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.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
I was hoping we could get through one clause today, but—
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
On a point of order, I think that clause was stood down, so we're into clause 3 now, Mr. Chair.
(On clause 3)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, we're on clause 3 and amendment G-2, which is on page 8.
Would somebody like to move it?
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Yes, Mr. Chair, I will move this government motion to respond to the other place's amendment to the precautionary principle in paragraph 2(1)(a) of the act.
Once again, the ENEV committee amended the English version of the 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 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.
This does sound a lot like my previous intervention, Mr. Chair.
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.
I don't know if we could get Mr. Moffet to provide some commentary again, Mr. Chair.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I don't think I have anything more that I can add to the extensive discussion on this topic today.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I'll reiterate the fact that the Senate purposely took out the the word “cost”, so the translation error here should be switched if we were going to return to what the Senate had amended.
To go back to 1999, when the committee was looking at this issue for the 1998 CEPA bill, Bill C-32, some Liberals, along with some Progressive Conservatives and NDP and Bloc members succeeded in committee with an articulation excluding the word “cost”, but then it was overturned by the cabinet and the Liberal reform folks at report stage. That's a little bit of history on this.
There are lots of people who want the word “cost” taken out of this. Again, notably, it is not in the Stockholm declaration or in a number of the other ones that Ms. May had articulated.
Liberal
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
You're going to find me tiresome on this. That said, I'm not going to correct the Rio Declaration. In the English version we looked at, it says “cost-effective”, and that's translated into French as “mesures effectives”, not “mesures rentables”.
We have looked at the current act. Under “Administrative Duties”, in the “Duties of the Government of Canada”, subsection 2(1) states:
2(1) In the administration of this Act, the Government of Canada shall, having regard to the Constitution and laws of Canada and subject to subsection (1.1), (a) exercise its powers in a manner that protects the environment and human health [...]
A little further on in the description, it says:
[...] shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation, and promotes and reinforces enforceable pollution prevention approaches [...]
In the French version it says: "[...] ne doit pas servir de prétexte pour remettre à plus tard l'adoption de mesures effectives[...]"
I don't understand why anyone would change the French version. I would keep “cost-effective” in the English version of the act, for the reason I gave earlier: it is the term used in the English version of the Rio Declaration. Now, in French, it should be “mesures effectives”, as it was in the original text of the act.
I could propose a subamendment to replace “mesures rentables” with “mesures effectives”. Personally, I would prefer the word “efficaces” be used, but I won't get hung up on that. So it would be back to what was in the act, which was “mesures effectives”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Very well. Give me a minute to check something.
Do you want to address the subamendment, or do you want to wait until...? Okay.
Liberal
Liberal
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Yes. It is found in paragraph 2(1)(a), under the headings “Application administrative” and “Mission du gouvernement fédéral”.
