Evidence of meeting #43 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 right.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I don't know if we have a formal legal definition. Laura maybe able to elaborate.
The inclusion of the principle is intended to ensure that there is no reversal of environmental protection—
2:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
—no diminution of any environmental protection that has already been established. It doesn't set a bar that needs to be attained—
December 9th, 2022 / 2:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
It says once we've attained a bar, we don't move backwards.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Yes. I was going to answer the question.
On the government's web page there are examples. It says, “non-regression (e.g., continuous improvement in environmental protection).”
2:50 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I would like to point out that in amendment G‑4, the government will propose a definition of the principle of non-regression.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I more or less understand what it means, but I think it's pretty clear, based on the answers we've been given.
Do any other members of the committee wish to speak further?
It appears not, so we will put amendment NDP‑6 to the vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4. [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We go now to amendment BQ-2.
Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.
2:50 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
The presentation of the amendment will be brief, Mr. Chair.
With this amendment, we want to strengthen the fundamental principles for the implementation of the right to a healthy environment.
We have amply complained that, given where the right to a healthy environment is enshrined in Bill S‑5, it is not a real right. Still, we are trying to strengthen its implementation by establishing it among the administrative obligations contained in section 2 of CEPA.
The wording would be:
(a.3) adhere to the principles of environmental justice—including by avoiding adverse effects that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations—the principle of non-regression and the principle of intergenerational equity;
You will also have noticed that the principle of non-regression is back.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I'm sure they're the same, just on the same line we amended last time.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thanks, Chair. I didn't want to interrupt, but if I'm reading correctly, I'd question whether or not this is in order, given the amendment that was passed just prior to this one. I'd ask, Mr. Chair, if that could be clarified.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I will consult on that.
They are very similar, I'm told. In amendment NDP-6 there's a reference to paragraph (a.2), and in amendment BQ-2 there's no reference to paragraph (a.2). I'm told that you can add to any clause. It would be renumbered. They can't both be (a.3). I'm told it's not out of order. It may be a little repetitive, but it's not out of order.
Ms. Collins, was that your point of order too? Was it the same?
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Yes, it was the same point.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We can vote on it. It's up to the committee to decide if it wants to reinforce this idea. Is there anyone else? Should we just go to the vote?
You had your hand up. I'm sorry. I didn't see it.
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Yes, I did have my hand up.
I just want to see if maybe Madame Pauzé wants to withdraw it, given that it has almost exactly the same language except for the word “uphold”, which I think is strong, in the last amendment. I just want to check in with Madame Pauzé to see if she wants it to have the same—