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.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
We've seen this in previous parts of the bill. It uses language we're comfortable with in terms of representing the interests of first nations, Inuit, and Métis.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Similar to the previous amendment, we've had this before. It's simply applying indigenous knowledge to this proposed section of the bill.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
The vote will also apply to LIB-87, LIB-90, and LIB-91, which are the consequential changes.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on CPC-13.
Mr. Fast.
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
This is another amendment brought forward by my colleague from Lakeland, Ms. Stubbs. The amendment is that Bill C-69 in clause 10 be amended by replacing line 25 on page 113 with the following:
ferred to in that subsection must be disclosed if
Let me tell you what the intent is. It clarifies that if any traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples of Canada is provided to the regulator in confidence, it is publicly available, or if disclosure of that knowledge is necessary for procedural fairness, natural justice, use in legal proceedings, or is authorized to be disclosed under the regulations set by Governor in Council, that information must be disclosed. Again, it's not optional. It's mandatory that it be disclosed under those conditions.
As Bill C-69 is currently written, any traditional knowledge that is provided to the regulator in confidence that is publicly available or necessary to be disclosed for the reasons I articulated earlier—
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
All you're changing is “traditional” to “indigenous”, aren't you? Nothing else is changing.
8 p.m.
Liberal
8 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
The bill already does this, but the word “may” is too vague. Again, we're moving from permissive to mandatory. If indigenous knowledge meets the criteria outlined in the bill, the criteria set out by the Governor in Council in the form of the regulations, then it should be disclosed.
8 p.m.
Liberal
8 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
8 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you very much.
This one is very specifically related to an issue that's come up throughout the review of this ominous bill, and that's the treatment of traditional knowledge or indigenous knowledge. This is related to the disclosure of information that indigenous peoples have asked remain confidential. The two exceptions where indigenous knowledge can be shared occur in the lines that I'm deleting. The first occurs in lines 30 to 31 on page 113, where the disclosure is authorized. The second is on the following page, where the Governor in Council can, by regulation—and this is really specific and I find it really very offensive—release indigenous traditional knowledge that is provided to the regulator in confidence and that it “may be disclosed without written consent.”
I can't imagine how such a provision could apply in an era when we hear from a government that there's no relationship more important to us than our relationship with indigenous people, but we could in the process of this hearing get their information, tell them we're going to keep it confidential, and then release it without their consent. I don't understand why that's in here and I hope you'll agree with this amendment.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Madam Chair, there's also another duty, and that is toward procedural fairness to an applicant, to a proponent of a project. I don't think Ms. May is suggesting that proponents should not have access to procedural fairness or natural justice, but that is the impact of her amendments. That would be a very sad state if, in fact, proponents do not have basic procedural rules of fairness that they are treated with.
8 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I'll very briefly direct you to “Further disclosure” in proposed subsection 58(3), which allows the regulator to impose conditions with respect to the disclosure of traditional knowledge by any person to whom it is disclosed “for the purposes of procedural fairness and natural justice”. The concern that he has raised is covered by a proposed subsection I'm not deleting.
8 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
What I find astounding is that the indigenous people say that they're willing to give this information to you, but you must keep it in confidence. The authority could say, “We don't agree with this designation; therefore, we will not receive the information.” But having received it in confidence, I agree, it's outrageous that they would then breach that confidence when, in fact, it was received having said, “Yes, we will receive that in full confidence. We dub this as confidential.” It's unbelievable that the indigenous peoples reveal that information, and later, for whatever purposes, the government overrides that confidence. I find it pretty stunning.
8:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Definitely record this one.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
8:05 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Madam Chair, I would like to speak to this, but also to LIB-89, which is substantially related. This speaks to the consideration of indigenous knowledge and the importance of consultation prior to this disclosure.
The context of amendment LIB-88 relates to the incorporation of that consultation with the procedural fairness and natural justice aspects of the proceedings around the energy regulator act. LIB-89 speaks specifically to the regulator “having regard to that consultation”.
The two are linked, and we think they ought to be voted upon together.