Evidence of meeting #35 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 justice.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
The Conservatives are saying they're trying to get at the intent of the bill. Perhaps Ms. May could, very briefly, clarify whether the intent of the bill is to focus on environmental racism.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Ms. May is a witness. She was invited as a witness. She has the floor. She's our expert witness.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm here for just this purpose, to clarify and explain the purpose of the bill.
Thank you, Laurel.
The purpose of the bill is to promote environmental justice and confront environmental racism. It's addressing environmental racism in the largest context. As I said when I was a witness here on November 1, I don't think any community experiencing environmental or toxic contamination as described in the bill, or communities located in proximity to environmental hazards.... The bill does not exclude any community that finds itself in that situation. It is, specifically, part of an approach to confront and name environmental racism. In that context, communities that are not racialized but are economically disadvantaged in any way, to such an extent that they've also experienced a lack of environmental justice.... The bill is focused on environmental racism.
I don't think I'll let any cats out of the bag by saying that, before the bill came forward, before first reading, I engaged with my friend from the Bloc Québécois, the member for Repentigny. We tried to see if there were any ways the Bloc could be comfortable with the bill.
I took the proposals she made today back to Lenore Zann, the original mover and former member of Parliament for Cumberland—Colchester, to Dr. Ingrid Waldron and to some of the many groups across the country that hope to see this bill passed. The notion of removing the word “racism” from the bill was widely and broadly found to be unacceptable.
In the context of Greg McLean's questions, it's quite clear that the bill will not exclude any community regardless of whether or not it's indigenous people or people of colour. If people are in a disadvantaged situation, where environmental contamination is visited upon them in a way that would not happen in a more well-heeled and economically and politically powerful community, they'll have access to the programs of environmental justice. As I mentioned before, the U.S. EPA is a model in this area, having developed robust programs since 1994.
I hope that helps clarify it for you.
Thank you for asking me, Laurel.
I have the U.S. EPA definition of “environmental justice”, but I think it's so common sense that courts aren't going to have a problem knowing this bill doesn't relate to trees going to court to defend themselves. That's one aspect Greg suggested, that it might be nature itself getting the right to remedy. This is clearly a bill that focuses on human communities that are not receiving the protections we would require as a minimum for Canadians. We know that it's overwhelmingly and disproportionately communities of colour and indigenous people experiencing this in Canada, although it's not exclusively people of colour and indigenous communities.
Liberal
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but my colleague, Ms. May, misunderstood me. The issue on environmental justice, as far as it applies to nature, is the justice to make nature back to what it was before, and the funds expended to accomplish that, as opposed to accomplish the harm visited upon people. Inasmuch as the two go hand in hand, that was my question—not that trees would be taking the government to court.
If we're dealing with witnesses here, I did raise a couple of concerns. Can we please consult the witnesses on what I raised about the translation between what Ms. Pauzé said on the severity of inequities and the heightened level of meaning of iniquités in French? It's a much softer definition in English, in my opinion. That would be good.
If we were speaking here to Ms. May's comment, I wouldn't mind at all if we actually put the definition that the U.S. EPA has put forward for “environmental justice“ in the preamble, or somewhere in this bill, so we do understand what that is pertaining to. Maybe we can make it a clause in this bill, that as a definition of “environmental justice” here is a commonly understood term that we will be applying in this bill. I think that would be instructive for everybody who's going to have to look at this bill later and come to their own determination of what we're meaning when we're passing this legislation.
First of all, to the other two witnesses here, can we talk about the translation issue between the French and English, and then talk about the definitional issue? I think it would be instructive.
Liberal
Laura Farquharson Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Environmental justice, as you've had to explain today, is generally concerned with non-discrimination in environmental protection and the equitable distribution of environmental burdens and benefits across society. I think the U.S. EPA is the definition that's commonly discussed, “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”
I think the general meaning is understood, and often with concepts like this the definitions get worked out in the strategy. That's what would happen here.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
If I may, Mr. Chair, just to confirm—and thank you, Ms. Farquharson—that is in fact the commonly held definition found within the United States EPA. The translation is pretty straightforward as well if anyone wants it in French, but I'm sure our interpreters have already done that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I see no one else wanting to speak to this, so we'll call the vote.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Chair, I did ask the question about the difference between “inequities” in English versus iniquités in French. The way Madam Pauzé explained it, it seems to have a stronger definition in French.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's the second question. Who would like to answer that question?
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I can't really speak to that. You've said what your interpretation of “inequities” is versus iniquités. I don't know whether they have different meanings in French and English.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I think that's the answer. I don't really know either.
We will now put amendment BQ‑1 to the vote.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We go now to BQ-2.
Ms. Pauzé, do you have anything to say about this amendment?
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Actually, I just have one small comment: I find it odd that people are against providing protection that includes indigenous people, racialized people, and others, but that's the decision of the committee.
Amendment BQ‑2 proposes to replace line 22 on page 2 with the following:
(i) an examination of the link between national or ethnic ancestry or origin, socio-
The aim is still the same: to broaden the scope of the bill.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
Does anyone wish to speak?
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt amendment BQ‑2?
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We now turn to amendment BQ‑3.
Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I will make one more small comment: there was nothing ideological about this amendment. I hope my colleagues can explain to me why they voted against the amendment, when there was nothing ideological in it.
The addition that amendment BQ‑3 proposes is a request for money:
(v) federal transfers to the provinces to help them support communities experiencing environmental inequities.
Even though it's about money, I know that's not a problem if the committee is unanimous.
Either we vote against the Bloc Québécois amendment and just talk about fine principles, or we vote for the amendment because we believe we need new public policy, which requires money.