Evidence of meeting #36 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. Yes, that's right.
Is there any discussion?
(On clause 1)
Mr. Longfield, go ahead.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I think that because we've just voted to not have the proper oversight on clause 1, I wonder about the Walpole nation, whether it's included in the geographic boundaries. It sounds like they're not, even though they're directly adjacent to the lines.
For that reason, I wouldn't be supporting it.
Liberal
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Chair, I don't want to speak to clause 1, but I just want to remind my colleagues to approach their microphones when they speak, so that the interpreters can hear what's being said and so I can get their interpretation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. Thank you.
It appears that no one else wants to speak to clause 1, unless I've missed a hand.
What is it, Mr. Clerk?
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, you'll have to excuse me. I'm new to a lot of this content.
Mr. Longfield just made a comment about clause 1, I believe. I wonder if he could expand a bit on his comment and explain to those of us who are subbing in on the committee why he feels that this is an issue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm a little perplexed here. Can we have this kind of discussion or are we basically...?
I don't know if it's a Q and A at this point, but go ahead, Mr. Longfield, if you want to give a short answer.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think the concern about this—and this will be noted in the next amendment that I want to bring forward—is that it relates to the coming into force of this act and ensuring that we do have appropriate processes that will have taken place to ensure consultation and, where appropriate, accommodation of all the potentially impacted first nations, which includes the Walpole Island First Nation, which Mr. Longfield mentioned as well.
That was the idea behind the second amendment, which I'll be putting forward very shortly, but we'll be voting on this one before having the ability to debate and potentially vote on that one. I'll be getting ahead of myself and our committee here, but it would ensure that there is the appropriate space for that process to take place before this act comes into force and before the park is established.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Are there any other speakers?
Mr. Longfield, did you have your hand up?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, so we'll go to the vote on clause 1.
(Clause 1 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
The clause carries.
We'll go now to amendment Liberal-2, which I believe is for new clauses 2 and 3.
Who is proposing amendment Liberal-2?
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Mr. Chair, that is me again.
I'd like to move an amendment referenced as 12053406, which reads as follows: That Bill C-248 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 20 the following new clauses:
Amendment of Park Description
2 The Governor in Council may, by order, amend the description of the Ojibway National Urban Park of Canada set out in Schedule 1 of the Canada National Parks Act, as enacted by section 1 of this Act, by altering the description of that park to remove any land on which His Majesty in right of Canada does not have clear title to or an unencumbered right of ownership in the lands within that park.
Coming Into Force
3 Section 1 of this Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council, but that day must not be before the day on which the Governor in Council is satisfied that
(a) His Majesty in right of Canada has clear title to or an unencumbered right of ownership in the lands to be included in the park;
(b) the government of the province in which those lands are situated has agreed to their use for that purpose; and
(c) the Government of Canada has held meaningful and effective consultations with the Caldwell First Nation and the Walpole Island First Nation and has provided accommodations, where appropriate.
That's the actual text of the amendment.
The rationale behind this is that it will allow the coordinates to be amended as necessary. As I mentioned before in response to the question that Mr. Bachrach brought up, it will provide the timeline for the coming into force of this act, to enable proper consultation for all the potentially impacted first nations that might be impacted by the acquisition of the land that will be within the traditional territory of that nation.
It also provides for provincial land not to be transferred to the federal government without the prior agreement of the provincial government as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Mr. Weiler.
You'll be interested to know that I have an opinion on this proposed amendment as well.
Bill C-248 enacts the new Ojibway national urban park of Canada by way of geographical descriptions. The amendment seeks to add a power to the Governor in Council to alter the boundaries of the park by order in council and also to provide for a coming into force of the bill, conditional to certain events happening, both of which are new concepts not envisioned in the bill.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”
That's the first thing.
If we go to pages 773 and 774 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, we'll see the following: “An amendment intended to alter the coming into force clause of a bill, making it conditional, is out of order since it exceeds the scope of the bill and attempts to introduce a new question into it.”
In the opinion of the chair, for the reasons stated above, the amendment brings two new concepts foreign to the bill. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.
As I understand it, we now go to the title of the bill.
Shall the title carry?
(Title agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I would just like to lay this out here. I have some very real concerns about the bill, about the constitutionality of the bill, if it's going to be enacted before there is the space to have the consultation and accommodation, where appropriate, with the potentially impacted first nations. That raises some serious questions about Canada's duty toward first nations and upholding the honour of the Crown.
I similarly have some concerns about the immediate enactment of this bill before there is the potential to have that process for getting the consent of the provincial government before those lands would be transferred. That was really the rationale for these amendments: to make sure we can follow those proper processes so that it can be constitutional.
For that reason—given that those amendments are ruled out of order and are not in the act—I am going to be voting against it.
November 15th, 2022 / 4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Yes, thank you.
I do think those are both serious issues.
I think we all agree that this park is a good thing. This is a great thing for us to create, but the way we are doing it right now does call into question both provincial rights and indigenous rights. I don't know how we can proceed without being assured that those things have been appropriately consulted on. We really don't have assurance of that. We did not have Walpole Island First Nation here, so I can't vote for this in good conscience because I don't think we've fulfilled our obligations as parliamentarians.
Thank you.