No.
Evidence of meeting #32 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was godfrey.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #32 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was godfrey.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
I'm talking about the three years we discussed earlier, which is a different thing.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Everybody now has the motion that we're receiving from Mr. Warawa, amendment G-9 on page 19. Basically, this replaces everything in clause 8.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I just realized we're going to have to come back to clause 5, but we can do that on the 26th.
Conservative
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
This refers to the schedule. We heard from a number of witnesses. The costs were going to be horrendous. I don't have the exact quote, but it was huge. Actually, here it is. It was Mr. Mitchell talking to Mr. Watson:
I would say that the schedule, as it now stands, covers the waterfront. If you were to expect a strategy to address all of this, you would be looking for a plan that was simply too huge and too complicated to be manageable, implementable, developable, measurable.
Anyway, this clears it up. It focuses on preparing short-, medium- and long-term targets in this area, as identified in the schedule. There are approximately 400 areas, with corresponding implementation strategies, and it would be a lengthy, complex, and costly process. It would have vast jurisdictional logistic implications. Further, there is no scientific rigour to the selection of these areas over others. The strategy would be better focused on the key priorities. And we heard that before too.
I could go on, but I think there's a willingness to accept this, or amend it.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
I will move a subamendment because the text talks about a federal strategy of sustainable development. I would add “based on the precautionary principle”. That's the subamendment I move.
I would also ask that you call the vote.
Conservative
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
That's right, “in accordance with this section, a Federal Sustainable Development Strategy based on the precautionary principle”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Okay, everybody's following the subamendment that we have, so we have subclause 8(1), as it reads, “based on the precautionary principle”.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We have not passed clause 8, no. We're on G-9. We're doing a subamendment to G-9, subclause 8(1). Where it says, “Federal Sustainable Development Strategy based on the precautionary principle” is the subamendment.
Let's speak on the subamendment.
Mr. Godfrey, did you need clarification? And then Mr. Bigras.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
The precautionary principle is already in the early part of the bill, as I recall. So what we're talking about is whether that definition, which has been put forward, is now operationalized in the “Federal Sustainable Development Strategy”.
I don't have any objection to that. That would be a good thing, because we've already put it in as one of the principles of the bill, but—
NDP
Conservative
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chair, I think we must ensure that the sustainable development strategy is consistent with what has been started on the international scene. It seems to me relatively important that this strategy conform to the Rio declarations, among others. This way, we would be sure to have a good strategy, but it must be based on the precautionary principle.
I would therefore support this subamendment of the NDP.