Evidence of meeting #44 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 definition.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Laurel Collins is correct. I have a number of amendments, so I'm going through them now to see which ones need “aggregate exposure”. One of them was already defeated, so that is moot at this point.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is there anyone else before we vote on this subamendment?
Mr. McLean.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I'm going to ask Mr. Moffet once again for clarity here.
You would prefer to have this undefined. I'm talking specifically about “cumulative effect”, if you could zero in on that term, please. You're more comfortable having this undefined in this legislation so that it's wide open about how that definition evolves. Is this what you see as better for this legislation? If so, please explain.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
That's correct. We believe this term should be defined as a matter of policy, so we're not suggesting that Canadians not be informed about the way the government is interpreting and applying the term. However, defining it as a matter of policy, again, would enable us to revise it over time as the scientific understanding of the kinds of ways in which cumulative effects are understood and need to be assessed evolve as science evolves.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. Is there anyone else before we go to the vote?
(Subamendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)
I believe we have Mr. Kurek, who wants to speak with regard to the amendment.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thanks, Chair.
I'm hoping to get some clarity—somewhat to expand, I suppose—on the conversation we had during the subamendment, because it's now especially relevant with both terms. The government's position, it seems, is that it would be problematic to have these definitions outlined within the act, when we've heard from witnesses that the lack of clarity is concerning.
Perhaps we could hear from you, Mr. Moffet, or one of your colleagues, specifically regarding “aggregate exposure” and the definition that's provided, and further regarding both terms as they're being suggested by this amendment.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Again, the issue of aggregate exposure is a little difficult for me to comment on, because at the moment Bill S-5 does not include that term. As Ms. May has explained, however, she's proposing the introduction of the term in other amendments.
I can't comment on committee process, but it might be useful for the committee to understand how those amendments would introduce the term and thereby make it potentially relevant.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Yes. I was hoping to take out “cumulative effect” so that I could vote in favour of “aggregate exposure”, because I support the definition and I support Ms. May's amendments that add it in. It does sound as though at least one of the previous PVs that had it in has been defeated, so I'll be voting against this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is there anyone else before we go to the vote?
Okay. Let's vote.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Is there any chance...?
Oh, sorry. Was that the call to a vote?
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
It occurred to me that the Conservatives had seen the point in having clarity around the language that is in the act for “cumulative effect”, but might want to reverse the amendment and keep “cumulative effect” defined.
However, you've called the vote.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
The Conservatives can always make up a new amendment on the fly. I can't.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes. Okay.
We'll have a roll call vote on PV-3.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll go now to amendment G-5.
Go ahead, Mr. Weiler.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I would like to propose amendment G-5. Its reference number is 12136497. It would amend clause 4 in Bill S-5 by adding after line 28 on page 3 the following:
healthy environment means an environment that is clean, healthy and sustainable.
That's the amendment itself, and I will explain the rationale behind it.
It begs the question of what kind of environment would be healthy if it wasn't also clean and sustainable, but this amendment is based on testimony that we heard from multiple witnesses, not the least of whom was Dr. David Boyd, the world's foremost expert on this subject matter and the UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, who also happens to be a Canadian. This would make this act consistent with how the right is described in the UN General Assembly in a resolution that was passed less than half a year ago and that Canada supported. It would ensure that Canada essentially practices what it preaches internationally.
It's defined here in the definitions section, such that it wouldn't need to be amended every time we mention “right to a healthy environment” throughout this act.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I want to thank Mr. Weiler for putting this amendment forward. I think it is incredibly important, and I enthusiastically support it.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you.
It is an interesting amendment. I thank my colleague for putting forward a definition of a healthy environment, but “a healthy environment means an environment that is...healthy” is not really explicative of what we need to accomplish here. With all respect, “clean, healthy and sustainable”, are all, in my opinion, relative terms. I think we need to come to what we mean by a clean environment, a healthy environment and a sustainable environment.
These are more words on paper, signifying no result at the end of the day, so it doesn't add anything to what's already there as far as saying “healthy environment”. That a healthy environment represents an environment that is healthy, clean and sustainable, again, is an interpretive definition.
I think it's redundant, and I will be voting against it.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
I agree with my colleague's assertion that, if we go back to the days of Maurice Strong and our common future defining what sustainability is, we know that it's a very complex term. When we have terms that are looking to improve on environmental sustainability, we can't have them in a tautology. It's tautological to have these terms intertwined without defining exactly how each one relates to the other and how they enhance the environment.