Evidence of meeting #89 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 right.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Let's listen to Mr. Fast, and then I'm going to ask Paula if she has anything she wants to add to the conversation.
Go ahead.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'm curious as to Ms. Duncan's reference to the minister's commitment to implementing UNDRIP in Canada, because, quite frankly, this government has not shown an ability to actually follow through on the promises it makes. Until we actually see how the minister and her government plan to implement UNDRIP in Canada, we don't know what the consequences of it are.
As you know, our Conservative Party has highlighted serious concerns with the conflict between UNDRIP and Canada's current domestic law, including our constitutional requirements, especially the prior, free, and informed consent provisions. Those, we believe, could result in significant conflict, especially with our constitutional obligations, and will result in years of litigation with no prospect of certain outcomes.
To include this at this point in time I think is premature, especially if it's premised upon the fact that the Minister of Justice has made a promise, and we know how good those promises coming from this government are.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay.
Paula, is there anything you'd like to add to the conversation before we go to the vote?
9:05 a.m.
Director General, Sustainability Directorate, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment
I think the points have been echoed already, but I'll reinforce that the application of the principles in the whole act is to consider all of the principles that you will ultimately approve inside the act in the development of strategies. To the extent to which those pieces are articulated here, I think we have scope to take into account any further implementation that the government will be making with respect to UNDRIP, which right now is still under review.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
This is very important.
The government has said the nation-to-nation relationship is their top priority. This has advanced even since I put forward my proposed amendment. The government has now publicly declared to indigenous people that they intend to support and vote for Bill C-262, and that means they are going to put the UNDRIP into federal law. That doesn't say how they're going to apply it.
In the same way, just simply mentioning the polluter pays principle or the precautionary principle doesn't say how they will be applied. It's simply saying that we will give thought to them—we will give thought to this principle, we will give thought to that principle. It doesn't say that in every individual case, this is exactly how we're going to apply it.
I am raising this point because the justice minister had declared—and now in the House on the debate of the bill, government members have said—that they are going to be supporting this bill, and therefore it is critical that we make sure that our laws align with the UN declaration. This is the opportunity to do that.
I am recommending that it's the opportune moment to do it. When will this act be amended again? Is it “eventually”? It's up to the members here to vote, but I think the government has been clear that its position is that it will now put UNDRIP in law. No one knows, on the timing, which bill will come forward first, but I think the intent is clear there.
I just rest my case that this has been declared by the Government of Canada, and so I think it's appropriate that it be specific. I'm very concerned about the wording of proposed paragraph 5(g) because it immediately narrows any international obligations or commitments simply to “traditional knowledge” and “knowledge of lands and waters”, which I think is inappropriate.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Yes, I very much agree with Mr. Aldag's point. I think he is very correct on this.
At the beginning of proposed section 5, “the principles shall be considered” is a very declarative phrase, meaning “this will happen”, so I think Mr. Aldag's cautions are very much warranted.
In terms of proposed paragraph 5(g), again, this is not an amendment, but I do find it offensive that it's automatically assumed that only aboriginal people have traditional knowledge of the landscape. In the case of my ranchers and farmers, their knowledge of landscapes and ecology is as good as, or better than, than most people in this country. I can see where this principle will be in place, but I just want to make the point that other people have it.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Are we voting on the whole, or just the NDP amendment?
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Shall NDP-1 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is NDP-2.
Go ahead, Ms. Duncan.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you very much.
In this amendment, I have made recommendations consistent with the testimony this committee heard in the advance review of the act and testimony we heard since the bill was tabled. All of these had been recommended by renowned experts, and by the committee, frankly.
I have inserted “(j) the principle of adherence to the United Nations Resolution A/RES/70/1”. I put in that language because that has been recommended by the commissioner as recently as our last meeting. She was concerned that we not be vague about what Canada has committed to in sustainable development principles. There are 17 current UN sustainable development goals.
I don't think it's appropriate to list the 17 goals in the bill. The best way to reflect that this is what Canada has said we are committed to is simply to mention the actual UN resolution that Canada has adhered to.
That was actually recommended by the committee. Recommendation 6 stated:
...take into account Canada’s international commitments to sustainable development, including those made under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development...
I have put in the actual wording of that agenda for sustainable development. That's what it's called.
Catherine Pearce from the World Future Council also supported that it reflect all 17 of the goals. Scott Vaughan has just written to us and reiterated that as well. The president of the Canadian Council of International Co-operation has also asked that the bill reflect the entirety.
I have other examples. The committee itself recommended that the full UN resolution be referenced in the bill. That's why I suggest it be added in.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
The problem that I have with the United Nations resolution is that it's from 2015, and it's fairly prescriptive in terms of sustainability. The issue with it is that it could potentially limit the potential for sustainable development. It limits the ability to explore the strategies if you subscribe just to that particular resolution. That's the issue I have with it.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would point out that recommendation 6 actually says, “Take into account Canada’s international commitments to sustainable development, including those made under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement.” It's not as specific as Ms. Duncan is making it sound.
What we've done right now in the act is sufficient to reflect the very clear recommendation that comes out of our report.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Am I to understand the committee is now changing its mind? I was simply following on what the committee recommended to the minister.