Environment Committee on Dec. 9th, 2022

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Unless members have any questions, Mr. Chair, I would just let my motion stand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Does anyone want to comment or raise a question?

Go ahead, Madame Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

First, I don't understand why we don't have the English version of the motion.

Then I discovered something else when reading this amendment. The French version uses “principe de la prudence” everywhere in the act. So we looked it up in the dictionary and did some historical research. In French, we use the word “précaution”. That's what came out of the 1992 Rio Declaration. I understand that, at the time, the language chosen came from other public policy spheres, but in French, based on the Rio Declaration, it should be “principe de précaution”.

In fact, I remember doing a search on the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and noticing that, in that context, they also used “principe de précaution”.

The precautionary approach enacted in 1992 is as follows:

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

Therefore, I'd like to propose an amendment to replace the word “prudence” with the word “précaution”.

Based on its usage, the word “prudence” (“caution” in English) refers to accounting values. It's one of the seven big accounting and economic principles. For example, accounting records should be collected with “prudence” (“caution” in English.

“Principe de la prudence” is not used when we talk about the environment. In this area, we always talk about the “principe de précaution” (“precautionary principle” in English).

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Pauzé.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Sometimes the interpretation takes longer. Did you call my name?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I did, yes.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Okay.

It's not on Madame Pauzé's point, but on the motion itself. This seems to change the French version to be more along the lines of “cost-effective” instead of “effective”. My French is not strong, but that's my understanding.

In my opinion, I think the language of “effective” seems much more in line with where I'd like to see this bill go, rather than solely focusing on cost-effectiveness.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Duguid.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the spirit of giving a full explanation, I'm proposing this amendment to respond to the other place's amendment, to the “precautionary principle” formulations in the preamble.

In paragraph 2(1)(a) of the act, the ENEV committee of the Senate, as you know, amended the English version as subparagraph 2(1)(a)(ii) to remove the word “cost” from the phrase “cost-effective measures” in an attempt to better align the English provision with the French provision, which simply refers to “mesures effectives”.

However, the discrepancy between the English “cost-effective measures” and the French “mesures effectives” is not a translation error and in fact is consistent with the English and French versions of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development upon which the provision is based. In order to avoid misalignment and to ensure that the key notion that precautionary measures be cost-effective remains in CEPA, the government proposes to correct the purported translation error by amending the French version of the act rather than the English.

That was a long explanation, Mr. Chair, but I hope that clarifies things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I understand what Mr. Duguid just said about his amendment, but I'm not sure he answered my question about the fact that this is about the “principe de précaution” rather than the “principe de la prudence”. That is the point of the subamendment I wanted to propose. A little later, I will also propose that we use the definition given in the Rio Declaration.

What I don't like about the wording of amendment G‑1 is the use of the term “mesures rentables” when talking about “remettre à plus tard l’adoption de mesures rentables”. What are “mesures rentables”? Does it mean that it has to be profitable only in economic terms?

Personally, if those are the words being used, I will vote against the amendment, even though it supposedly makes a correction to the French version.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Deltell, you have the floor.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

As I understand it, we should be talking about measures that are “efficaces” rather than “rentables”, but I'll come back to that later, as that's not what we're dealing with right now.

Again, I would like to call on Mr. Moffet's knowledge and ask him to clarify what he thinks of Ms. Pauzé's suggestion to change the word “prudence” to “précaution”.

Mr. Moffet, since this is once again a question of changing words and since the explanations you gave on a previous question a few minutes ago convinced us very well, I appeal again to your knowledge. In your opinion, is the word “précaution” more appropriate than the word “prudence”?

[Laura Farquharson]

I can answer that question.

We always rely on our colleagues in the Department of Justice. In this context, it is the word “prudence” that is used, and I think that is the right word. It is also the word that is used in federal law in other contexts.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

When you talk about the federal legislation, are you talking specifically about the one we're looking at right now or other federal legislation related to the environment?

Ms. Pauzé's point is well taken. As she explained to us earlier, the wording refers to what is in the Rio Declaration, and it is the word “précaution” that is used there. If we want to be consistent and coherent in talking about the environment, it would certainly be historically justified and justifiable.

[Laura Farquharson]

The word “prudence” is used elsewhere in the original CEPA text as a translation of this principle. For example, I believe it is used in section 76.1, as well as in the preamble, which the committee is reviewing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Duguid, you have the floor.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Deltell asked my question. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

All right.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I completely agree with Ms. Farquharson. It is true, and we have checked it, that they use the word “prudence” in the 1999 act.

Please recall, however, the point I was making earlier. Perhaps that was the language that was used at the time. After all, it was only seven years after the Rio Declaration. Now, in the context of environmental laws, it is the precautionary principle that is put forward instead, as defined in that declaration.

By the way, with regard to “mesures rentables”, in English, I think it says “cost efficiency”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It's “cost-effective”.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes. The term used in the English version corresponds to the one used in the Rio Declaration.

I don't like the fact that the French version talks about “mesures effectives”, but I figure what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. So, if I'm working for the precautionary principle, even though I don't like the word “effectives”, I'll accept it, because that's the term used in the French version of the Rio Declaration. I would therefore like to see a correction made. I will table an amendment to that effect.

We cannot maintain an error that dates back to 1999. We have to be consistent with what the government signs internationally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have just discussed the amendment, but have there been any proposals for subamendments? I think not.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes; I suggested that we replace the word “prudence” with “précaution”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

This is because there was also talk of “mesures rentables”.

If I understand correctly, your subamendment seeks to replace “prudence” with “précaution”.