Evidence of meeting #111 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was definition.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
You're imputing a motive on my part that doesn't exist. We want to make sure that the process is very clear on how we as members around this table vote.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Okay. That replaces lines 25 to 28, and we would instead put:
Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the need for transparent and accountable decision-making in relation to impact, regional and strategic assessments;
That reflects the mandate letters issued by the Prime Minister to all of the ministers, including the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Transport, etc.
It states clearly the need for transparency and accountability in decision-making and applies to all aspects of impact assessment under the bill.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
All right. Is there any discussion?
We'll do a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)
Thank you.
The next one is amendment PV-1.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm aware of how much work we have ahead of us and how little time. Forgive me, but I have to put on the record that I'm here only because of a motion passed by this committee. I would rather you hadn't passed that motion, because it restricts my rights. I could otherwise bring my motions to the floor of the House at report stage, but required as I am by your decision as a committee, I'm bringing forward 150 amendments to Bill C-69. I hope we can have proper debate on all of them. I sympathize with the situation in which you all find yourselves.
My amendment here is to improve the bill with the full recognition of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If you go to page 2, line 35, I'm leaving in the language “to fostering reconciliation and working in partnership with them;”. That language doesn't go, but after the recognition of section 35 of the Constitution, I insert the language:
and by the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
I'll make a quick note to let you know that when we get to amendment PV-2, in that section, I have a definitions section so that anytime we use the words “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, it refers specifically to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
I feel that my first amendment, PV-1, corresponds exactly to the will of the Government of Canada.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
If I could, there are several amendments in which you raise this very same issue, and those are PV-1, PV-2, PV-7, PV-11, PV-13, PV-19, PV-26, PV-61, PV-69, and PV-78. They all say the same thing where it comes up in the document in different places. Would you be all right with our addressing all of them together, given that they're the same concept?
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Yes. I'd also add that my amendment PV-84 deals with the issue of how to phrase properly what first nations want around traditional knowledge.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
That's a bit more of a discussion, and I don't want to make it confusing. I'll just leave that one out.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I have a great fear that we will never get to part 3 of this bill. In order to help a government that has forced us into a situation where we don't have enough time, I will agree to that, Madam Chair. You can vote on all my amendments to insert “the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” into this act, but I really hope that in moving it along swiftly, we move it along positively.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay. I'm going to repeat them again for everyone, so you know what you're voting on.
PV-1, PV-2, PV-7, PV-11, PV-13, PV-19, PV-26, PV-61, PV-69, and PV-78. That's all in part 1.
Mr. Fast.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you.
We oppose this each time it appears, as has just been suggested. The challenge is this: We have a Constitution. We have a duty to consult. We have the courts that have interpreted the duty to consult for decades now. Most Canadians and most lawyers understand, generally, what that duty looks like. We're imposing and inserting UNDRIP—which is the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples—on which there is so much disagreement on what it actually entails. Does it entail an absolute veto, a partial veto, or no veto at all? We've seen testimony at this table from our first nations. Some suggest there is no veto.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Yes, we had that testimony.
Other first nations suggest there is a veto power implied in UNDRIP. When we insert that now into this legislation, we immediately create more uncertainty and guarantee that there will be litigation going forward. For the sake of clarity, let's base this legislation on our Constitution and on section 35, as suggested in the preamble right here. That is why I'll be opposing this amendment.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you.
If we're going to carry forward from Ms. May, are we also going to carry forward all the amendments that I put forward and the Liberals put forward that say close to the identical thing? It would make sense, if we're going to be efficient, because it's also in my first amendment.
If Ms. May would accept it, I would like to amend her amendment to specify “adopted on September 13, 2007”, so that we are specific about which United Nations declaration it is. When it has been cited, normally that information is also given. That would be my first recommendation.
We also heard from a number of indigenous representatives—from the Métis, the Inuit, and first nations—all of whom called for this. We have also received, even past the date of the amendment, many briefs from indigenous governments, organizations, and entities calling for this amendment.
It's also important to keep in mind that at the Assembly of First Nations meeting in November of last year, the justice minister committed that, going forward, all federal laws would reflect or incorporate the UNDRIP. Regrettably, it wasn't in the sustainable development act. That amendment wasn't accepted by this committee, even though I suggested it. I would be deeply encouraged if we did finally do that. Recently, we even have Bob Rae, former leader of the both the NDP and Liberals, who has stated in the Law Times:
It's a little strange to me that the federal government would announce with...great...fanfare that it's adopting the UN declaration as its benchmark and not put it into the major piece of environment impact legislation. I find it, frankly, quite strange...This certainly doesn't clarify what indigenous people have been saying for some time is reflecting their concerns about the nature of development.
Finally, in response to Mr. Fast's comments, heavens, we have a lot of litigation over what the Constitution says, including section 35. I don't think that's a valid argument for us not to reflect the UNDRIP in this bill. Simply by incorporating it, it would say that all of the provisions of the UNDRIP would be arguable, in the same way that it's arguable that this is how you interpret section 35 of the Constitution.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Given your comment at the beginning, I wanted to let you look at PV-2, which we're going to be talking about adopting in conjunction with this. It gives a definition that talks all about what you wanted to add. That's already in the motion that Elizabeth brought forward in PV-2. If we adopt it in the bunch, then that will be in there. Any time you see what you're seeing in terms of the declaration on the rights of indigenous people, the definition is here explaining the details.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I don't know if we'll even accept the definition. If I have comfort that the Liberals will accept the definition, then I'm okay with not having an amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
They're all together. We've bunched them together, so that it's going as PV-1, PV-2, PV-7.... Anyway, I've already gone through it. It's part of it.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
But we have not also included all the NDP and Liberal changes, and they could be in different parts of the act.