here.

The post Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (ANNO) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

If indeed the government has been working on these changes for years, I am wondering if the member could help us understand why it is that just recently the government dispatched 10 senior cabinet ministers around the country to try to convince Canadians that the environmental assessment process would be capped to two years, only to then have to admit that in fact, when a project proponent delays, the two-year timeline no longer applies.

Maybe the member could help us understand, for example, how that applied in the case of Imperial Oil in the Northwest Territories.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has put the case very well. I will just say that most of the delays we have seen take place in the past, for instance, on large projects such as the review of the Mackenzie gas pipeline, were directly due to the proponent not being ready, and that has created delays.

A lot of us would like to see certainty around reviews, but we want to make sure the proponent cannot rag the puck so long that the process gets delayed and then those interested parties, and in a different category particularly, the first nations interested parties, have to rush to catch up with their analyses when the proponent is responsible for the delay.

The post Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act (Bill C-38) appeared first on Elizabeth May.