Evidence of meeting #112 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 agency.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Linda, check the record. I asked Monday of this week to do it and there was no willingness to do that.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
You're adding more hours in a day. I'm asking for more days.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
The record stands on what I've been asking for on a regular basis and it has been rejected.
Let's move on to the work at hand—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
—to spend as much time as we can on going through the amendments that have been brought forward with lots of thought on how we can make this bill better.
First up, I think—
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
No, very quickly, we have votes at six o'clock. Are you still intending—?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We're good until 7 p.m. I'd just like us to get moving.
(On clause 1)
We've done amendment PV-7. That's how we finished. Now we have amendment NDP-16.
Linda, you're up.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Chair, I'm not sure at this stage how many of the provisions of the bill have been amended, but I am recommending here that we replace line 41 on page 8, again adding in a reference to “the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted on September 13, 2007”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Thank you. We had discussion on this yesterday.
Shall the amendment carry?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
No, you don't, actually. In fact, the way the motion was made, it was five minutes per clause. I have gone way over five minutes per clause. I was applying as much discretion as I could to give time for amendments, so we're going to tighten it up.
There really isn't five minutes per amendment. It was five minutes for each party per clause.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Wow. On a point of order, Madam Chair, this is going from bad to worse. What we now find out is that we won't even have time to debate the amendments that have been put forward by each of the members of this committee. We've already had our time for witnesses cut short because of a programming motion brought forward by the government.
How can you justify ramming through amendment after amendment without full debate? It's unconscionable for you to suggest it. I have never been at a committee table quite like this one. If this is the way we're going to comport ourselves and deal with what is arguably the most important legislation this government will bring forward in this Parliament....
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Ed, this particular amendment was discussed yesterday. It's just showing up in another place. You had not allowed me to collect them last time because you wanted to make sure that in each context they didn't have some different ramification, so we're on this one again.
It's the same as with the discussion we had yesterday. If you have something special to add today that is different, I'm willing to listen to it, but I want to know what's different about the discussion today from what you said yesterday on this particular point.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd be glad to tell you.
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is an important declaration, is one that has provisions in it that provide for free, prior, and informed consent, FPIC, as it's commonly known. We have no analysis here at this table from our officials as to whether FPIC actually provides first nations with a full and absolute right of veto, or whether it's something slightly less than a veto, or whether it just buttresses the current duty to consult, which has been considered by courts across this country for decades, and we now have a pretty good idea of what that looks like.
To incorporate that declaration into this legislation would be a huge risk, and we would do so without knowing the legal import of that declaration as it relates to the Canadian constitution. That's why I am opposing this.
I believe Ms. Duncan knows where I stand on this. I don't think we should be taking steps that haven't been thoroughly thought out from a legal perspective, and unfortunately, we don't have those legal minds at the table right now.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Right. This is exactly the discussion we had yesterday, so thank you very much for it, and I will put the question.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I was speaking. I'm not finished yet.
Are there questions from the Liberals on this?
Liberal
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I have a question that I want an answer to.
We have accepted the addition of the UNDRIP in other places in the bill, and I asked specifically, was the Liberal motion going forward to all provisions. No, it wasn't. We're going to do them one by one.
Here, then, is a very obvious place in which the UNDRIP must be mentioned, because it talks about the rights of indigenous peoples in Canada and about section 35 of the Constitution Act.
That is therefore my amendment at this place in the bill. When it is specifically titled, “Rights of Indigenous Peoples of Canada”, it seems appropriate to me that this be another place in which the UNDRIP should be referenced.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Madam Chair, simply put, yes, we've advanced amendments to incorporate UNDRIP in several locations. We'll be advancing three more over the course of the coming days. The government members feel that those are the appropriate places in this bill to introduce UNDRIP, and so we don't feel that this proposal is necessary. We suggest, with respect, that we move to a vote.