Evidence of meeting #111 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 definition.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay, great.
Just be mindful that we really have almost no time. Please be very quick.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Madam Chair, I would just like to mention that, when we analyze a situation, we have to look at the big picture. In my opinion, it is important to look at both sides of the coin. For that reason, I am going to support the Liberal Party’s motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On NDP-7, if we adopt this one, NDP-8 and PV-4 can't be moved because there's a line conflict, so you'll have to make some amendments.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
There were very strong concerns by witnesses and in briefs that this bill doesn't move us forward from the Harper assessment bill. Simply, it's a selective listing of effects, and there are many that are missing.
The recommendation is that it would include physical activities and designated projects, but it would also include physical activities “related to a decision by a federal authority”, or that could “occur in a province other than the one where the physical activity or designated”—in order words, transboundary—or “occur in a situation where there is related financing by a federal authority, or occur in a situation that is subject to federal legislative jurisdiction”. That's very important, because it's missing. And again, “affect the Indigenous peoples of Canada, including their rights as enshrined under the United Nations Declaration”.
This is a common recommendation from countless briefs and testimony. People are deeply concerned with the extremely narrow definition of “effects within federal jurisdiction” in this bill. The promise was that we would have an expanded bill that would cover all matters of federal jurisdiction. If this definition remains, then we know we're going to have a continuation of the federal government not reviewing the vast number of projects in Canada.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Is there any discussion?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It's replacing a line that has a very narrow definition of indigenous rights, as “the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes”. What indigenous peoples are calling for is a much more expanded recognition of “their rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act”. I would add in there “UNDRIP” as well.
The current proposed subparagraph 2(c)(ii) is extremely narrow in reflecting what are considered to be indigenous rights.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay.
We had a bit of discussion about this already.
Next up is Mr. Fast.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I find this amendment to be redundant. It simply restates the effect of section 35 of the Constitution Act, but that's already the law in Canada. We don't have to restate it in legislation. This bill already speaks to the Constitution. Jurisprudence in Canada has interpreted the Constitution in section 35, so it applies in any event. Again, it's redundant and unnecessary.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
All right. Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As mentioned earlier, this goes back to the recommendations of the expert panel on culture on its own being a fifth pillar of sustainability, in terms of cultural impacts and cultural conditions. It also came through in testimony by indigenous people that cultural conditions should be part of the formula of impacts that we're looking at, so between “any change...to the health, social,” and “or economic conditions”, we would insert the word “cultural”.
Certainly there's no harm done. If the Liberals are sure that “social” covers “cultural”, I'm sure they'll agree with me that in law, clarifying it by including “cultural” cannot possibly be seen as interfering with the smooth functioning of environmental assessment, impact assessment. If we want to see cultural conditions and cultural impacts considered, they should be listed.
Liberal
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
A number of witnesses recommended that we add a definition of environmental justice. This is consistent with the testimony we heard when we reviewed the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and, in fact, recommendations made by this committee to start incorporating environmental justice into federal legislation.
The definition that was provided is as follows:
environmental justice means the equitable distribution of environmental risks and benefits and includes fair treatment and meaningful involvement of persons regardless of their race, colour, national origin, income or membership in an historically disadvantaged group.
It's considered that this would support new assessment criteria in clause 22 and decision-making criteria in clause 63.
I agree with a number of the witnesses and those legal experts who have submitted briefs that it would be unfortunate not to include this. The very purpose of impact assessment, particularly when we're moving to strategic and regional assessments, is to make sure that we're dealing with cumulative impacts and we are ensuring that projects or developments that are being considered are not unfairly impacting specific communities. That's the nature of the beast these days, whether it's in Sarnia or in northern Alberta.
With the expansion of coal-fired power that used to happen in Alberta, we are starting to see specific communities that are bearing the brunt of impacts to a greater degree than are other Canadians. That is why it is in U.S. legislation, and it has also been recommended in the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I am also recommending that the term be added to this bill to make sure that we have equitable distribution of the risks considered when we have either the agency or panels reviewing projects or we are undertaking regional or strategic assessments.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
We strongly oppose this. This is just a clause that will result in endless litigation. What's an environmental risk? I talked earlier about environmental change. Some people say it's a risk; some people say it's a benefit. Yes, it may be a risk to change a forest to a farmed field, but there are benefits to doing that. This is so loose, so open to interpretation that it's just another job-killing clause that our friends from the NDP want to insert in this act. We'll be strongly voting against it.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Madam Chair, could we ask the officials whether the term “environmental justice”, as our colleague is suggesting be included in this bill, has ever been interpreted by the courts? The last thing we need, as Mr. Sopuck said, is endless litigation over a new term that's introduced in the legislation.
Do any of our officials know? Has there been a consideration of the term “environmental justice” in any of the courts in our country?