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.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
All right.
We'll debate the subamendment.
Are there any members of the committee who wish to speak to this?
Go ahead, Mr. Kurek.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Sorry, Chair; I'm hoping that we can clarify. The subamendment would remove “cost”?
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It's only to the French.
Instead of “rentables” the word would be “effectives”.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, we're not changing the meaning of the English; we're just changing a word in French.
Would anyone else like to speak to the subamendment before we vote?
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we go to the amendment as amended.
Mr. McLean, you wanted to speak to it.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Yes, thank you.
I think much of translation now will be “cost-effective” from “effectives” in French.
The thing about “effective” is it's a subjective term. I think my colleagues around the table understand that the more precision we get in this wording, the better, and “cost-effective” is actually measurable, so I do think it's important to change it back to “cost-effective”.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is there anyone else?
I call the vote on amendment G-2 as amended.
(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 10 ; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We go to NDP-4.
Who would like to move this amendment?
2:25 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
This language around protecting the rights of nature comes from not only a number of organizations but also a number of first nation individuals who have been advocating to protect the rights of nature.
Here where I live on Vancouver Island in the Salish Sea, the Esquimalt and Songhees nations have participated in reconciliation dialogues asking for areas to be protected, recognizing that nature should have rights, since in their opinion these are living entities. There has also been an amazing movement around the St. Lawrence River as well, and around the world. In areas like New Zealand there are folks who are advocating to protect the rights of nature.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Would anyone else like to speak to this amendment?
Mr. Longfield, go ahead, please.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wonder if Mr. Moffet could comment on changing it from the rights of individuals to the rights of nature.
2:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
My comment on this will be similar to one that I made earlier in the meeting, which was that this would fundamentally change the scope of the right that is articulated in the bill, which at the moment is focused on individuals, people, and it would confer that right on humans as the rights holders.
Recognizing that nature or components of nature have rights of their own would represent a fundamental paradigm shift, and it's certainly not one that the government has yet contemplated or thought through fully, so in addition to that kind of fundamental change in the focus of the right that would be provided by Bill S-5, the bill as currently written doesn't contain any supplementary or complementary provisions that would provide legal personhood or any corresponding procedural or substantive rights to nature.
By contrast, of course, the way we've articulated the right to humans is supplemented in CEPA already, and in Bill S-5 with various additional procedural rights and additional substantive rights in order to give life to that new right. We have not provided for any such additional provisions related to the rights of nature in Bill S-5.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Again, in this bill, what we're trying to do is to get precision around these definitions, and without a definitive decision around the rights of nature, I think it is probably as open-ended as anything we've considered in this House of Commons since I've been here.
Thank you.
2:25 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I want to thank the officials and other members for their comments.
Really, expanding rights and including the rights of nature means that we are acknowledging that it has the right, in and of itself, to exist and to flourish. This is something that other countries have been doing, and I would be happy to work with officials to change other areas of the act.
We did skip through a number of sections in clause 2 that have further amendments on the rights of nature, and I hope that the committee would consider this really important move when it comes to protecting our ecosystems and natural communities.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Are there any more comments before I call the vote?
Go ahead, Mr. Weiler.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I'll just say I think this is a really interesting addition. I don't think inserting this where it is right now, essentially, given what Mr. Moffet has said, will really give the right framework to put it into place. I think this is something that would be very interesting for us to study in the committee, perhaps in a future study, so that we could look at what it would actually look like to implement this in practice to really do it justice. However, given the concerns that have been raised by Mr. Moffet, I have some concerns as to whether this amendment would be an effective way of doing that.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is there anyone else?
Okay. I call the vote on amendment NDP-4.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The issue will probably come up in our water study because of the Magpie River phenomenon, so we can look forward to that.
We'll go on to amendment NDP-5. Would you like to move that, Ms. Collins?
2:30 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I will move it, although I hope there won't be too much discussion as it is in a similar vein to previous amendments to “protect the right of every individual in Canada and future generations”.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is there any discussion? No?
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We move on to Green Party amendment 2. It's already deemed moved, so I would ask Ms. May to make a brief explanation in support of her motion.
2:30 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the indulgence earlier to allow me to provide more detail from history.
This amendment, specifically to draw members' attention to the biggest change to the text we have in front us, is to remove the words “subject to any reasonable limits”. I'll note that in other acts of this kind, in environmental and human rights legislation, no such qualifying language is used to limit the application of these principles. The language I have proposed here is all found elsewhere within the act, and clearly members are very familiar with the notion of applying the precautionary principle, the principles of environmental justice, the polluter pays principle and the principles of sustainable development, substitution, non-regression and intergenerational equity.
I will again draw members' attention to the fact that at this stage it is quite inappropriate to include the words “subject to any reasonable limits”. That language was removed in relation to the right to a healthy environment when this bill was before the Senate.
I hope this is just tidying things up to keep things consistent.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.