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.
2:05 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I would like to add that in 1999, the Government of Canada established that the precautionary principle concept should be understood as follows:
The government's actions to protect the environment and health are guided by the precautionary principle, which states that “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.”
This is exactly what is in the Rio Declaration, but at the time it was mistranslated into French. The words “precautionary principle” were translated as “principe de la prudence”. It is this error that needs to be corrected, 20 years later.
No one can provide any example where this might have confused the judges. I think we need to clear this up.
In fact, a little later, I am going to table an amendment defining the precautionary principle. Of course, I will take the definition found in the Rio Declaration, since that is the one used in English. That is all I want to do.
I'm starting to get mad, I apologize, but enough is enough. We're getting bogged down for a word that has been clearly defined since 1992. There is an error dating back to 1999. It is said that this could pose a problem for judges. I'm sorry, but I really don't agree.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Ms. May, technically speaking, as you know, you're permitted to speak to your amendments and so on, but it is at my discretion. If what you have to say is very brief, because I know you were at Rio, I will allow it, but be very brief, please.
2:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
The precautionary principle, as read out by Madam Pauzé, was correct. For the benefit of committee members, the addition of the notion of “cost-effective” was not in a precautionary principle at Rio, nor was it in the Stockholm declaration. It's not in our Oceans Act when precautionary principles are referenced, nor is it in the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act.
2:05 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I was going to say something very similar to what Ms. May just brought up. It's just that in the precautionary principle in Stockholm, “cost-effective” isn't mentioned.
I do want to correct the record. The Senate committee clearly spoke to removing the word “cost”. Their rationale was so that we don't limit environmental protection. Rather than reinserting this into the translation, I think we should actually just correct it in full and remove “cost” throughout.
That said, I think it seems likely that a majority of committee members might keep it in. I would love it if we could kind of move this along. I'm not sure if Madame Pauzé had officially submitted her subamendment, but I'm very much in support of it and I would love to come to a vote soon, if possible.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
My question is addressed to the experts and specialists.
In the event that the committee votes in favour of this amendment, which seeks to replace the word “prudence” with the word “précaution” in order to respect the correct translation of the word used in the English version, would this have any impact on Bill S‑5? I'm only talking about Bill S‑5. Are there any words referring to this principle that would need to be changed if the word “précaution” were used instead of “prudence”?
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I would just like to add that it is not necessary to have the answer immediately.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I believe Mr. Moffet is waiting to hear the interpretation of your question.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're just waiting for the interpretation.
While Mr. Moffet searches the bill, Mr. Duguid has the floor.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, as many folks have already said—Mr. Kurek in particular—it's a technical bill. We're parsing language here. It might be best, Mr. Chair, as I understand the procedure, to stand this matter so that we can sort it out.
Do I move that?
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Chair, let me make a suggestion. This is a very interesting issue, but time is running out. I would recommend that the experts take the time to determine if the word “prudence” would have any impact elsewhere in the act and provide us with an answer at the next sitting when we consider the bill.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
This is what Mr. Duguid is proposing. He wants us to put aside the debate on this amendment, so that we can take the time to get the proper information. At the moment, we are going around in circles.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Please note that I would be willing to go to a vote. If the vote is positive and the committee agrees, the experts will do due diligence.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That is noted, but Mr. Duguid has suggested that we put this debate to one side. So I need to find out how to proceed. I think I understand, but we will see.
Mr. Duguid has proposed that we set aside the debate on the amendment. We have to decide on that.
Are you all in favour of setting aside debate on this amendment?
2:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Just to clarify, is that the subamendment or the amendment in general?