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.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
First of all, I'll ask Mr. Moffet for the interpretation of these legal terms and how they'll impact the legislation by being inserted here, and then I'll speak to it again after that point.
I want to hear Mr. Moffet first, please.
2:35 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I'd like to turn to my colleague Laura Farquharson.
2:35 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
To clarify, “subject to any reasonable limits” remained in the bill after the Senate studied it, and as witnesses before the committee acknowledged, no right is absolute. That's what “subject to any reasonable limits” indicates. If you took it out, the implication might be unclear.
As for adding the additional principles, the way the provision is constructed, the list is not exhaustive as it is. Other principles could be part of what's considered in “the right to a healthy environment”. It would be elaborated on in the implementation framework and it might include some of these principles. That's something that could be discussed as we develop the implementation framework.
I would say that at least one of the principles, “substitution”, is specifically related—at least from my understanding—to chemicals management, substances management, whereas this right is applying to the whole act. I think it might be better to highlight the few key principles—as has been done—that should be covered and allow for others to be explored through the process of developing the implementation framework.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I do. My colleagues will know, because I've spoken about this before, that these principles we're talking about here have little to no legal standing in any court that I know of. If it's true that there have been cases decided in which it has been determined what these terms mean on a legal basis, particularly in Canada—things like principles of “substitution”, “non-regression”, “intergenerational equity” and “environmental justice”—I have yet to see any tangibility around these terms. As opposed to this committee drafting or approving legislation that will open up somebody else to interpreting what we mean here, I think it is kicking the can down the road.
I think we have to get precise in what we're trying to accomplish here and not just put nice words on paper but find something that lands. I will be saying this whenever these terms come up in this bill. These are not, as far as I know, tangible terms for which any meaning has been determined through a legal process. I can be educated on this, but I'm certain it hasn't happened in Canada. The meaning of this terminology is wide open and subject to somebody else's interpretation at this point in time.
Thank you.
2:35 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I want to speak in support of this motion—I have a very similar one that follows—with the exception, I think, of something that maybe strengthens my motion in this motion by Ms. May. I think the polluter pays principle is a really valuable addition. I think something that could strengthen both of our motions would be changing the word “applying” to “upholding”. If this doesn't pass, I'll likely be submitting a motion from the floor right afterward.
2:35 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I am not going to go back to the precautionary principle. That said, I will propose a definition of this principle when we get to clause 4 of the bill.
I want to say to Ms. May that I will vote for her amendment, even though in ecological and environmental circles the French word “durable” has been discussed for at least 10 years. Some people say that we should not say “durable”, but “viable”. I have participated in some of these discussions.
I find that Mr. McLean's arguments are also correct. Nevertheless, as a matter of principle and because it clearly mentions “environmental justice” and “polluter pays”, I will be voting for the amendment.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you.
While I agree with what Ms. Pauzé and Ms. May are saying here—and Ms. Collins on the next one—I think there are differences between the one Ms. May put forward and the one Ms. Collins put forward. I'm looking at this as the statute. We have the whole section on implementation framework. These principles do change over time. Some of these, as Mr. McLean was saying, aren't well defined right now. New ones will be introduced as we continue to make progress in the environmental field. I feel as though these are the types of things that we'd be better off addressing when we have time to really address them over the next year or two in the implementation framework.
That would be my suggestion on how we deal with this, as opposed to putting it into the statute here.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
We are studying a bill. We may agree on some principles or disagree on others, but principles must be defined in a piece of legislation. This is not an electoral program, a speech or something you say. As long as this is not clearly defined in the text of the law, it can have all sorts of consequences, since laws are made to be observed, applied, and even challenged and then interpreted by judges in court. So, at this stage, the terms must be defined. The current amendment does not do this.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Are there any other interventions, questions or comments?
As there are none, we will proceed to the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings]).
2:40 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Chair, rather than moving that amendment, I'm going to move the same wording, except I'm going to change the word “apply” to “uphold”.
The amendment I will move would be as follows:
That Bill S-5, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 3 the following:
“(a.3) in relation to paragraph (a.2), uphold principles such as principles of environmental justice — including the avoidance of adverse effects that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations — the principle of non-regression and the principle of intergenerational equity;”
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. You're moving it with “uphold” instead of “apply”. Is that correct?
2:40 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Yes, I'm not moving my original motion; I'm moving the same language, with “uphold” instead of “apply”.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
2:40 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
We've talked a little bit about it already, but I do think that naming some of these principles in the bill is important. They do already appear in CEPA. Especially when we're talking about vulnerable populations, it's so essential.
I recognize that the committee didn't want to explicitly give the right to future generations, but the principle of intergenerational equity is one that I think everyone can get on board with, and it wouldn't have, I think, the same kind of ramifications that extending the full right to a healthy environment to future generations would. It's essential that we uphold these principles of environmental justice.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
