Evidence of meeting #114 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 see.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Wonderful. That's unanimous.
Let's carry on. On PV-84, we have Ms. May.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Chair, this is at page 96 and is dealing with the use of the term “traditional knowledge”. I'm aware that when I submitted my amendment, the further work of the committee, at least when we were on the impact assessment act, was changing the words ”traditional knowledge” to “indigenous knowledge”. Also, earlier today, I was in clause-by-clause on the Fisheries Act, and similar amendments have been brought forward there. If anyone wanted to produce a subamendment to my amendment to make this “indigenous knowledge”.... In any case, I can't amend my own amendment given the status I have on this committee of having to be here but having no rights.
This is essentially an effort to ensure that the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples includes the concept of indigenous knowledge systems, as recommended to us in evidence from many witnesses, particularly the Assembly of First Nations.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'm presuming you want to cross out “traditional” and put in “indigenous”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
It's taking out “traditional” and putting in the word “indigenous”.
On PV-84, shall the amendment be amended with “indigenous” rather than “traditional”...?
Liberal
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I would have thought that they could include it in Mr. Bossio's. It's too bad.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Chair, to distinguish this from other changes that may appear with similar wording, I'd like to stress that this alteration in my amendment, to include the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, occurs in the all-important proposed section 3, which sets out the rights of the indigenous peoples of Canada.
The current proposed section reads:
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed as abrogating or derogating from the protection provided for the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
My amendment adds “and in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Chair, in PV-86, what I'm attempting to do is ensure that we inject into this bill the overwhelming importance of the climate crisis. At this point, the words “climate change” do not appear once in part 2 of this bill. In other words, they don't appear once in the part on the energy regulator. Given the government's formal commitment to reduce greenhouse gases—and there are new provisions in part 2, related to renewable offshore power lines that are certainly welcome—it certainly seems to be a disturbing gap that climate change isn't referenced.
What I'm proposing on page 97 at lines 21 and 22, and on the same page at lines 26 and 27, is secure language that ensures that as the government enacts this legislation and acts to deal with energy transmission issues, the Government of Canada is focused on its obligations and commitments with respect to climate change.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Chair, this relates to issues around the consultation with indigenous peoples. In the past, what we used to call—and I guess we still call it this until this act receives royal assent—the National Energy Board was found under various court decisions to have had significant lapses in its consultative process. Some examples are the Supreme Court decisions on the Clyde River case and on the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation case dealing with Enbridge. Of course, there is also the Enbridge decision in the Federal Court of Appeal related to the pipeline that was to have a terminal at Kitimat.
This amendment would reinforce the consideration of indigenous rights as a guiding principle throughout this proposed act, which is currently part 2 of Bill C-69, but will eventually, of course, be the Canadian energy regulator act. It's very consistent with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's action item 92, which is to ensure that UNDRIP is part of the reconciliation framework.
It's in that spirit that I submit PV-87.