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.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
May 9th, 2018 / 4:20 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Chair, this amendment is one that was recommended by the Assembly of First Nations. It's quite critical to understand the impact of the words that are currently found on page 9 in proposed paragraph 6(1)(e), which deals with the
coordinated action between federal and provincial governments, and the federal government and Indigenous governing bodies
The draft that we have for first reading qualifies the words “Indigenous governing bodies” with the words “that are jurisdictions”. The impact of that is to provide that those first nations that are allowed to participate in more coordinated action with the federal government are only those that have entered into agreements as outlined. The existing definition of “jurisdiction” would restrict the indigenous governing bodies that were allowed to enter into agreements.
In accordance with the Assembly of First Nations' recommendations, therefore, my amendment removes the words “that are jurisdictions” so that this paragraph (e) would read, in lines 25 and 26:
federal government and Indigenous governing bodies with respect to impact assessments;
Then it goes on to paragraph (f).
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)
We are on amendment PV-9.
4:20 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This is another recommendation from the Assembly of First Nations. Commendably, this bill deals with indigenous knowledge, traditional knowledge, and so on, and with giving recognition and respect to that kind of information as being important to impact assessment.
As we heard from testimony from the Assembly of First Nations, it is important to recognize that in communication and co-operation with indigenous peoples there be respect for sensitive information.
To give you an idea of this, quite often when working with indigenous communities there can be areas that are known for medicinal plants. They are specific areas that are culturally and often spiritually important. Once located and identified in communication with governments, indigenous peoples and their governments have reason to be concerned that those particular sensitive areas and that information could lead to the destruction of these particular sites or intrusion into the gathering of medicinal plants by indigenous people.
That's just one example to explain why this amendment that I'm proposing inserts the language “while protecting sensitive information” into the bill's phrase “cooperation with Indigenous peoples”.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Just so that I understand, line 31 on page 9 at the moment says, “to ensure respect for the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada”, and you want to change that to “protect the rights of the Indigenous—
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
It's okay. I can imagine and can only sympathize with your enthusiasm for my next amendment.
4:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Thank you.
Now that I'm on the right page, Ed, would you like to make a comment on the amendment?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Yes, I want to make a comment.
Is it Ms. May's intention for the sensitive information to be available to proponents of projects, or would this be withheld from them?
4:20 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
The intention in doing an impact assessment, I would assume—well, I'm not assuming, if you're entering into a mispurpose of the act—is, in this proposed paragraph 6(1)(f):
to promote communication and co-operation with Indigenous peoples of Canada with respect to impact assessments;
It's clear that what we want to do is also protect sensitive information. I can't imagine that, in that context—this is guidance in the purpose of the act, so in the context of an impact assessment— this information would be known to the proponent, but they would also have to regard it as sensitive information and protect it from publication.
It's guidance in the purpose. I think it would be a matter of co-operation and discussion in each instance with each indigenous governing body.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
We don't support this amendment, but we appreciate the direction that Ms. May is attempting to bring us in terms of ensuring the appropriate use and protection of indigenous knowledge in all acts in the bill.
There are a bunch of relevant government member motions that either have been brought or will be brought, in particular, amendment LIB-4, which provides a definition of indigenous knowledge, and amendments LIB-20, LIB-38, and LIB-39, which require reports to set out how indigenous knowledge is used and also ensure that this knowledge is protected.
Amendments LIB-63, LIB-125, and LIB-88 would require that, before indigenous knowledge is disclosed, the minister will consult the person or entity who provided it as well as the person or entity to whom it would be disclosed—this is going, a bit, to Mr. Fast's comment.
Amendments LIB-65, LIB-126, and LIB-89 would allow for conditions on the disclosure of indigenous knowledge in light of consultations with the person or entity who provided it, as well as the person or entity to whom it would be disclosed.
That's all on top of the number of motions to change terminologies in the bill from “traditional” to “indigenous” knowledge. We're confident, as government members, that we're engaging on this indigenous knowledge issue in a comprehensive manner and we're confident that it's going to be incorporated appropriately.
4:25 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I would just say to Liberal members of the committee that inserting this language in the purpose section—since we don't know how your amendments will go later on—should buttress your arguments when we get to your amendments, because it's all very consistent and takes nothing away from yours, but anchors it in the act.
Thank you.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we're on to the one that I thought we were on—
4:25 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I am edging up here on the score. We've gone from one NDP to getting three Conservative votes. Now, on this next one, I'm sure we're going to get everybody, because we're in this friendly area called Mr. Rogers' neighbourhood. I'm moving into it here.