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.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Madam Chair, this is the definition of “traditional knowledge.“ Earlier we dealt with the definition of “indigenous knowledge” and presumably distinguished between the two. Why are we using two terms here? My understanding is that there is supposed to be consistency in the terminology we use.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Yes, but it's an amendment that's before us and we're going to vote on it.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
In section 119, “traditional knowledge” is specifically referenced.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We haven't gotten there yet. We're working away.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)
Next is amendment NDP-15.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
We had lengthy discussions on this matter when we reviewed, as a committee, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We had extensive witness testimony.
My understanding is our committee recommended that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act now incorporate the term “vulnerable population” for the same reason we talked about environmental justice. It specifically includes any group or community especially vulnerable to environmental or health risks as a result of biological, social, economic, geographic, or other factors.
It is an important matter for review panels or the agency, when they are reviewing proposed projects, to also assess whether or not there may be vulnerable populations, rather than their just looking at generalities.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Do you usually put a definition where it comes up in the document? Have you got it coming up somewhere else?
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Because a definition usually is reflecting on defining it for the document.
Mr. Sopuck.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Yes, that's the issue. How do you define a vulnerable population? This particular wording freezes communities in time, and what happens in market economies is that there is often change, and the change can be disruptive. For example, large-scale agriculture displaces small-scale agriculture. The benefits, of course, are inexpensive and very healthy food, but at the same time, the disadvantages, as I see in my own constituency, are communities in decline.
In a dynamic market economy, we have to allow for that kind of change, and some of it is temporarily difficult for some to bear. Without allowing for economic change, our country simply could not move ahead. I will certainly be voting against this.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I feel that it is quite laudable of my colleague to want to insert that definition in the bill, except that we must not compartmentalize, select, or define groups. The legislation must be in place for all Canadians and it must not establish specific categories. We must view legislation very broadly; that is why it is not appropriate to define groups within it.
So I am not very receptive to my colleague’s proposal.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
All right. I'm sorry about that.
It was mentioned in one of your amendments, which was NDP-2, and that's probably why it came up. I want to make sure that I close that loop.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Tomorrow we have the athletes in the House, so we'll be delayed getting to committee. Given the pace and the interest in giving everyone a chance to discuss these amendments as they come forward, would there be an agreement in the committee to extend to 8 o'clock tomorrow? We would go from whenever we get in, which hopefully will be before 4, and then go for four hours and get as much done as we can?
1:30 p.m.
NDP
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I know there's an interest here to try to get as much time to discuss—
1:30 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I need the evening to prepare for the three-hour meeting the next day.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I'm trying to get a little bit more time for discussion, so that we can do that, but if there's no agreement around the committee—