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.
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
You're first dealing with proposed paragraph 5(a), then 5(b), then 5(c), which is what was done.
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Ms. Duncan's amendment is with respect to proposed paragraph 5(g). Let's go through it in the proper order.
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I'm just trying to make sure we're all at the right place.
We are at the beginning of clause 3. We are looking at an amendment “of replacing line 16 on page 2 with the following”. That's where I'm at.
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I submit my entire proposed amendment as tabled.
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
And (c) is on the back. All right. I just want to make sure we don't have a misunderstanding.
As I said before, we're going to go slowly, because we don't do this often. I want to make sure that people are comfortable and they have a chance to say what they need to say at the right time.
We're doing LIB-1 on clause 3, The amendment has parts (a), (b), and (c). We're replacing line 16.
Okay. Are we all at the right place?
Does LIB-1 carry?
8:55 a.m.
NDP
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I am going to move on, but I want to make sure that people have a chance to have their say. We have carried this one. I will go slower, so that everybody....
When you want to say something before we vote, please say it, so that we don't vote and then go backwards, because that becomes a problem.
We're on NDP-1.
9 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
This one I am tabling because we heard from a number of witnesses to the committee, before I joined the committee, when there was an advance....
Do you want me to read what it says first, or do you want me to just speak to it?
9 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I think we can all read it, so just speak to it. Then we'll have a quick debate, and then we'll vote on it.
9 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Since the bill was written and tabled, the government of the day, through the Minister of Justice, Jody Wilson-Raybould, has stated that the government will be supporting Romeo Saganash's Bill C-262, which states that the Government of Canada,
must take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of indigenous Peoples.
She has said, then, that it acknowledges the application of the UN declaration in Canada and calls for the alignment of the laws of Canada to the UN declaration. She has said that she will now ensure that all the laws of the nation will be aligned with the UNDRIP. That's a very specific commitment.
The problem with the way that proposed paragraph 5(g) is written right now is that it's a very narrow and tiny aspect of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. When you go through that, particularly if you go to articles 18, 20, 23, 26, 29, 31, or 32, there are many provisions of the UNDRIP that relate to sustainable development, far beyond traditional knowledge and unique understanding of lands.
It was also recommended, as I recall, by the commissioner, and also by Scott Vaughan, the former commissioner, now the head of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, that there should be specific reference to the UNDRIP in this. That's why I'm recommending replacing paragraph (g), which includes only a very narrow aspect of what Canada has committed to.
If we're talking about his broad definition of sustainable development, we need to make sure, when we're speaking of indigenous rights, that we're embracing all of what Canada has said that it embraces. It did say it embraced it before, but it's going to put it into law, and the laws of the land should be consistent.
To me, the simplest way to do it is to reference the UNDRIP.
9 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I think that's a good explanation.
I have John Aldag first, and then Ed Fast.
9 a.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
On the Liberal side, we do not support this particular amendment.
The reason is that if you go back to the new “Purpose” section, between lines 5 and 10, the addition that we just approved says it will respect “Canada's domestic and international obligations relating to sustainable development”.
We feel that the commitment to the UNDRIP is already covered by the statement in there, and it would be redundant to restate it in this clause. We would like to stay with the existing wording of proposed paragraph 5(g), because we feel that the new commitments we made are covered in the new purpose statement.
9 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay. I didn't want to get out of order, because I get corrected often.
Go ahead.
9 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
My understanding is—and I will defer as well to the legislative adviser—that when you go from the general to specific, you've already narrowed down your general. By the fact that you've said “international obligations”, it doesn't also say “commitments”, because I'm not sure that's an obligation, but certainly a commitment.... By then refining that down to just traditional knowledge, you have already narrowed what Canada is committed to under that.
With what you're arguing—if you're going to stand by that—you're going to have to take out all of clause 5, because it's the same argument. It's the precautionary principles: polluter pays, openness and transparency. We would have to remove all of them, if I follow your argument.
