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.
Christine Loth-Bown Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Is there anyone from Justice? In interpretation of law, I'd refer to Justice.
Counsel, Department of Justice
Madam Chair, I'm afraid we're going to have to look into this. I don't have the answer to that question.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Madam Chair, I don't know how we could support this if we don't even have that answer.
The term “environmental justice” is probably a term within the environmental community, but until it's been properly interpreted in the courts, why would we leave it up to an unknown interpretation and include it in this legislation? I think it would be a big mistake to include it at this time.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
The term can't be litigated until it's in the law. The majority of this committee agreed to put this term into the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The government, in its wisdom, has not chosen to bring forward a revised Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Either this bill or that one would be the first one where it would come forward.
I'm not aware if it exists in any federal law; it may well be in provincial law. It's certainly in U.S. federal law. There's an environmental justice committee in the United States Environmental Protection Agency. It has been discussed by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation with Mexico, Canada, and the United States. It is not an unusual or a new term. It's very common throughout North America.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I tend to agree with Linda. Until you put it in legislation and get it litigated, you really will have a hard time figuring out how it's going to land, but it is a term that is known in North America.
We're going to move forward. I think we've had enough discussion on that one.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On NDP-10.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
This is being brought forward to suggest—what a wild concept—that we actually have consistency in federal legislation. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, some time ago, amended the law to divide up federal land and what they call in that bill “aboriginal land”. It's in subsection 3(1) of CEPA 1999.
This would ensure that this act becomes consistent with the first nations final agreements, many of which have been signed, particularly across the north and in British Columbia. The land management agreements have been signed with many first nations, where they take on the responsibility for managing their own indigenous lands, and certainly is consistent with UNDRIP.
I'm doing this so that it becomes consistent with other federal laws. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act separately defines federal lands and aboriginal lands. I am recommending that the same provisions be provided in this law.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Thank you very much.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Once again, this speaks to the amendment LIB-1 on indigenous knowledge, which we had brought forward earlier.
I apologize, Chair. I should have recognized, when you brought them together as a group, that they should all have been grouped together as one vote. I understand we're not doing that now, so I apologize for that.
This speaks to what we had spoken about before, namely:
Indigenous knowledge means the Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada.
Rather than using the term “traditional knowledge”, we would use this terminology itself.
Liberal
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I abstained because I haven't been able to confer with indigenous people on this.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
In this amendment, we're doing exactly what was proposed in the Liberal proposal. This same issue arose when we were reviewing the Federal Sustainable Development Act. It was discovered that the current sustainable development act and the one that has been proposed by the government, which also still has not been brought forward for final reading and debate, kept referring to “environment”, not to “sustainability”.
The front end of this bill and both of the preambles talk about the whole purpose of this bill being to ensure sustainability. Then it defines all of the aspects of sustainability, and “effects” mean economic, environmental, and social effects, but not cultural ones apparently. We have gone through the entire bill, and to provide consistency we propose that it speak simply of “adverse effects” rather than “environmental effects”. If the intention of the government is to send the message that we're no longer limiting reviews to the impacts on the environment, but are also looking at social impacts and economic impacts, why have we reverted back to the word “environmental”?
This amendment goes through, as much as we could, the entirety of the bill. When you get to page 47, we have added a definition of “adverse effects” rather than “environmental effects”. That would be the same, consistently, as impacts on “the environment, health, social, cultural or economic conditions”.
I looked at what the Liberals brought forward on the sustainability act, which were the same amendments that I brought forward. The government, in its wisdom, obviously agreed and said, yes, we should be speaking to sustainability, not to environment, because that's what the sustainable development goals are. They're much bigger than just impacts to the environment.
This bill supposedly is going to deliver an impact assessment process that goes far beyond just environmental impacts. I have endeavoured to reflect that throughout the bill, so wherever it would say “environmental effects”, instead it would say “adverse effects”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I just want to bring to your attention that if it's adopted, amendments LIB-6 and PV-68 cannot be moved, because there will be a line conflict.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we have amendment NDP-12.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Committee members know that we heard from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities its disappointment that municipalities are not included specifically in the bill. This amendment addresses their specific request.
After line 18 on page 7, and the words “the government of a province”, we would add “(c.1) the government of a municipality”.
Liberal
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Does the Constitution recognize municipalities as governments?