Evidence of meeting #39 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I ask because they are impacted by this probably more than anybody else, and certainly if they haven't been heard from—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Order, order.
That's a point of debate. For your information, if you want some clarification, we did have an invitation out to I think the CFA, and they never came. They declined our invitation.
Mr. Warawa, you have the floor.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I think the record will show clearly that I am referring to paragraph 3(c), which speaks to the “principle of sustainable development”. I will read clause 3. It says:
This Act must be interpreted consistently with existing and emerging principles of environmental law, including but not limited to
(a) the precautionary principle;
I'm trusting that others will speak to paragraph 3(a).
Paragraph 3(b) is the polluter pays principle; 3(c) is the principle of sustainable development; 3(d) is the principle of intergenerational equity; and 3(e) is the principle of environmental justice.
I'm speaking specifically to paragraph 3(c) and I'm perplexed that my defence of the importance of that principle of sustainable development, and my sharing of the importance of protecting recently passed legislation.... I'm sharing my concerns with the way Bill C-469 would, through the window dressing of clause 3, just mention the principle of sustainable development, but then within the bill have nothing to support it. That's the end of it. It just makes a window-dressing comment.
We heard from witnesses that the principle of sustainable development will be set aside and all legislation will be looked at through the lens of the environmental bill of rights, which would give any resident or entity the ability to launch an action. So I think it's very important.
As I said, clause 3 indicates in the bill that it is to be interpreted through the principle of sustainable development, but what does that mean? At the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, eight years ago, all countries endorsed the concept of sustainable development as comprised of the three pillars: economic, social, and environmental protection. Yet the bill is silent on how the right of a healthy environment is to be balanced with the economic and social realities.
That's what we heard from the witnesses, Chair, that this is missing, other than for the window dressing.
We should have heard from the agricultural community. We should have heard from first nations.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I finally figured out what's wrong with this discussion.
The member seems to be arguing that he doesn't like the definition of sustainable development provided in this bill in applying the principle of sustainable development. If that's the case, then he may raise that at the end of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, in the same way that I or anybody else here is able to.... That's my understanding.
He is raising issues about the definition of sustainable development, which is actually provided in the bill. He doesn't seem to be arguing against applying the principle of sustainable development. In fact, he seems to be supporting it. He is arguing about the definition of sustainable development and how it will be applied, which occurs in clause 2. We have already been advised by our legal advisers that you can't argue the definitions of terms in the bill until the end, and if it's relevant, then we can go back to those. That's my understanding of how we were advised.
Conservative
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, this presents us with quite a dilemma if Ms. Duncan is correct, because we can't possibly understand section 3 without taking into account the definitions of the terms being used. It becomes rather farcical. I know there are always reasons for these rules--
Conservative
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
--but as you were momentarily engaged in other discussions, I waited.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I understand that. I just didn't want to be disrespectful of--
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
--your consciousness.
What I'm saying is that if we cannot discuss clause 3 with reference to the meaning of the terms, then we're really at sea. If it really was a rule that we couldn't discuss clause 3 without discussing the meaning of the terms, then I'd suggest that we'd better stand down clause 3, too, until we can discuss the meaning of the terms. Because it would be a farcical discussion to talk about and to try to pass a section without knowing what it means, if Ms. Duncan is correct in her point. I don't know anything more about the rules than she does, I'm sure.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
This is why we stood clause 2, though, because these things may come up as we go through the bill in clause 3. If there is a concern about the definition of sustainable development, as Mr. Warawa has been talking about, we gather that as we move on. If we want to stand clause 3, as you suggest, Mr. Warawa, we can and move on.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm not suggesting it unless there's some rule that says we can't talk about what these terms mean.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
No, you definitely can talk about those, even though we haven't considered it on the basis of.... Until we do the full debate on the bill, clause-by-clause...that can change the outcome of clause 2.. So it is admissible to have the debate on what is sustainable development or any other definition that we have in clause 2.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, I'm just trying to get clarity on what exactly he is asking to change in the provision. I'm just trying to understand what it is. If it's the definition--
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Now that we've moved past Ms. Duncan's initial point of order, and, secondly, I haven't heard Mr. Warawa suggest that he's trying to change anything.... All I've heard him talk about is why he doesn't support this section. So it's a faulty premise for Ms. Duncan to suggest that he's suggesting a change.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I'll agree with Mr. Woodworth on that point of order. He hasn't suggested an amendment. He's talking about how he's opposed to the clause. That's what I'm gathering from his presentation.
Mr. Warawa, you still have the floor.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I think it's very important.... Maybe I could ask for your guidance after what's just been said.... Would I be able to refer to...? We stood clause 2 because of uncertainty on definitions, but we do not want to put the cart before the horse. We want to be able to know what we're referring to. So are you suggesting that it would be appropriate for me to refer to or share what I would think “sustainable development” should include in the way of a definition?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I would suggest that you may want to save that discussion for when we get back to clause 2. You can refer to clause 2, and refer to that definition, but I think you may want to find out briefly what some of those concerns are with clause 3 and how that may relate to clause 2. But I wouldn't get into a full-out debate on the substance of clause 2, which includes that definition.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you.
Would it be appropriate for me to refer to what the witnesses had to say regarding sustainable development?